Meager James; O'Connor Greg; Kuriger BarbaraJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Madam Chair thank you. It's really good to see Dr Webb get to his feet. He had a number of contributions to make at the Justice Committee and I'm sure he'd be raring and ready to go to support his colleague in his member's bill but I'm sure he probably also supported it at his caucus as well. So I'm sure Dr Webb would have a lot to add and contribute to the committee of the whole House stage as we move forward. I feel like we're just getting started so I'm looking forward to a lot more contributions in Part 2 which he seems very very keen to get on to.I just wanted to do a little bit of admin as well. I wanted to just raise a point with the member Kahurangi Carter who seemed to indicate that the Greens may not be supporting this bill anymore. My understanding from reading from the Hansard was that they actually voted for it at second reading so if the Greens have changed their mind and if there is something in the bill that they don't disagree with and they're going to vote against it now can they elaborate on that? Can they explain that to us and maybe offer some amendments? Because this is the only stage where we can change the bill in order to get it fit for purpose so that they would support it. So if the Greens are considering changing their mind from second reading I'd ask them to make a contribution and explain why so that we could perhaps make some changes at this late stage.Then I'd just also like to point out that we have a section 7 report to consider. Part of the original Attorney-General's report did talk about clause 4 and some of the concerns around clause 4. Coincidentally we actually have the author of that paper in the Chamber with us today so if the Hon David Parker had a contribution to make on the section 7 report and whether or not the changes that have been made in the select committee have dealt with some of those issues I'd really appreciate that contribution. Because if Greg O'Connor is the expert in this particular area then we must have the grand expert of section 7 reports sitting opposite us. So I'm sure the member would love to explain his view on this now and whether or not he thinks that the changes that have been made in clause 4 are sufficient to overcome some of the concerns in the section 7 report that the Attorney-General at the time the Hon David Parker made and wrote and we considered during the select committee.Of course this is the last remaining chance to make amendments to this part of the bill and so I did want to ask a question of the member. Given that the child protection aspect of it is the key part of it and we had submissions from a couple of submitters including one from Piki Kotuku Mahuta who basically outlined that child sovereignty is child safety and child safety is child wellbeing. Did the member have any thoughts about expanding the protections given in the bill? In particular I want to look at this idea that we're going to put some restrictions in place on registered sex offenders from travelling overseas. Was there ever any consideration of going a little bit further and maybe considering some requirements on prohibiting some forms of travel completely? That would provide the ultimate form of protection from those close family members for those children who are family members of registered sex offenders who live overseas.I would be interested in the retrospective aspects of the bill which will come up in Part 2 because that deals with some of the definitions. I believe in the Attorney-General's report that was presented to us he had some concerns that if the provisions weren't made clear that they were retrospective he would probably have to issue a subsequent report. Now I know that's not within his purview anymore but he is sitting in the Chamber and I would certainly respect the views of the member given that he has very strong views on a lot of things in this House. But if I could ask the member whether or not he considered any further amendments to expand the scope of the bill even at this late stage that the committee could consider. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Look a couple of things. In relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it's important to remember that the same New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns were brought up from the time of the original bill—in fact through two further amendments until now. Essentially the balance that Kahurangi Carter brought up that they have been balanced against each other and the rights of the offender versus the protection of the child—that's been a constant through all debates on this issue.As far as further—no; I mean the reality of it is that again we've talked before about the people who are the most serious offenders. Many of them are still on Department of Corrections restrictions as well. A lot of it is family and going to family weddings where perhaps the ability to travel—a family member getting married or a funeral. It may be actually they that will suffer through not having a family member there as well. So I personally think currently a case essentially needs to be made if not here certainly when they get into the border given what I'd spoken about before about the Interpol notifications. So it is about 20 offenders a year. I understand it virtually stopped—well obviously it stopped and even immediately following COVID but it has slowly started to build up again so this is not a theoretical piece of legislation; it is a very real piece of legislation which actually will be used.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take another call from James Meager but I think at this point we've all established that we want to protect children and the member has made a very good effort to answer the questions so any new details around the actual workings would be the things that I'll be looking for from here on in.