Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Speaker. I've had the opportunity to contribute at a previous stage to the debate and I've listened carefully to the contributions of all other members some of which have been very helpful indeed. If I may say having the Attorney-General in the chair and then making a speech—with no disrespect to his colleague the Minister of Justice who also made a valuable contribution yesterday—I think we've had an opportunity for as much airing of the relevant issues as has been possible in this process. Briefly on the chronology the 2015 legislation was a response to the decision of the Australian Government. And just to be clear: it was their policy not that of the New Zealand Government—at the time then or now—in relation to the so-called 501 deportees. The bill was produced in response to that; a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report was produced by Attorney-General Finlayson. He found it inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act only in relation to the search and seizure aspect as opposed to double jeopardy or even engaging the possibility of retrospective application.Fast forward to 2022 and the matter is currently before the courts from last year and still a decision effectively pending now—G v Commissioner of the Police. And it's in response to the court's finding so far—the High Court's finding that is—that there's a lack of clarity in the original legislation that has required that we move with some haste in this House.The benefit of the doubt of course must go to a litigant where there is an interpretation that can be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But myself I would have preferred—that's not relevant; perhaps expected" is more relevant to say—that a finding of a declaration of inconsistency might have been produced by the court rather than a finding that there was ambiguity in that matter. For the record of course it was the right to be heard as an aspect of natural justice in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act along with those questions of retrospectivity that allowed the court to reach its conclusion so far.I just want to touch briefly on that question of punitive versus rehabilitative versus reintegrative action that is the nature of the regime. I think reasonable minds can disagree on that point. I myself have certainly—whether or not a reasonable mind—grappled with that a little bit in the last 24 48 hours. I think it is worth noting however that an argument in the alternative was articulated by the Minister of Justice yesterday.So even if it were an additional punishment—or rather in the nature of a punishment—it would not be an additional punishment in the sense that the restrictions on the freedom of the person who's returned to New Zealand would be equivalent to those that would have been imposed on them were they to have remained in Australia. And similarly if they had committed such an offence in New Zealand the same equivalent actions or restrictions would flow through to them at that point in any case. So our collective argument—"our" being that of all the House except the Green Party—need not rest on that point. I think that's a fair point to emphasise again—even at this the third and final reading.The question of process I think is entirely fair that others have raised in this House—and I think actually all parties have acknowledged that this situation is less than ideal. It is a fair point to raise that lawmaking should not be so rushed as this in ideal circumstances. We are not in ideal circumstances here. I think the opportunity for the public particularly very engaged members of the public—for example the New Zealand Law Society—would have a lot positive and constructive to say about the law itself. Perhaps if the Justice Committee were to consider the matter—notwithstanding that the law would have been passed by that point—as chaired by the excellent Vanushi Walters I'm sure that would be helpful to the extent that we're able in the circumstances again.Some 40 persons will be affected by this law change of whom roughly half are deemed to be high risk. As Nicole McKee has pointed out the lack of rehabilitation and reintegration that would flow from that were we not to pass this law I think is a very serious consideration. It goes to the policy implications which of course is part of the assessment of whether a justified limitation is possible under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.So the stakes are high. Parliament has inevitably moved quickly. And of course we have to do so independently of the courts; we can't say to the courts "Please hold off while we have a fuller parliamentary process in the usual way." This is the first sitting of Parliament in 2023 since the court action. So for those reasons we have acted in the way that we have—and look forward to further discussion on the matter perhaps after even the law has passed for those reasons."