Goldsmith Paul; Parker DavidHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. My question—the first one—to the Minister is a broader one and it is in relation to the bill in its entirety and the timing of it. In the normal course of events for when the court case has come and an appeal is under way we would expect to sort of wait for the Court of Appeal to hear the case and make a decision and respond if required.So I'd just like to get on the record from the Minister an explanation as to why the Government felt it necessary to bring the bill through at this moment before the Court of Appeal had concluded the case. We support the bill we support the Government in doing it but I think it's important to understand why that was important.The second question is around the question of double jeopardy and the suggestion that by imposing these restrictions on returning prisoners they're facing two punishments for a crime—and this is a breach of their human rights in the bill. The section 7 analysis that the Attorney-General undertook made the point that it may well be the case that it goes against those rights but the question is whether or not that is justified and the view of the Attorney-General was that it is justified and the purpose of this bill is to assert that.So I just want to get an understanding from the Minister if indeed that's the view of the Government as a whole—that yes the legislation does impinge upon the rights of returning prisoners but the need of public safety and the need to ensure proper rehabilitation is carried out justifies that and that's the view of this Parliament and that's why this legislation is important.Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Dealing to the first point about why now the court hearing before the High Court was earlier last year. The decision of the High Court which has been well traversed in this House was delivered after the House had risen. We were very concerned that had we not got a stay of that decision the duty of the Government would have been to apply the law as the court determined it to be rather than as we thought it to be and immediately we would have had to have removed the supervisory aspects in respect of people who are subject to the regime currently in a way that caused concern to Government agencies and the Government.We were fortunate that we were able to secure a stay. The stay itself perhaps—well depending on how you view that judgment—is effective. It's not for me to criticise or otherwise a judgment but we were pleased to get it and there will no doubt be some analysis by legal academics of a stay being granted in that situation because it is somewhat unusual.The effect of waiting for the Court of Appeal decision is if the Court of Appeal opined in that way there would be very little chance that we would get a stay and immediately the Crown would have to effectively abandon what has been done between the passage of the 2015 legislation and now and we thought that would be an undesirable risk. The Court of Appeal may overturn the High Court decision or it may not. We thought we had to guard against that possibility by bringing this legislation to the House at the first opportunity which of course we have done.In respect of the double jeopardy issue the Government's position is as the prior National Government believed when the legislation was already passed that these provisions are not punitive; they are supervisory and rehabilitative. One of the reasons why I'm interested in some of the points that Nicole McKee made yesterday is that we actually have to make sure that it is applied in that fashion because otherwise we do run the risk that it could be seen as punitive rather than rehabilitative. And just having a bit of a look at that part of this regime could be a good thing so as to make sure that it truly is supervisory and rehabilitative rather than punitive because if it is punitive that does create problems for me and I'm sure for many members of this House.But that said our view is because it is supervisory and not punitive it doesn't amount to a punishment and therefore the retrospective element doesn't become difficult because it's not a punishment being imposed after the date of the offence unknown to the offender and equally it doesn't for similar reasons amount to double jeopardy. So that's the reasoning of the Government.