Logie Jan; Tisch LindsayJAN LOGIE (Green): I will take a brief call again to express the Green Party's opposition to this bill. Just to correct the assertion of the previous speaker Jonathan Young that for us our opposition is based on the belief that we think this is too Draconian—that is not at the heart of our opposition. The heart of our opposition is that we want our resources going to things that are going to be effective. We oppose window dressing and political grandstanding at the expense of solutions that we know will work. We do not support money going towards something that has no evidence base when we desperately need it going into treatment and prevention services. So that is at the heart of our opposition.But to this specific bill I do also just want to recap the process that we have had so far which also goes to our opposition. The legislation was introduced and sent initially to the Social Services Committee which does not have a background in dealing with—or does not deal with every day—law and order issues. I think it was sent to us because we had done the inquiry into funding for specialist sexual violence support services. We had about a thousand submissions through that inquiry and we considered the range of issues around sexual violence that we needed to consider as a country. This was not anything that was mentioned at all in that process and that needs to be restated.At the end of that select committee process the legislation came back to the House and was passed with our opposition which was based on the evidence. Now about 5 months later we have legislation back in this House that extends the initial legislation and also seeks to apparently clarify mistakes that were made in that initial drafting. I think that is a concern. We also understand that there was a Supplementary Order Paper for this bill but have not seen it. My understanding is that it does not seem to be up on the website and that again is also a concern for us—that a Supplementary Order Paper has been added to a piece of legislation at that stage and not everyone has seen it and yet we are about to pass this legislation.I want to thank the Minister of Police for taking the chair during the Committee stage to answer questions but I will point out that there are several questions that were asked by this side of the House that still remain unanswered. One of them is: why is this legislation retrospective? If we have been told that these people whom this is now being extended to cover were not actually put on a register in the interim what is the need for the retrospectivity in this legislation? That is an unanswered question. We have not to my mind been told why this needs to pass under urgency and we asked the very clear question. We also have not had explained to us how the sentence imposes on a person a non-custodial sentence in respect of a conviction for a qualifying offence" is actually any different from the sentence "convicts a person of a qualifying offence and imposes a non-custodial sentence in respect of that offence". This bill is seeking to change language when actually none of us have heard any explanation for how it is at all different. So it is a bit worrying that we are passing this under urgency without proper scrutiny and the questions remain.This legislation has a clause in it that supposedly clarifies that the date on which a person is charged is irrelevant. Again I cannot see actually how it would have been considered relevant and why that is needed. We have not been given examples of that. So these questions remain. They have not been answered by the Minister and this House is about to pass a piece of legislation that we have no sense of comfort has been properly thought through. It is to me a real shame that Parliament has wasted time on something that is in effect window dressing and is again passing legislation under urgency with questions—significant questions—remaining.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member mentioned a Supplementary Order Paper that was not on the website. It was a tabled amendment and tabled amendments do not go on the website. I call Carmel Sepuloni—5 minutes."