Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill is a perplexing move by the Government. We keep talking about this shocking court decision that came out but it actually came out in June not yesterday and it was a result of issues raised in in fact a 2016 judicial review of this programme. We've had seven years to do something about this problem that we've found ourselves in—so we've had two Governments not act. We've had seven years to not get it right and not need the final day of Parliament to have an all-stages rushed job of this bill. It's also funny because it's like the court found some technical issue and we're just quickly fixing it. The court found a breach of six of the 30 fundamental rights contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So one in five of the rights that we've committed to as a House of Representatives and a nation are being breached by the programme that we're talking about. Normally when an adverse finding like that happens the idea isn't that you'd quickly legislate to overturn that precedent—that you'd quickly legislate to say we want to breach those rights in one day without a select committee process. Normally it means you'd go back to the drawing board you'd look at the rights that are being breached and you'd look at—as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act requires—to what extent they can be justified to be breached in a free and democratic society. You'd come up with solutions that are right for the risks and there are risks here. You'd do that lawmaking process with the notice that the court has put you upon to get it right. So instead of that we've got this knee-jerk piece of lawmaking and I do acknowledge that there are risks. I do acknowledge that we do need to get this right. But I want also the Government to notice that not only has this not just urgently come up right this minute but that even if it had we have public protection orders already in place in our law that could easily apply to the 27 people—I've heard it's 27 and 26; I'm not sure what happened to that one last person between the Labour and the ACT speeches—and process them properly with law that's in place. We could begin this process hear from the experts hear from the public hear from the justice community the probation systems that are in place and what we actually can do within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act framework to legislate properly. I just do want to say that if we commit to having a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act system—a human rights framework—it means being committed to applying those rights when the worst has happened. We can't do it just when it's easy we can't do it just for the people we like—that's what the human rights framework is for. In fact the criminal justice system is the front line of our human rights - based system. If we're willing to let it go when terrible things have happened or when we don't like the people then we can't really say that we operate in a human rights - based system at all. If we're willing to push laws through in one morning when our higher courts tell us that we're breaching one in five of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act fundamental rights we can't say that we're even really committed to this democratic process. So this is bad lawmaking. It's not urgent and necessary because other mechanisms exist in our law to make us safe for the time that we need to get this piece of legislation right follow the democratic process and highlight the rights that need to be balanced. It's a surprise to see this bill come through the House this morning and it's a degradation of both this House and our justice system. I don't commend it to the House.