Little AndrewTERRORISM SUPPRESSION (CONTROL ORDERS) BILLSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be now read a second time.I've been waiting some time to deliver my second reading speech. I'm thankful for the work of the select committee the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and the work they've done on the bill—the very careful consideration that I know would have been carried out under the chairpersonship of Simon O'Connor because he is one of the responsible chairs of select committees in this House and I'm very thankful for his consideration.This bill is designed to deal with the very small number of people who will potentially return to this country from a conflict zone: people who went there with an ideological or philosophical or religious conviction that is antithetical to some of the values that we have in New Zealand. So it deals with a real risk that is apparent now because of what is happening in the Middle East particularly in Syria and we need to make sure that our authorities have the tools available to mitigate that risk even though these are people who will not have been convicted of a crime but who will be returning to our community. The bill seeks to strike a balance between a management regime for people who pose a risk but also reflecting that they haven't been through a conventional criminal justice and conviction process and therefore should not be treated as such.So I am thankful for the members of the select committee who considered the bill. It heard 101 submissions and deliberated accordingly. As I understand it although some changes to the bill have been recommended the committee could not come up with a majority view and so it has been reported back in its original state.I understand and I know in fact that some of the submitters—indeed many of the submitters—expressed concern about the bill because of the conceptual difference between dealing with a regime that places restrictions on people who would otherwise be free and does so on the civil standard of proof as opposed to people who have been properly considered in terms of criminal justice offending convicted and placed under the appropriate criminal justice sentencing regime that we would have.I go back to the point that as we do in other respects—for example for people who have completed a sentence but are still considered to be a risk and who would therefore fall under our extended supervision order regime or people who are deported from another country after having been convicted but who still pose a risk and therefore fall under our returning management offenders regime—this is an equivalent regime to deal with people from the specific circumstances of having engaged in antithetical activity abroad and who would pose a risk once they're returned to the community here. So that is what we are trying to achieve. It is about ensuring our communities are safe. It is a national security issue and it has been dealt with accordingly. This is about giving our authorities augmented powers to deal with that particular situation.The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has recommended three changes to the bill. It is proposed that those changes will amend the bill to more explicitly provide that the court can set out control order conditions on terms which the court considers appropriate. In the end it is for a court to be persuaded that an order over a particular person is justified and what the content of those orders might be. Secondly to clarify for the purposes of efficiency when the Commissioner of Police makes an interim control order application without notifying the subject person the court must hold a subsequent hearing without notice. Obviously once the person is located or crosses the border they are then notified. They have the opportunity with the benefit of legal aid to review the order. And thirdly the other change that is recommended is that in order to prevent a relevant person from seeking notoriety the court must consider whether lifting name suppression would promote or encourage hostility criminal acts or terrorism.So this deals with the situation that we're dealing with people who pose a risk. We want them to be under an appropriate regime so that we can assist rehabilitation—if necessary de-radicalisation. We know that some people in those circumstances may seek notoriety but sometimes people forget that when they are seeking notoriety they are also placing themselves at risk and actually we have a duty and a responsibility to minimise that possibility as well. I think those proposed changes will strengthen the bill and better help us address the particular risk.There were some other sensible amendments to the bill which the whole of the committee was not able to agree on and some of those will appear by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. That includes access to provisions allowing access to effective civil legal aid a review of the bill in two years' time and providing legal protections for people when a control order is sought on the basis of classified information.I might say that in relation to the review period that's not problematic because we have already started—in fact are close to concluding—a thoroughgoing review of the Terrorism Suppression Act. We knew it was problematic back in 2007 and 2008 and that review is long overdue and that will draw a conclusion and I expect we will see permanent changes anyway. Then in relation to the use of classified information that is a piece of work that is ongoing that responds to work that the Law Commission has already done in relation to national security information in courts. Parliament should expect to see the product of those labours sometime next year. So there will be a Supplementary Order Paper that will deal with some of those changes as well.This provides enhanced provisions for the police to manage a risk in the community. I think it draws a good balance; I think it draws the right balance. I know there are those who go around saying It should be harder. It should be harsher." and "We are the party of harsh and hardness." I don't buy into that rhetoric; it is nonsense. It is a pity that in the formulation of this bill in putting it together for the benefit of the safety of our community we haven't reached if not unanimity certainly the support of our colleagues opposite. That is their prerogative but this bill achieves good safety for the community in a risky situation and I commend it to the House."