Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): We are not supporting this bill and we do not believe that any of the claims that are made about it can give New Zealanders any confidence that their security is enhanced by the existence of this bill. The speaker who just resumed her seat Priyanca Radhakrishnan is right in describing what it is that we're attempting to do via having this bill here in the first place. The problem is it doesn't do the things that it says it does in the initial statements of the bill.So I'd like to go through a couple of things. Firstly if someone is to be picked up at the border and potentially subject to a control order they will be a known criminal terrorist. Our intelligence interactions internationally will have helped our agencies identify that person or our own agencies will have been able to identify that person particularly if they are a returning former New Zealand passport holder. So when they are picked up at the border they can be held for four hours only and the application is made to the High Court. Then once the control order is issued it's served upon them.Now what will be in a control order? That's found as a list of examples but apparently not exhaustive—they don't have to be these things; they can be a lot less—in clause 16 of the bill. Interestingly though in all of this—there are all of the provisions that are there about what can be in a control order—there is a caveat right at the front of the bill where it says that in determining any requirements imposed the court must also consider how requirements if imposed will or may affect a person's personal circumstances.Well forgive me but I thought the reason they were being apprehended at the border was because we were worried that their personal circumstances might pose a threat to the security of New Zealanders. So why is it that we have a requirement in a bill that's supposed to protect New Zealanders for a court to consider the personal circumstances and the imposts that the various control orders might have on the known criminal terrorist? It doesn't make sense.So let's take one of the provisions here. Clause 16(h) states the person could be prohibited or restricted from holding accounts possessing certain financial instruments or using specified financial services:". Now that would seem reasonable. We don't want one of these people coming into the country and then amassing the money from offshore donations or whatever in order to buy the equipment they need to carry out their terrorist intent if they've still got it. We don't want that happening. So that's understandable—except that go back to clause 11(3)(a) in the bill right up front that says that in determining any requirements imposed the court must also beyond personal circumstances "consider … (for example financial position health and privacy);".Well we don't have a cash economy to a great extent in New Zealand these days. People do rely on bank accounts. I would suggest that given the references in here to the court also being mindful of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act obligations it would not use that clause and impose the restriction on a person being able to have a bank account. Once someone has a bank account anyone who has done any degree of internet banking will know that there are infinite possibilities from the number that you have as your base account. So that's a load of nonsense. Then there is another one in here. Clause 16(j) says "require the relevant person to reside at a specified address agreed between the relevant person and the Police (or as otherwise specified by the court) and to remain at that address between specified times each day or on specified days". Now that sounds interesting. The known criminal terrorist sits down with the police and presumably an officer of the court and they negotiate where the person is going to live and all the things that go with it except that further into the bill clause 17 says "No requirement of the kind stated in [section] 16(j)"—that's the one I just quoted—"can require the relevant person to remain at a specified address for more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period." So the police can only surveil someone for 12 out of any 24 hours. So what do we do? The police stay up all night watching the person sleep. It's a complete load of rubbish. It means that surveillance is practically for all intents and purposes impossible.The worst of it is that if that person decides they're not going comply with that we go into the provisions under clause 31 where there are breaches of the requirements and it says how they can breach that. But what it makes it clear is that it's a misdemeanour type thing—a fine of no more than $2000 or potentially one year in prison. Well if someone doesn't you know—a couple of hours away from their 12-hour surveillance or whatever no court's going to go hard on them for that. So that's another one of those very loose and rubbishy sorts of requirements.Then there is in clause 16(p) "require that the relevant person if they have given and not withdrawn their informed consent to do so engage with specified rehabilitative services". So someone comes in—they've been radicalised; they are known to be a criminal terrorist because they wouldn't be in this situation if they weren't identified so—and has the court say to them it would be a good idea to go through a deradicalisation programme. Do they have to do it? Not according to this bill because it's written here in clause 19(1) that no relevant person may be made to remain subject to the requirements of the kind that I've just spoken of in clause 16(p) of the bill unless the relevant person firstly has been advised about what the treatment will be—well that's fair enough—and is competent to make an informed decision. Well that would be good. That would be a positive thing. "Yes I do want to be deradicalised." would be a great thing. But then it says in clause 19(1)(c) "gives and has not withdrawn informed consent to [engage]". In other words it's optional. It's totally optional—if you feel like it. Then it goes on to say just to make it absolutely clear in clause 19(2) "Informed consent of that kind can be given withheld or withdrawn by words or conduct." So you just don't turn up. No problem whatsoever. Then it goes even further to make that clear. Clause 19(3) states "No … conduct or form of words is required to give withhold or withdraw informed consent of that kind." What one of all of these potential restrictions on known criminal terrorists is anything other than voluntary? This is an extremely weak bill. It provides for known criminal terrorists to be treated better than New Zealand criminals—we don't want them to be treated particularly well—who are on remand for example. I can't understand how anyone in this House thinks that they can genuinely tell New Zealanders this bill is the bee's knees—that this will stop people at the border coming in who have criminal intent to commit terrorist activity. It won't. It simply means that we can know who they are and then if we want to do something about them they have to give their informed consent and volunteer to be part of that programme.How's that reasonable? I'd ask how many Government members have actually read the bill. I doubt any of them have read it. I don't even think the people on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee read it with all due respect. I do pay a tribute to Golriz Ghahraman because she told the committee this morning that the Greens did negotiate all this. It is their idea. Yes—nodding her head wonderfully—and then I said "Gosh you must be a good negotiator." She said "No it was easy. It was easy." Well I wonder how many people would have experienced those sorts of negotiations with Andrew Little in the past? Not many I would suspect.So congratulations to the Greens. The Government with their input has delivered an incredibly weak bill. When it comes to the whole issue of human rights and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues what about the vast majority of the New Zealand population who don't want to be bothered by these people? Well they don't get their rights considered. It's all in the favour of a person who I state again is a known criminal terrorist. I say that reading it against the conditions that are put in the bill for how those people are identified. So on the one hand the bill identifies who we're talking about and then on the other says "Well if they agree we'll do something about it." It's hopeless it's pathetic and it's very sad that it's going to pass today."