Mallard Trevor: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8119. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): It is relatively unusual for me to take a call in the Committee stage but I will not be sitting in the Chair again on this bill. There are a couple of technical concerns that I do want to place on the record of the House. The more I have looked at it the more concerned that I am. I am speaking in particular to clause 2 of the bill which indicates that the bill is to come into force today or tomorrow depending on when it gets through and when it is checked. But because it is coming in so quickly my argument is that it has got to be technically right in its entirety.There are a couple of points that I want to check with the Minister of Justice to make sure that we have got the drafting exactly as the Government wants it. The first one goes to clause 17(1)(c) in Part 2 which is outside of this bit but is of timely essence. If there is an individual who in the Prime Minister’s words is a murdering rapist who has finished their sentence in Australia who goes to Christmas Island for 6 months and 1 day and then returns here are they intended to be covered? Because they are not covered by the bill. The drafting of the bill does not have them covered. The person who is 1 day out of Christmas Island will not be covered by this bill the way it is currently drafted because they have finished their sentence 6 months before. Christmas Island is not part of their sentence—so they will not be covered by this.The next question I want to ask I will put on the record that I have had a discussion about it with individuals who are responsible for the bill and they have a different opinion because they rely on the Interpretation Act. The question goes to clause 17(1)(a) and (b) and whether that offence or an offence and that conviction are automatically considered in the plural. I want to put to the Minister the case of someone who has had 10 convictions of assault and been sentenced to 4 months on each of them—so 10 convictions of assault sentenced to 4 months on each of them. Because they are separate convictions for separate offences that means that they do not meet the criteria according to this bill. They can be quite a serious offender—quite a serious serial offender—but they are completely different offences. They have not just beaten up six people in one pub; they are been to six separate pubs and beaten people up in each of them. They have had different convictions and different offences. That is not cumulative; they are separate offences. The sentencing might end up being cumulative but because they are separate offences then my argument is that this does not apply.So it is a pretty simple series of questions. I know that some officials are of the opinion that “an offence” means “offences” and “that conviction” means “those convictions” but generally when this Parliament is drafting laws and it deliberately means the plural because plural is more serious than singular it says so. It says “an offence” or “offences” and it says “that conviction” or “those convictions”. In my opinion this bill does not do that. I want to place that on the record and every argument that Mr Parker has used earlier as to a method of getting this bill better drafted applies.