Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): It's late in the year Madam Chair. We all understand that. This Part 2 is the operative part and the critical part of the bill. It is the one that gives the court the power to make a control order on the application of the Commissioner of Police and it is the Commissioner of Police who makes the application. One of the checks and balances on all this is that it is a High Court judge that issues the order. So the judge will look at all the evidence the evidence of the risk that a particular person poses the relevant person as defined in the Act and that applies also the age restriction.I know members admittedly in the previous part raised questions about the age and I'll repeat what I've said to some members in my office and in other conversations and here in the House as well: we know we can count really on the fingers of one hand the people whom this will apply to immediately bearing in mind that this piece of legislation is for an immediate purpose during the course of a thorough review of the entire Terrorism Suppression Act and on which this House can expect more significant changes in the future. But right now we know the risk that is being posed. We know the people who are most likely to be affected by this legislation if they try to cross the border and none of them are anywhere near the age of 18. At least those who are under 18 are nowhere near the age of it; for those who are over the age of 18 of course the legislation will apply. So I don't think we need to trouble ourselves too much about that.Then clause 12 sets out the requirement to say whether it is an interim control order or a final control order. The significance there is that the whole scheme of this bill is that because we know who this is most likely going to apply to—and even if they're not people we know now they're people whom we are likely to know of in advance of their coming back; in advance of their crossing the border. So this allows for the Commissioner of Police to make or to seek an order before the person is even in the country—before they return before they cross the border. So the ability for the police to get ahead of that make an order persuade the judge say that the safety of the community requires a number of constraints on this particular person—that is there.Then as soon as the person crosses the border they are served with the order. The order applies immediately. They're then given advice about how they can review it and are given access to legal aid for all that as well. All of that is in here. Then if there is a review of it and there is then a change to it or there is an order that becomes a final order. That approach achieves I think or strikes a very important balance knowing that this is placing constraints on the liberty of a person who won't have been convicted of any crime who is under suspicion including very good suspicion of committing terrorist acts abroad as that is defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act and who therefore poses a risk to the community. This strikes the right balance.New Zealanders want to know they are safe but they don't want to live in a totalitarian country. They do want to know that there are appropriate safeguards and this bill strikes the right balance in terms of those safeguards. Clause 16 sets out the range of requirements that may be imposed and there's a reasonably extensive list of them. They are things about constraining someone's liberty. And I know members were somewhat cynical about anything that is about trying to rehabilitate but if you look at international best practice—and I think of even countries like Indonesia; if you want to know a country that is seriously grappling with terrorism both domestically and returning foreign terrorist fighters Indonesia is not a bad place to start. What is critical to their programme of dealing with returning foreign terrorist fighters is that there is deradicalisation there is rehabilitation and there is reintegration—otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having this.The members opposite no doubt would just like to clap them in prison and with no safeguards at all. Well actually in a country that subscribes to the rule of law and the conventions and values that we do we have to strike a balance between dealing with somebody who clearly poses a risk because of previous behaviour and actually upholding our basic values too. Yes we want to put some constraints on it. We want to limit what they can do where they can go even to whom they can talk but we want to give them a chance to rehabilitate and reintegrate. It's pretty clear that if that isn't achieved if that's not possible then there are measures that can continue to be taken and that is that the orders can continue to be applied for a period of up to six years. Any breach of the order during that time is a criminal offence and will be subject and dealt with criminally and then of course the person affected by the order goes into a different regime. All of those things are accounted for and provided for in the bill and that is as it should be.There is provision for the service of the control order and this takes account of the fact that the person whom it is about is unlikely to be in the country. If it is an order that applies to somebody who is in the country then there is a process that covers that off as well. But I think we have to in the circumstances in which this bill has been conceived understand that both our intelligence and security agencies and the police with their intelligence capabilities as well—we are right across the risks and the threats that are posed to New Zealand and this bill allows us to deal with that.Until this bill turned up we had no means of doing this. We knew that returning foreign terrorist fighters was a problem but had no means of dealing with it. So now we will have a means to deal with it and that is why all members of the House should support it because it gives our police our authorities the tools to deal with a rising threat that previously our legislation didn't allow to provide for—and no one had done anything about it. No one had done anything about it until now. It was the right thing to do and it is the right thing to do in this.Clause 21 provides for the information that has to be served with a control order. That also means that the person is advised on how they can challenge it or seek a review of it and how they can get access to assistance and advice to do that. Clause 22 allows the court to authorise entry to a place to serve the control order on a person who was affected by it. So the rest of the provisions there in this part deal with the mechanical aspects of that to make sure that all elements are covered off.This is about a regime that deals with people who we cannot capture under our criminal justice system. And I know—and although it's been disposed of—there was a provision that suggested it should apply to those who have committed a crime in New Zealand. People who commit a crime in New Zealand are already taken care of in our criminal justice system. This is to deal with people who have not been and cannot be processed under our criminal justice system and provides a mechanism a civil mechanism that still allows us to place constraints on them to put restrictions on them so that they can change be rehabilitated but at the very least be kept safe from other people. That is the least we should do and that is what we are doing and that's what this bill provides for.These provisions are very important and they all hang together. They all add up to greater safety greater safety for the community security around a person who poses a risk but actually a meaningful opportunity to deal with that person in a way that means that they can be reintegrated safely into the community. We do that already. We don't talk about it a lot but there are people in communities who with the benefit and the assistance and support of those communities are undergoing deradicalisation.Other countries are doing it because you have to do it; there's no point in allowing people to float around with the kinds of anti-social antithetical dangerous ideas that some do without having a means and a mechanism to provide assistance and support to reintegrate and rehabilitate back into the community. That is just as much a part of anything as it is about the constraining measures that are about keeping people safe.So I have explained the general purport of this part of the bill. I look forward to other members' contributions.