Brownlee Gerry; Warren-Clark AngieHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Going further through clause 16 which is the conditions that might be applied in a control order one of those might be to require the person as I said earlier to undergo some kind of rehabilitative programme. The Minister spoke extensively about this. He'd assumed that the courts upon understanding what the Government's intentions are would be inclined to suggest to a person by putting it in a control order—and I say that because it's a nice bill and it's really voluntary on the part of the criminal terrorist as to whether they are part of this or not and that's quite clear as we've gone through this. If they say to them Look you must undertake some kind of rehabilitative process. You might need to go through a deradicalisation programme. You need psychological treatment to straighten yourself up and to understand what it's like to live in a free country where people can have free thought but not to a point that their ideology starts to threaten the safety and security of others in the country." yes they will be required to do that. But what if they just say "No I'm not going to do it."? Well what happens then? I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to stand up and tell us what happens then because what I can see here is that under clause 31 there would be a potential breach of the control order and that could mean that the person is subject to up to a $2000 fine or a one-year imprisonment. We know that no court would ever go that far—they don't; they're all soft except when it comes to dealing with people they think can afford these things—and then when we go further into this we find that there is actually a provision in here that says that if someone chooses not to participate in that way then they are not in breach as they would be as stated under clause 31. They're not subject to it. So effectively there is no requirement on them to participate in that anti-radicalisation service or if it's drugs or alcohol or some other such that the courts have ordered it's very clear that if they decide that they're not going to participate in that it is not a breach of the control order. Now how is this in any way in line with the concept of rehabilitation? It just adds to the general duplicity of all the statements coming from the Government parties about what this bill can achieve. We've seen that there is no prohibition of any great meaningful impost on the criminal terrorist with regards to movement around the country. We've seen that there is no way that any court is going to take away their right to engage in financial transactions in New Zealand. It's specified in here that they've got to think about what that would mean for their lives. If they suddenly said "Well that would mean you'd have to go to Uncle Somebody to get your pocket money." well that also would be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which of course is specifically a requirement for the courts to consider when it comes to these people. Now we find that if they are required to go through any of these services then if they simply say "No not doing it."—it's under clause 19(4) of the bill in fact: "A relevant person"—a criminal terrorist—"who withholds or withdraws informed consent [to one of these programmes] does not breach the relevant requirement for the purposes of section 31". So what we've got in this bill is all these freedoms given to the criminal terrorist but at the same time the public are duped with the concept of the courts being able to apply all these controlled circumstances on the criminal terrorist who turns up here. Well I've got to say that there is no way that this bill is adequate for the protection of New Zealanders against people who would come into this country want to live here and enjoy the freedoms that we have here but show no will to change the way that they operate. And remember they are criminal terrorists—we know that. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move That the question be now put. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): This has got quite a substantial amount in Part 2 so I'm not prepared to put that leave yet. But I would recommend to members that they speak to Part 2 and perhaps not be nearly as repetitious or actually boring as some of the contributions have been. It should be fresh material. There's plenty to choose from so I would invite the Hon Mark Mitchell to lead in that fashion. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I don't know what you're talking to but I've raised in every speech I've had a new aspect of this bill demonstrating its inadequacy—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Well I admire the leadership and the Hon Mark Mitchell can—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —and not one of those thoughts has been answered by the Minister. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Mark Mitchell can continue in that fashion."