The terror attack in Auckland on Friday raised a parliamentary tendency that’s worth noting.
On Tuesday, before the House managed to even get started with the Government’s budget agenda it was waylaid twice by the more urgent matter of Friday's terror attack.
First there was a ministerial statement from Andrew Little (GCSB, NZSIS). Soon after there was an urgent debate on the same topic requested by the Leader of the Opposition, Judith Collins. But this was a debate with a slightly different tone to many.
Photo: Pool / ROBERT KITCHIN / STUFF
Security is an issue on which the House tends to coalesce somewhat. After such an event the MPs often look towards solutions more than blame. Not entirely, but more than is normal. For example, early in her response to the Ministerial Statement National Party leader Judith Collins said,
“The National Party will work with the Government to ensure our counter-terrorism laws and potentially immigration laws are fit for purpose. As the Minister has said, New Zealand has changed, the world has changed, and we need to make sure that we support the Government in its primary job to keep New Zealanders safe. And as the Opposition, we will want to make sure that whichever party is in Government, they have the right tools to do the job.”
That push for solutions in the event of a security crisis is particularly true of the two major parties. This may be due to their shared experience of having to deal as ministers with the more ornery practicalities of ensuring security.
For an example of the different approach consider the debate on Tuesday around the timing of the Counter Terrorism Legislation Bill. That bill is already being considered by Parliament (it is currently under consideration by the Justice Select Committee).
It would likely have helped in this particular case, among other things it makes the very planning or preparation for such an attack an offence.
In the House ACT leader David Seymour complained that the Bill was being rushed.
“We should not make the mistake of trying to fix rushed and bad laws with more rushed and bad lawmaking, and ACT opposes the initiatives some parties have put forward. Ironically, in a rare case of unity with the Green Party, we oppose rushing these laws through. If anything, the rushing should have been done earlier.”
Photo: Pool / ROBERT KITCHIN / STUFF
The rushing of legislation is a pretty common complaint from oppositions of all stripes.
You might expect that the National Party would agree with such a complaint, but when the urgent debate kicked off Judith Collins had this response.
“Now, I don't agree with my parliamentary colleague David Seymour that this is a rushed process, that the counter-terrorism legislation that the Government is bringing through has not finished its select committee process. The fact is, it has been in select committee for four months. I've discussed the matter with my colleagues from the National Party who are members of that select committee, and they are satisfied with the quality of the Bill following its time in select committee.
"The select committee process has heard from members of the public and those interested in this legislation. They have considered it. They have very carefully thought about it and they have balanced the rights and the responsibilities of people who live in New Zealand. So I don't have any problem or any qualms saying we should support the counter-terrorism legislation that the Government has before the House.”
That response sounds more like something from a government minister than a Leader of the Opposition, but this is a national security issue and as you can see the major parties take a different tack on those.
That doesn’t mean they don’t look to discover any responsibility or failings, but they do it cautiously. No-one wants to avoid being seen to play politics with tragedy or national security. And this was both.
The Counter Terrorism Legislation Bill was originally due back in the House by November 3rd, though from Judith Collins’ comments it seems possible it might be ready to return earlier than that.
Any early return would likely depend on how much redrafting the committee has suggested. The time necessary for the tricky task of actually drafting good legislation (or in this case amendments), is sometimes overlooked by us outsiders.
