Lees-Galloway Iain: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8085. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I want to just take a reasonably short call on Part 1 of the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill in part to respond to a comment that the Minister of Justice made in her contribution from a few minutes ago and also in part to look closely at the writing the drafting of some of the clauses in this part and one clause in particular. But first I want to address a comment made by the Minister and I think it was in response to Phil Goff and others who raised questions around the timing of this legislation.The Minister said that raising the issue of timing was somehow belittling this debate and belittling this issue. I say to the Minister that there is only one person who has belittled this issue and that is the Prime Minister. The only person who has actually engaged in undignified action around this legislation is the Prime Minister so if anybody is belittling this debate it is him.I think the issue of timing is a fair one because the Minister was aware of this in February at the latest. That means that the Minister had February March April May June July August September October and half of November to get this legislation drafted and brought to the House. In fact this legislation would have been better prepared if the Minister had actually moved more quickly and brought it to the House in a timely fashion so that it could have gone to a select committee so that we could have had proper consideration of this legislation. So it is not in any way belittling to say that the Minister has had time to deal with this legislation and is now rushing it through because she knows that there is a plane-load of detainees heading back to New Zealand. It is exactly the type of issue that needs to be raised on a matter that is being considered by the House under urgency where we have not had the benefit of the select committee process to make sure that this legislation is drafted appropriately to make it fit for purpose.I do want to look at just one matter of drafting and it may not be the most significant. I know that some of my colleagues want to look at other matters of drafting. In the interpretation clause we have the meaning of “returning prisoner”. It says that “ ‘returning prisoner’ has the meaning given to it in section 16”. That is actually a perfectly normal thing to find in an interpretation clause. So we go to clause 16 which is entitled “Who is returning prisoner”. It states: “A ‘returning prisoner’ is a person who has been determined by the Commissioner to be a returning prisoner in accordance with the criteria set out in section 17.”The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is in Part 2.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This is to do with the interpretation Mr Chairman—the interpretation clause which is in Part 1. In Part 1 the interpretation clause it says that that is set out in section 16. Clause 16 tells us nothing. You read the interpretation clause and you refer to clause 16 and the interpretation clause actually does not give us a meaning for “returning prisoner”. We have to go to clause 17 for that. Why is the wording in clause 16 not in the interpretation clause? That seems to be the most logical place to put it and then clause 17 or maybe clause 16 in this case could set out the criteria for determination that the commissioner has to use.It appears to me to be one example of weak drafting in this legislation. It is the kind of weak drafting that you get when a bill is rushed and the kind of weak drafting that could be sorted out at a select committee if the Minister back in February when she knew this was an issue had actually moved with the speed that was necessary to bring the legislation to the House in a timely fashion and give Parliament and the public the opportunity to scrutinise it appropriately. As it is we are pushing through legislation that does curtail some people’s rights and we are doing that without public scrutiny. That is a very unfortunate situation to be in and it is a situation that we are in because of the Minister’s lacklustre response to something that the Australians informed her about at the latest in February. There is some evidence that the Minister should have known about it before then.So that is a simple question for the Minister. Why is that particular bit of the legislation drafted in that fashion? Why is the interpretation clause weak in that fashion? I know that other colleagues will be raising drafting matters in respect of other clauses as well.