O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It sure is. Not that I wish to overly affirm it. This definitely is Part 1. I sort of want to pick up on two things which do affect the purpose. Fundamentally and we've heard it from all sides of the House we want unanimity around matters of national security and I certainly sit on that side. It's with a certain reluctance that I do find myself opposed to this bill. There's been a lot of talk as well of concerns about when this bill should have started how it should have started legislation in the past and even how it's been handled more recently. I'm not actually particularly interested in that because the matter at hand is the bill itself.The fundamental problem that we have is ultimately twofold and begins to manifest itself in Part 1 through the purposes. The first is that by passing this legislation as it's currently drafted and with the purposes and other elements including age—and I'll touch on that in a moment—ultimately it I fear creates a false sense of security: the sense that this will actually achieve an enhanced security arrangement for New Zealanders. In short it doesn't and I hope I might be able to illustrate why that is.So I suppose the first question to the Minister is: if this passes—and you know this is a democracy; it's a simple numbers game—will there be a move to change the bill as quickly as necessary? As I say one of my concerns is that if it passes with these gaps with these problems we sort of sit back and New Zealanders sit back and think it's all fine—we're all good now. The problem that's going to come is ultimately—and it has been one of my concerns through the select committee process—the little gaps we've created are exactly the gaps that terrorists like to exploit.Maybe I could put it this way to the Minister. While there's a low probability of things going wrong in terms of those gaps—yes we should know every person coming through. Our intelligence services do an incredible job. There's a low probability someone's going to turn up at the border. There's a low probability they're going to be under 18 years of age. However low probabilities also come in this case with high risks. If we as a House as a Parliament and if I might respectfully say as a Government get this wrong the risks are enormous—the risks are enormous. That's what's weighed on my shoulders.I think one of the reasons why from my side we've got a bit of an issue around the purposes of the Act—all three are perfectly fine. The fundamental problem I think for this side is that clause 3(c) to support the relevant person's integration"—because of the arrangement with the Greens to get the necessary votes—is and has become sort of the paramount consideration.The Green Party's amendments—and I'll get to one of them in Schedule 2 at the moment because I understand it's referenced in Part 1 puts far too many rights on the returning offender or terrorist. I do have a problem with the Green Party's stance on a number of issues and when it comes to the security of the Realm and intelligence services I have not forgotten that it is the Green Party which has long advocated for the abolition of our security services. Even through the select committee process—I suppose if you want to be illustrative—what is put here as the purpose of the bill as incidental to the main purposes has by the agreement with the Green Party and the changes put forward and the rejection of the National Party changes effectively become the main purpose. In other words focusing on the returning terrorist's integration their supposed rights and due process as the Green's understand it trumps if you will the desire to protect the public from terrorism. That's a problem that I have.Look keeping within Part 1 for now the Minister might want it to be up to him—because I am anticipating some calls potentially from his own side. I've noted they've made no calls so far. They have just got offended which is very "left". But to just touch on the designated terrorist entity element. It came up a lot in committee. We were very very clear and I hope the Minister might affirm this: when we talk about terrorism it's very specific groups that are known acknowledged named and are listed under the Terrorism Suppression Act. I mention that because a number of people including some submitters but certainly some members of committee from the governing side sort of got a bit caught up that the definition of terrorism should be much much wider to groups they found just offensive. It's probably an important distinction I wouldn't mind—Louisa Wall: White supremacists actually.SIMON O'CONNOR: Actually someone calls out "White supremacists" and it's quite right. But the problem we've got—and I need to; it's why I'm asking the Minister. It's not that these are not issues but white supremacism is a broader concept; it's not a specific group.Whether we agree with it or not I think it's really important—and if the Minister wishes to discuss it—this bill deals with very particular named groups. Going to much broader concepts such as white nationalism cannot be controlled by this. In fact it leads us down a rather dangerous path. To the point that we can find groups—be they jihadists or otherwise—that we can be very specific about that is helpful but I think it would be useful to just draw out why it's important to have that designated terrorist entity.Also the whole fact of terrorism itself—again the definition as via the Terrorism Suppression Act. It is very very specific and I suppose again I'm just encouraging the Minister to affirm that because this bill is not to be used one way or the other to try and capture a whole group of people or sets of thoughts which some people would define as terrorism. We've already seen in this country the attempt to shut down free speech. Again I know the Minister is on this side in terms of the way this has been drafted so I just want that affirmed.Look clause 6—the meaning of relevant person. It's been one of the bottom lines for National. I'm imploring encouraging the Minister to take on board a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on the Table I suspect in the name of Mark Mitchell to have that age lowered—SOP 419. Eighteen is too old—18 Minister is too old. I touched on it very briefly in an earlier speech. We've had people overseas who are under 18 years of age who have been engaged in terrorist activity. We had some very good feedback from Oranga Tamariki. They believe they are capable of being able to work with these young people if they were to come back—stress "if". We wouldn't want—again I suppose in the low-probability high-risk framework that I am underpinning this contribution with—to get that wrong. Oranga Tamariki deal with some pretty challenging young people out there and comparisons could be made.The second and probably more fundamental problem I've got is that for the Oranga Tamariki Act to come into being evidence is required. They have to show that this young person or under-18-year-old coming back is a threat to themselves is a threat to others has major psychological issues and so forth. I suppose it's been one of my contentions which may or may not have driven officials mad that that evidence may not be there. In fact this young person while being a terrorist may present as completely and utterly sane. I think it's one of the great mistakes that we often make—and not everybody in this House—to think that people who are involved in jihadist or terrorist activities are lunatics. Some are but some are not—they are incredibly rational and incredibly calm and they are following a set of beliefs wrong as they might be in a very consistent way. So there's that concern that actually the young person will come back and with a clever lawyer they'll be able to say actually the Act doesn't apply.So I'd like to see that changed and SOP 419 adopted to lower the age. It's even possible that we might be able to put provisos in that if it is a person between say 14 and 18 years of age a control order applies and there's mandatory engagement with Oranga Tamariki. It's not that we're going to be throwing them into prison. In fact—and this is one of the ironies and Gerry Brownlee touched on it—there is not a clear array of what those controls are. But I implore and encourage the Minister to consider dropping the age or at the very least to explain to the committee why he wishes to hold to this particularly when we look at other countries. I believe—and I'm happy to be corrected—the likes of Australia the UK and Canada have lower ages.In my last minute I just want to draw attention to the tabled amendment which is making a single word change to Schedule 2. Am I right to think Madam Chair that that does fit in Part 1 because it's referenced earlier on? I don't want to—well correct me if I'm wrong as I carry on but I think it does apply. Schedule 2 is referenced in Part 1.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes it is.SIMON O'CONNOR: It is? Fantastic. Thank you. Long and the short: this tabled amendment is symbolic in that it's a Green Party idea to put in the words "poses a real risk of engaging in terrorism-related activities." It's in "overview of decisions in making control order" in Schedule 2. The long and the short: it has been a small contention but an important one.National feels that we should just talk about these people these terrorists posing a risk. The Greens as I understand it have become obsessed with the word "real"—that it's a real risk. What it effectively does in my remaining 17 seconds is raise the threshold raises the bar of proof that's required. They're not now just a risk but they have to be proven to be a real risk. Again I'm no lawyer and they're cleverer than I but they can find their ways around that. I think that does not enhance the safety of the country."