O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. I might pick up actually on the informed consent element that the Hon Gerry Brownlee just touched on. The potential nature of these New Zealand terrorists returning is that either they will be of such—well I referenced it in Part 1: that they may not present actually as psychopathically or sociopathically wrong. They may be smart enough to if you will not give their informed consent or you are going to be dealing with people who are so damaged not just because of their fundamentalist viewpoints but actually a psychologist or a psychiatrist will be able to say that they cannot present their informed consent—and that leads to a whole series of problems out of clause 16 where actually those conditions which have to be imposed with the informed consent of the terrorist doesn't fly. It'd be good to have that commented on but it's just another illustration of the potential weaknesses.I return to that theme of these things which are low probability—and the Minister has raised that there is a low probability say of young people coming back—but I repeat again: while it's low probability the risks are incredibly high. It's been one of the great debates right through the select committee of making sure that we understand that we are dealing with a very different group of people here. This is not the person who steals your bike or breaks into your home; this is a person who is more than willing to absolutely destroy you because they don't believe in any of the values that we hold dear. I suppose that's been one of the fundamental points when we're dealing particularly with the Greens and those left aligned: they don't hold our values in any way shape or form. The idea that we could sit down and have a cup of tea and talk about the wonderful progressive values in being a modern diverse society—they will laugh and then cut your head off and then continue drinking the cup of tea and think that they are right. We're dealing with a very different class of people here.I want to try and focus depending on my time on the question of the renewal—so that's clause 25—and I want to draw attention to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 424 which is basically saying that we need to scrap that clause. New Zealand will be in a very strange situation if this bill passes: that these control orders will only apply for a maximum of six years. And predictably enough that I've put forward this SOP I'm indicating that we need to not limit the amount of time. If you want to take it on a positive step it's infinitely possible that someone returning to this country is a committed zealous jihadist transforms themselves in two years—and we'll just use that for the sake of example—and can go back out into the community and the control order lapses. We all say Hooray!" and we live happily ever after. But it's equally as logical that after six years a person has not changed and I reject the Minister's assertion at the start that this side of the House does not believe in rehabilitation. That is certainly not the case. I certainly hold that we want to do all we can. If we have to have these people back I certainly want them to be well controlled and well monitored but I do want to see them helped to try and change them.But I'm not naive enough to think that we will be able to change everyone and I would like to see that this House enables this piece of legislation by adopting SOP 424 that the control orders can continue. They're not an infinite control order; this is not as if you are a terrorist and you return home and we're going to slap the control order on you until you're 105 and therefore it's there year after year decade after decade. It's that let's say every two years the court relooks at it and continues to apply the control order if required. That's what other countries do and I think it is prudent. As I say I think there is a naivety if we think that in six years this is all done.There's been a lot of focus on the whole topic of rehabilitation de-escalation deradicalisation to reintegrate people into society—all good and noble things—but actually it doesn't matter if we're thinking of drugs alcohol or terrorism we don't always succeed. I've worked with people over many years with sort of the simpler addictions if you will—other than the addiction of terrorism. You can do all the best of work with the best of intentions over many many years; some change and good for them but many don't. And so to illustrate the point if I might that while it's a great intention of I suspect again the Green Party pulling the strings somewhat that we'll have these rehabilitation programmes and I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee makes a good point that it'll be on the taxpayers' pocket it may not succeed. Now some people might say "Well that's just being academic Simon. You're just theorising here. Of course you know after six wonderful years we'll be able to deradicalise these people. We'll work with them. We'll put them within their family." They just say "Look you're just being academic as you are always Simon. You know after six years we'll have sorted it out. We'll put them out with their whānau and the wider community and it'll be all sorted."Well two weeks ago in London a known jihadist who had been on the watch list—in fact had been arrested over six years ago in the UK—went into Fishmongers' Hall in London City and knifed to death two UK citizens. He then proceeded on to London Bridge with the absolute intent from what we can see to kill more people. He was only stopped by the bravery of those around him. So why I mentioned that is that he is a classic case—granted that of the UK but we are not that different from the UK. He was a person who was a known terrorist a known jihadist. As I understand things he had been arrested convicted put through these rehabilitation programmes. He'd been taught how to be deradicalised. It was all tickety-boo and to the extent that I can comment was no longer being properly watched. It seemed that after six years this had all been solved. And if you extrapolate that to New Zealand after six years of a control order it's all now fine. As I say six years and—it's not serendipity it's the opposite of that—a terrible set of coincidences after six years this man a known terrorist went out and killed two people. I know it's an emotional example. I know it can always be seen as playing politics. But for me it's really just a simple but very real example coming out of a very similar country to New Zealand. So I implore the Minister to consider Supplementary Order Paper 424. It's one of my more simple SOPs. It just destroys the good work that the Parliamentary Counsel Office and others have done by removing an entire clause with one swipe. But basically if we just get rid of the renewal section then the control orders can continue to be applied. Minister I urge you to consider this. Obviously it's your call but obviously I ask you to speak to why you the Minister believe that six years is just going to magically sort things because at the moment if that person hasn't fully gone through and been deradicalised after six years the control orders lapse. That's a problem and I don't think we should presume that in those six years if someone is not deradicalised they've gone ahead and created some problem themselves; that they've in other words gone and created some domestic crime which means we can hold them. So I would just ask that the committee reflect on that recent very real example out of the UK. A man a known terrorist a known jihadist was supposedly deradicalised after six years and goes out and kills innocent people—sadly and paradoxically—working on how to actually reintegrate people into the system. So it's something that we need to look very very seriously at. And again I just implore—and I'll begin to wrap up here—that the Minister and the committee in general actually consider just removing clause 25. Let's just delete it in its entirety and allow that these control orders can continue—well continue as long as needed. As I stress they don't have to apply for ever. They don't have to apply for six years. They could apply for less if for some remarkable reason a person is changed. But I don't think if we're going to argue a rehabilitative mind-set—and it's just the logic of humanity: if we can rehabilitate a person it goes without saying Minister that there are those that we cannot. And I think if we're going to pass this law in good and right proper order for the safety of the realm then we should really consider SOP 424. Thank you."