Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Has the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little just told us that there have been radicalised New Zealanders returning to this country after being away in some circumstance and have now been quietly pushed into the community with the agreement of some communities around New Zealand? Because I haven't heard this; this was new today—right now.Hon Andrew Little: No. The member's making that up.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well I'm just quoting what the member said. I'm asking the Minister to clarify because the whole speech sounded to me very much like he was saying that although we know these people are criminals because they haven't committed their crimes in New Zealand we are going to have a law here that ensures that the New Zealand taxpayer makes a fair effort and goes to a reasonable cost to rehabilitate them. Well I don't think that's a reasonable position at all. I don't understand how anyone can be comfortable with that particularly when the conditions that are put out under clause 16 here where the examples of requirements that might be put into a control order are listed are somewhat caveated all the way through by the relevant person—that should read criminal terrorist"—agreeing to some of these things and having the full capacity to do so.Particularly we look at clause 16(p) which says " require that the relevant person if they have given and not withdrawn their informed consent to do so engage with specified rehabilitative services (for example alcohol and drug treatment services)." What does that mean? That if the person who is subject to a control order doesn't give their consent to seek treatment for their condition—most likely it'll be a psychological condition; most likely it will be something that needs to be washed out of their brains because they have been radicalised—if they don't consent then apparently it doesn't stand. And it's backed up in clause 19 where it says "Limit on requiring relevant person"—the criminal terrorist—"to engage with specific rehabilitative services (1) No relevant person"—read that as "criminal terrorist"—"may be made or may remain subject to a requirement of the kind stated in section 16(p) unless the relevant person—(a) has been fully advised by a person who is qualified to prescribe or provide the specified rehabilitative services about their nature and their intended and likely effects and any known risks of engaging with them; and (b) is competent to make an informed choice and give informed consent to engaging with them".So they have to give stated in two places informed consent to the condition that's applied by the courts. Now if anyone was wondering whether or not this was a weak bill this has to be the absolute convincing point. So the criminal terrorist turns up here; in four hours there's a control order put on them and one of those control orders states that they've got to go through some sort of what would you say deradicalisation process—apparently that's happening informally in the community at the moment; something new we learned tonight—and they can't give their informed consent then that's it. What sort of a protection is that for the New Zealand public? And as for the time it's taken for this bill to get here let's be very clear: the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria was in full swing up until about 18 months ago when there was such an activity in the fight against them that they began to collapse. They began to run and they began to scatter. They began to hide themselves in refugee camps and they began to do what Mark Taylor has done: present themselves as being victims of some horrible regime that they never really wanted to be a part of. But we know full well that if it hadn't been for their defeat they would have been out there today still participating in those sorts of terrorist activities.So there was a necessity certainly to make sure that New Zealand's borders were protected but this Minister has been in office for two years. Two years and it's suddenly dropped in the House under urgency rushed through a select committee process and put in front of us. I'd like to know: is that Minister in receipt of information that suggests that there are people waiting at the borders right now to come on in? Can he answer that question? Why is it that someone who has a control order on them has to give their informed consent to its effect?"