5. Question No. 5—JusticeHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 5—Justice5. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his policies and actions?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes. Hon Mark Mitchell: Is he aware of the law change in Australia in 2015 where the age for control orders was lowered from 16 to 14 after a 15-year-old was radicalised and carried out a terror attack? SPEAKER: No no. The member's had one go at a supplementary. He'll have one now that relates to the question. Asking about Australian policies is not within that question. Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister consider that lowering the age for a control order from 16 to 14 years is silly or is in line with international best practice to ensure public safety? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We don't have control orders in place dealing with those engaged in terrorist acts overseas. We have a bill that is proposing an age at which those control orders will apply of 18. If I compare that to the Australian situation where they have literally hundreds of their citizens or passport holders in conflict regions engaging in or supporting terrorist action compared to New Zealand's roughly four the circumstances do not compare. Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister saying that we do not need to have the same protections in place to prevent the same issues that Australia faces in relation to persons returning overseas who have been engaged in acts of terrorism?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We need to have in place the measures to deal with the real threats and risks both imminent and long-term facing New Zealand and legislation should reflect that.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he agree with his officials who said that there is a risk that when the control order has expired the person's mind-set and violent extremist views have remained unchanged and they continue to pose a risk to the public?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it highly unlikely that somebody who has been under a control order and a de-radicalisation programme for a period of six years who continues to hold extremist violent views will not have committed a crime or a breach of their control order and will be subject to a completely different regime that will protect the community.Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister standing in this House and trying to tell this House that someone that holds extremist terrorist views is likely to give them up after six years or is it possible that actually those views may remain in place for decades?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We can spend all afternoon talking about hypotheticals but the reality is in Government that when it comes to national security issues we deal with the real assessed risks and threats facing the country and the tradition that has been observed—at least in this House for most MPs—is that on issues of national security we act responsibly maturely proportionately and properly and we engage in mature debate to achieve the best possible legislation.Hon Mark Mitchell: After the Minister making those comments why did he make public comments to say that amendments that the National Party put forward to strengthen this bill that we feel is not strong enough are silly?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The House might be interested to know that I first briefed that member on that forthcoming legislation roughly 12 weeks ago. I described to him what the work programme is that we were doing in terms of dealing with the Terrorism Suppression Act which in 2008 was found to be so deficient—so woefully deficient—and needed work but nothing had happened for nine years. He received—or at least the National Party received—a copy of the bill last week and I was told that it would go to their caucus meeting this week. The feedback received at the time that the National Party told me they would support the bill made no claim or indications about changes sought. None was made last week when the bill was first exchanged. None was made when notification came through that the National Party would support it. The first I knew of claims and changes that the National Party wanted was in a media release issued yesterday. I compare that to the conduct of the Labour Party in Opposition which when it was dealing with the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill and the Intelligence and Security Bill shepherded through by Chris Finlayson who approached the Opposition engaged maturely and properly not in megaphone diplomacy like members opposite.Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister confirm that in that meeting I stated very clearly that should the Minister and the Government not receive support from their coalition partner the Green Party the National Party would support them but not the bill in its current form because we felt that it was too weak and we wanted to make it strengthened and that I asked the Minister to go to Cabinet and indicate clearly that if the bill was strengthened we would support it?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well we did not have a draft bill in that conversation 12 weeks ago. We had the policy put together and that member was told what the bill would be about that it was narrowly focused to deal with the most immediate threat and risk that we have. He indicated that as a matter of principle they would support it but subject to the detail. He got the detail last week. The first I heard that the National Party wanted to change anything was in a media release yesterday. That compares to the different approach that parties on this side of the House take on national security issues when that party is in Government.SPEAKER: I'm slightly concerned about where that leaves us and members might want to reflect a little bit on the final question and answer because there could well be an issue in that. Question No. 6 the Hon Louise Upston.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you just elucidate slightly on what—SPEAKER: Well it appears to me that the assertion made in the question and the answer are not consistent and that is a problem for the House. It's not my responsibility for picking it up. It's not my responsibility to deal with it now but I invited both members to consider carefully what they had said because frankly they can't both be right. I did listen to both of them very carefully.