Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be a—also, this is on Schedule 1, Part 1 isn’t it? Now that I’ve risen to my feet. Schedule 1?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s correct.

Just Schedule 1 rather than Schedule 2 as well? We do those as separate discussions?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s correct.

Fantastic. Just making sure; I don’t want to intrude. Look, I’ll only take a short call on Schedule 1. I think it’s probably important just to draw attention, I suppose it’s twofold, to an appropriate provision here to ensure that everything that’s happened before this Act becomes law, if that’s not presumptuous, can be used.

I suppose it does sit within the wider realm of this particular piece of legislation, which is that we are trying to rely on a non-evidential framework in order to provide, if you will, evidence to bring about the control orders. I think it’s prudent that this has been put in here. It’s more usual that Schedule 1s have a much larger transitional setting as is put down here—the “person’s conduct before the commencement of the Act may be relied on”. I suppose we just want to get some surety from the Minister that “may” is strong enough. It in some ways must be relied on. We are very keen on understanding their conduct. Fundamentally, as a civil rather than criminal bill, there are no evidential standards here in New Zealand, no evidence that can be applied, so we will absolutely be relying on the person’s conduct.

I suppose it’s also wanting some assurances from the Minister in what will be a short call, that with the—well, the very nature of the Act; the Minister himself has indicated this is a response to things which are happening. We do know—and we won’t go into the numbers in this committee here, but for those of us, we know of the numbers that are returning. We will be absolutely reliant on that.

So I suppose it’s really just a very short and simple call on this one to affirm—good to see it there—and just to ask the question of whether the word “may” really should be “must”; that the person’s conduct before the commencement must be relied on, fundamentally, particularly those coming back early. That will be the key evidence that’s required. So that’s just my contribution on Schedule 1.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Hang on, what about Schedule 2?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, it was my error, and Simon O’Connor got an added bonus. We don’t have a debate on the Schedule, but we do have a debate on clauses 1 and 2. My apologies, but I—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, Madam Chair, that’s quite unreasonable. I would’ve taken a call on the Schedules had it not been for your instruction to the committee. That’s not at all satisfactory.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I really appreciate your guidance.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little, and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Andrew Little, to Schedule 2 be agreed to:

after “Is the court satisfied that the relevant person poses a”, insert “real”.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): There is no debate on Schedules. It was my error. There will be no points of order while I’m taking a vote. Simon O’Connor asked me—my error—and I allowed him to spend five minutes making a contribution because it was my error in calling.

Clauses 1 and 2