Ngaro Alfred: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): That is all right—thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Look there has been a lot of huff and puff and heat from the other side in the previous speeches that have been made but when we talk about actions of a Government the Minister of Justice has already spoken about the fact that in 9 years under a Labour Government nothing had been done. An estimate of around about 700 offenders had come into the country under that watch so this is not the time to turn around and ask what it is that we have done—what is it that the Government has done—because even during those members’ time we know that there were a number who came through. That is right—we will not hear anything from the other side because they are silent on that but what we are unanimous about—Kris Faafoi: Did you not just listen to David Shearer? Are you deaf?ALFRED NGARO: No—he actually tried to put the blame and the accountability fully on this Government. The Minister was also really clear that actually when she was officially informed was February of this year. So what this Government is doing and what this Minister is doing is taking the initiative with the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill rather than allowing this to continue to lapse.We know that under the regulatory impact statement it is really clear. The issues of concern which will concern all New Zealanders—and to my colleague Mr Bishop when he talked about the purpose of urgency—are that in the regulatory impact statement on page no. 3 it clearly indicates that since 2013 approximately 70 percent of returning offenders have been convicted overseas of serious offences. Hence the reason for urgency; hence us putting this in place because we think this is absolutely important. The offences that we are talking about are assault they are armed robbery and burglary they are rape and sexual assault they are murder and manslaughter—they are of the kind that is of great concern to the community and to the nation as a whole. We know that there will be a long term of urgency in the House.I just want to finish off with a couple of comments. The bill contains three key aspects that I think are really important. The first is allowing police to compel returning offenders to provide information. The information sharing that we are talking about is important and it may require DNA sampling. The second is around standard monitoring and supervision conditions that are automatically imposed on all eligible returning offenders. The third which we will hear more of is new powers of the District Courts to impose special conditions such as restrictions on not residing near a school that can be subject to electronic monitoring. I believe that this bill is important. It is important that we get this through the House in urgency. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am about to put the question but before I do put the question I just want to make a ruling because it appears that we have some conflict between our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. Some members during the debate have indicated that they intend to abstain but I have not heard any member indicate that they are going to vote No. Normally the expectation is that members call for a further vote only if they wish to challenge the outcome and have given their voices in the minority and Speakers’ rulings 73/4 and 74/1 indicate that. However it is my view that it is in the House’s interest for members to be able to record their position when they wish to abstain. This is consistent with Standing Order 140 and with the principle that members cannot call for a further vote if they voted with the majority. So I am indicating that notwithstanding previous rulings I will take a division on the question notwithstanding no member saying No.