O'Rourke Denis: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8114. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I think when considering the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill we need to try to think about the practicalities of it and to try to take a practical approach to some of the issues that are bound to arise with new legislation. I support what a lot of other members have said about some of those issues.We are currently thinking a lot about Australia and its deportation of offenders from there but we also should think about some of the issues that may arise where people are being deported or who are just arriving indeed from other countries. Some of those countries will not be friendly countries. Some of those countries will be places from which it is difficult to get information. We need to think about some of those issues as well. So it is in that light that I believe that the Government should seriously consider and in fact adopt David Parker’s typescript amendment.I think he raises a very good point in that the term “identifying particulars” used in clause 9 and defined in clause 4 as having the same meaning as in section 32(5) of the Policing Act 2008 simply refers to the provision of name address date of birth and the provision of a photograph fingerprints palm-prints or footprints. That is all the information that that section provides. So what we are going to get as a result of this bill when it is enacted is that information.It seems to me that what we also need to be able to get—at the border if necessary or as soon as possible after a person returns whether from deportation or just arriving—is details of convictions. As I have said that may not actually be readily available from countries that are not friendly or cooperative or just do not have the facilities or the capacity or indeed the intention of providing that information for us so that information needs to be obtainable from the person concerned.Details of convictions are at the heart of the bill. It is that information that the rest of the bill actually depends on and yet the bill seems to be deficient in not really attending to this issue of being able to adequately require the person concerned to give that information and as soon as possible. So I think that David Parker’s amendment to clause 9 which would add the words “ and the details of any overseas conviction and overseas penalty for any such conviction of the returning offender” is absolutely necessary. I do not understand why the Minister is not seeing it in that light and actually adopting that amendment.I heard what she said about this idea of a circular argument but I do not think that washes at all. The point is this: the police or an immigration official or whoever is in the position of needing that information should be able to insist that that information be provided. It does not seem to me that that is in any other legislation. It does not seem to be in the Policing Act. I cannot see it there. It is not in this legislation. That is the information that is really fundamental to this legislation and yet there is not even a requirement for a person to respond when asked to give details about convictions or penalties.So I think that for that reason this amendment by David Parker is one of those that should be adopted by the Government. After all what possible harm could it do anyway? What is wrong with being able to ask and insist on an answer to a question as basic as “Do you have any convictions from the countries you have been in and what were the penalties?” and so on. That seems to me to be quite basic.I want to also move on to some of the other amendments that have been tabled and I think deserve consideration. One of those deals with clause 37 and that is a very important clause because we all know that this legislation is going to require review.