O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. I've been looking forward to this instruction being given to the House for almost I think a week—a week and a bit. I rise in a sort of an awkward position of having two hats on: one as an Opposition MP but also as chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. So I want to put on record immediately why I oppose this. I want to give the House a surety of course if this passes—if it is the will of the Parliament—the select committee will do its duty and acknowledge that the Minister of Justice has provided through this instruction the time potentially or the ability to do so. Look I oppose this simply as I believe this is too short—too short a period of time. This instruction I believe was meant to be moved a week or so ago. I think it was a lack of competence by the Government to actually have moved the instruction at the right time. As I say it's normally done immediately after a bill is read. The bill was read in the House. It was passed a motion was put and that was it. This was to go to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee as I say which I chair but because the Government was not managing its House duties correctly they ran out of time to put this instruction and why that's particularly important is that the committee has now lost a whole week in effect to be able to begin the submission process and to hear from the public. So fundamentally it's too short. We only have well effectively less than three weeks now on this incredibly important piece of legislation to not only go out to the public to ask them to submit and to find the time to listen to their views but then of course to sit down with our advisers to make any necessary changes. It would be marvellous to think that we get bills right first time but all of us in this House it doesn't matter if we're new or old know that it can take—well there are always problems and I have reservations that the way that this bill has already been handled does not look good to put it very very simply. As I say we've already had it bungled if you will—the fact we have been doing an instruction in its own right. I believe it is unprecedented to actually have a bill presented to the House and accepted but the instruction to the committee—SPEAKER: No no I assure the member he's not correct.SIMON O'CONNOR: It hasn't. Oh well I don't want to have a privileges complaint put against me then. But we are in this unusual situation where it has been unfortunately handled to date. We already know as I said the instruction—this is messed up. We know that there have been disputes around the negotiation of the bill and why that's particularly relevant is that we've already got a messy bill in its process. I am reluctant that we are only going to be able to deal with this for three weeks. When the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has previously dealt with issues in this case around foreign fighters we had a substantial number of people submit and I expect similar here. We're obviously going to have the groups that are very interested in human rights that will want to submit. We're going to have our various officials from the Ministry of Justice and so forth. It's even possible unusual as it is—and the committee is going to have to try and find some time—that we might actually want our intelligence services to come in as well. We know there are a number of members of the public and I know there are members on the committee who have actually expressed their interest again particularly around the human rights components and want to be heard. The concern I have slightly putting the chair's hat on is: how exactly are we going to progress even with all the time available? I know we have a recess week there; that provides us a good opportunity of time. But if we end up as a committee with a substantial number of submissions how exactly are we're going to handle that? First and foremost it is infinitely handleable; committees are very able and willing to be able to do sampling to deny people being heard and so forth but also actually to do the process rightly and properly and I suppose to give confidence to the people of New Zealand that we've done this right. Fundamentally we're not talking here about a tax bill; we're talking about the security of the Realm and that sort of I suppose ups the ante if you will—ups the tension around this piece of legislation. I will signal because I'm attempting to be balanced which might be a change and that might be misleading the House again too—I don't know. But we do have the balance that as it's something which has to do with the national security of New Zealand there's obviously a need to get this done speedily and I don't think anyone in this House myself included would want to see a situation develop where we had not progressed the law. But the corollary or the flip side to that is we have to get this right and my concern is that we are going to be enormously under the pump. Again I can't speak for what the committee will formally endorse or decide but I can see we're going to be dealing probably with less than a week to allow New Zealanders to submit. The committee itself competent as all the members are is going to have to process quite a large amount of information from our advisers. Then as I say we're going to have to—and it's certainly my hope—engage with the public in a way that's constructive first and foremost; secondly enables us to see if there any changes required; and thirdly—and I think importantly—provides the confidence needed. Then of course as you'll understand once that's all been done we have to make sure we process the changes accordingly. What's also complicating things slightly and again it's quite right and proper what the Minister's done and actually I thank him for it is he's tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—I think it is SOP 397—early which is great. But that's now a further piece of consideration that the committee has to be involved with. So I suppose the long and the short of what we're saying here is that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. It is dealing with elements of our national security. There are areas we already know from the first reading which are highly highly contentious between different sides of the House. I don't intend to litigate them here. It's not appropriate. But one of them's around the age limit as in is it high or too low? The other is around fining as in if someone—a terrorist—coming back to New Zealand breaches the rules is a fine sufficient? These are substantial issues. They are controversial issues. They've been highly emotional. The committee will need to progress through those and it's also been well signalled in the debates in the House and some of the initial correspondence that I've had as chair that people are following this with a very keen eye on the human rights side. Those are always very substantive issues. But suppose I do want to indicate not a lack of faith for want of a better word in the ability of the committee to try and do its duty. But this is incredibly incredibly tight. As a way of wrapping up my contribution as I say we'll do what we can but because the instruction was not moved on the last sitting day on the Thursday we've lost a further week. The Minister has not changed the date. It remains 3 December so we are under the pump. We'll do our duty though. I look forward to those members of the public who do submit if of course it is the will of the House that this instruction or motion be agreed to.