Clendon DavidDAVID CLENDON (Green): I will take just a short call on this. It occurs to me in part following from a previous speaker that the work we are seeking to do in this Committee of the whole House to interrogate the actual detail of this legislation is exactly the sort of work that should and ought to be done at a select committee. Perhaps I was not listening carefully enough but I have not heard a compelling reason about the haste for this legislation. People may not appreciate that the first Opposition parties saw of this bill was at around 10.30 this morning. Immediately after question time this afternoon we were obliged to debate it to endeavour to make some sort of useful and positive contribution to what is not an overly complicated bill but I think the point needs to be made that this should be following a proper process and I have heard no compelling reason for the urgency that has been applied. The fact that we are correcting a mistake—a serious mistake apparently—made in the primary legislation and are doing it under urgency is almost guaranteed to compound the mistake. Sir Geoffrey Palmer quite recently made the point that—in fact he expressed the view that this Parliament passes too much legislation and that therefore it is done in haste and therefore errors are likely to occur. To come to some of the detail Part 2 particularly of the bill talks about retrospective application and it talks about the people the individuals to whom these clauses will apply. Specifically it seeks to capture those who were in a particular set of circumstances on 14 October 2016 whether they were serving a sentence for a qualifying offence they were on parole subject to some release conditions or indeed they were subject to an extended supervision order or an interim supervision order or even those few cases where they were subject to a public protection order. So what we are talking about here effectively is a class of persons—a group of people. Again as I have referred to in the earlier readings this is a very blanket sort of catch-all approach. It does not get down to the individual offenders. It does not consider individual risk profiles of individual offenders and to us that is fundamentally wrong. The fact that people have committed a particular offence certainly is an indicator that they are capable of committing that offence and that they may be capable of committing that offence again but it makes absolutely no differentiation. It is a fact that person X was convicted on a particular day of a particular offence. They served a sentence or are in the process of serving one. Therefore they are deemed to be at risk of reoffending and therefore they must appear on this register which has significant implications for their future—for their options in life frankly. We would put it that a much better amendment to this bill would be to revert to what was proposed in the course of developing the primary legislation which was that yes undoubtedly there are individual people who at the completion of their sentence are still deemed to be people at high risk of reoffending and who therefore create a risk in the community to our most precious—to our children. Those are the people whom we need to have some security around. Those are the people who ought to be on a form of register so that we can keep a very very close eye on those people. But unfortunately by establishing these classes of people this amendment bill sort of perpetuates the notion that a person who has committed a particular offence is therefore almost certain to reoffend and therefore must be subject to the provisions of this register which are intrusive. Would it not make a great deal more sense to establish—if one must—a register but have people put on that register only if in the judgment of a judge or indeed of the Parole Board at the completion of their sentence those people still constitute a risk? These provisions are saying effectively that we are expressing a view that whatever might have happened in the course of that person's sentence and whatever rehabilitative or whatever treatment programme they have been to we are assuming that they are actually not working. Nevertheless these people still represent a very high level of risk and therefore must by default be put on to this register with its very very intrusive provisions in terms of people's lives.