Meager James; O'Connor GregJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Absolutely. Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to ask a question around clause 4(2)(c) and it's a clause which outlines that if the offender does not intend to return to New Zealand" they must make "a statement of that intention; and" they must name the country that they "[intend] to generally reside in after leaving New Zealand."So I'm interested as to why we have inserted that provision into the bill. What would be our concern about the risk to people and why would we want to basically have to have on record that the offender isn't intending to return? Are we going to be passing that information on to the country of destination? I assume that would be the case because that's why in (ii) we've asked for the name of the country that the offender intends to generally reside on. Would we be using that as some sort of early warning system for the intended country of destination so that they can put some protections and some measures in place? Because otherwise if the offender intends to leave and does not intend to return what would be the reason for us as a country as an authority to need to know that? That a person is for want of a better way of putting it no longer our problem onshore? There must be some connection with the overseas authorities. Was it a recommendation made by officials? Where has that particular amendment come from? I just very much wanted to finally touch on clause 5 "Section 43 amended (Information sharing between government agencies in interest of public safety)". I just wanted to point out that in Amendment Paper 175 put forward by Erica Stanford the wording is slightly different but the substance of it has been incorporated into the bill. So I wanted to assure all members of the committee that if that Amendment Paper has been withdrawn it has been incorporated in here so that agencies do have the ability to share information. The reason it might look a little different is because we removed some of the specificity about particular agencies that needed to share information with each other because the drafters and the officials—and I think the Parliamentary Counsel Office—advised that the way that it has been worded here will meet the intention of Erica Stanford's Amendment Paper.So just that question around that clause about intention to return having to notify authorities here and having to provide the name of the country that they will generally reside in. In fact having brought up that point why would we not make some sort of amendment—or why did we not make it clearer that it may be the country or countries that they generally intend to reside in? Are there any further restrictions we can place on that? Because they might say one thing and do another and I guess that goes to the enforceability point. But I'd appreciate the member's thoughts on that point as well.GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Yeah thank you Madam Chair. Again I think I have touched on this but we don't have any jurisdiction. This bill doesn't allow us—and there are no bills unless there's essentially an international treaty involved that can compel any other country unless they agree they will. But there are such provisions not specific but certainly those cooperations generally done through Interpol and other agencies.And yes the whole intention is if they don't intend to come back best we can do is let the country that they're going to know where they're going. I think with modern passport monitoring it's generally fairly easy to track where people are going—so we're notifying the country that they're ultimately going to that they are now have this offender. Even of course there will be occasions when offenders will be deported. Of course that will be—and I talked about it earlier; if someone is deported here and they're eligible they're on the register in that country they can go on the register here under the existing law."