Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I do want to support the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Simon O'Connor where he's suggesting that six years as an absolute limit on control orders is a bit of a nonsense. There should be much greater discretion; it might be that it has to last for longer and obviously the provisions here would mean it can last for a lesser period of time. But let's say you've got someone who regularly breaches the conditions—not necessarily to a level where it can be proved that they're engaging in criminal activity but they might for example be associating inappropriately with others who've got a history of similar intention. Now that would not be a criminal thing; it would simply be a breach of the control order. So they would be taken to court and they'd be subject to a fine of up to $2000. Now if it's really serious—and we know how the courts work in New Zealand we know what sort of direction they'd be looking at from the current Minister they're most unlikely to impose anything like that because they'll say Well the person involved probably can't afford it." So they certainly won't look at the "up to one year" that they could put them in prison. But it's possible that someone breaches their control orders throughout those six years organising some opportunity for a point beyond that time and then at the end of the six years that's it—they're free they're clear they can do what they like. But of course that is a preposterous situation the Government will tell us because actually all of the conditions under clause 16 in this bill allow massive freedom for the person who is subject to the control order. Let's look at just two of them—clause 16(h): "prohibit or restrict the relevant person from holding accounts possessing certain financial instruments or using specified financial services." Now that would seem reasonable. That means that this person cannot amass funds in New Zealand for the purposes of carrying out terrorist activity; perfectly reasonable. That's something that most people would accept is not an unreasonable condition on a control order until we step back in the bill to clause 11(3) and we see what the court has to think about when it's imposing conditions in a control order. It is made very clear under clause 11(3)(a): "Consider how requirements [or a requirement] if imposed will or may affect the person's personal circumstances for example financial position health and privacy." And that means that it's almost impossible in a country like New Zealand where we do so much electronically and there is so little cash now in circulation for a person to be denied the right to hold a bank account. Unless there is some sort of heavy surveillance over that bank account no one will know whether it's multiplied into others and what funds might flow through it and where they might be funnelled to because to do that of course would also under clause 11(3)(a) be a breach of privacy which the courts cannot order. So that provision in clause 16 is rubbish. It is as much rubbish as the one I spoke about a few minutes ago. Then we come to 16(j): "Require the relevant person to reside at a specified address agreed between the relevant person"—remember relevant person is a criminal terrorist; agreeing with the judge "Oh well I'll go and stay there all right"—"and the Police." The Police get to be involved as well; equal partners—the judge the criminal terrorist and the Police all treated equally in this discussion. They work out where this person is going to reside for the next few years or however long it might be and then they will say "Well that's reasonable. We want to know where that person is." Except that we then come to clause 17 in the bill which says "No requirement of the kind stated in section 16(j)"—so why was it even stated in the first place?—"can require the relevant person"—the criminal terrorist—"to remain at a specified address for more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period." They can be a complete nomad a total nomad to go where they like in any 12 hours inside any 24 hours and they can have a bank account even though the court has made orders that affect both of those freedoms. So the question we have got is: why? Why does the Government continue to insist that this is a strong bill that will deter these people from terrorist activity?"