Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Speaker. I don't intend to repeat the comments that others have made nor my own comments at the second reading. Of course we're passing through the various stages and readings of the bill quite quickly. The reason for that has been well explained from the Minister and then from others on all sides of the House. I do note that the Greens have taken a different position in terms of whether they regard this as being such an urgent measure and—Golriz Ghahraman: And Te Paati Māori.CHRIS PENK: And Te Paati Māori. OK. Thank you. They're entitled to that view of course but we've landed where we have in terms of wanting to support the aim of ensuring that there isn't a disconnect between the courts' view of the matters and Parliament's view of the matter and we don't wish for any public safety imperatives to fall between that gap.So with those comments made I do think it's probably fair to note that when Parliament passes laws very quickly obviously there's always a risk that you miss things or that unintended consequences haven't been canvassed—and there's consultation with the community. In this case—and similarly in the case of repeal-type legislation—I think it's more permissible to act quickly because we are returning to what is a known state. We're not passing from scratch a new measure that would have to come in from that which was understood before and the world would have to sort of change and respond and that we wouldn't have had as lawmakers the benefit of that discussion to create some sort of new regime from scratch.What we engaged in the purpose of is returning the world to the situation that we had understood was already the case but for the court ruling. So I think at the risk of sounding defensive in terms of the parliamentary process being quite so quick apart from the real-world imperatives I also think in terms of House procedure and lawmaking in general it's defensible to the extent that we are merely clarifying something that Parliament had intended in the first place.My second of three points was addressing the question of retrospectivity. So I would argue that we are not making law retrospectively to the extent that we are merely saying that the law that had already existed in Parliament's mind does still apply. We're not saying that the punishment for a thing now needs to be greater than it was because that would be a retrospective application of the criminal justice system against a person—or 26 persons. We're instead saying that we are going we are returning—I'm trying to not use the word retrospective. I mean to look backwards is literally the meaning of retrospective but we are looking backwards but we're doing so to say that the real-world understanding of what is the case under the Parole Act needs to return to how it was that Parliament thought it had made the situation in the first place.Finally—and now I am actually repeating myself a little bit but I think if I may say it's an important point—I don't consider with respect to others who have a different view that we're in a double jeopardy situation whereby a person is having an additional punishment. I think we are ensuring that the terms of the punishment that was handed down to them in the courts in the first place is able to be served and managed. Because of course the parole system reflects part of a coherent whole-of-Corrections procedures anyway whereby a person is sentenced and might have a period of incarceration and then have a regime whereby they are you know able to exit that—but in a managed way and with the rehabilitative programs that are meant to be part of that.So I apologise first if that's rather nuanced; and secondly more importantly if it hasn't been expressed that clearly you'll forgive me hopefully because this is a bill that many of us have seen literally for the first time only two hours ago—was introduced to the House at that time. It has been a quick process but I think within the bounds of the constraints that we've had in terms of the realworld situation and also our desire to be helpful and pass this as quickly as it needs to. It's been a pretty reasonable discussion; a helpful one.I reiterate—as this may actually be the last National Party call on the matter—that we have joined with the Government to support their intent and the detail of making this change. We commend it therefore to the House.