Turei Metiria: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8108. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I just want to talk about the two amendments that the Green Party has put on the Table. They relate directly to the review clause which I think is clause 37 at the end of the bill. That clause provides that the Justice and Electoral Committee must 2 years after the commencement of this legislation review the operation of the legislation. The Minister has said that the reason for the 2-year time period is to give the law a chance to be operational and for various experiences to be had and to understand how the law may or may not be working effectively and what could be improved. She has also said numerous times including late last night that she is open to narrowing the time frame for that review.We have put two amendments on the Table to change the review period from 2 years from commencement of the legislation to either 12 months or 18 months from the commencement of the legislation. Our preference is for there to be a review in 12 months and that comes as a result of the information from the regulatory impact statement which describes just how many offenders the Government expects to be returned to New Zealand over the next period. It is saying that 280 will return to New Zealand in the 2016-17 year and again in 2017-18—plus we have a bunch arriving tomorrow and we will have more over the next few months. So there will be a large number of New Zealanders returning under section 501 of the Migration Act in Australia and subject to this bill that we are debating. We do not think that we need to wait much longer than 12 months to see how those 100 or 200 people will be affected by this legislation. There are more than enough examples of the implementation to know whether or not the law is working effectively and what we should be doing to change it. If the review is delayed much longer than 12 months from now the chances of fixing the law before the next election are very slim.I will just go back and say that the 2-year review currently in the bill means that the review will not start until about the same time as the general election in 2017. If it starts just before the general election in 2017 nothing will happen for the entirety of the 3-month election period and probably nothing until the beginning of 2018 at least because of the time it takes to get Parliament up and running again. So the actual review itself might well be 2½ years away and possibly no changes will be made for 3 years—and that frankly is just too long. So let us bring the review period back to a more reasonable time frame where the process starts at least a year before the general election gives a chance for a few months of review by the select committee and then gives an opportunity for the Government to look at the recommendations for change and to construct the legislation for change and for that to go through the House.As we have seen with this particular bill we know how long policy development and the drafting of legislation can take. We do not want to be in this situation again where we have urgency for such critical legislation that deals with criminal law and human rights. It is a very poor process for such important legislation. Our argument is: bring the review forward and make sure that it can be completed and that the legislation can be drafted and preferably passed well before the general election. That way we will know both that the human rights of the offenders who are returning will be better protected because there will be a closer review of what happens to them—there will certainly be enough examples of how the legislation affects offenders because so many will be returning in the next 12 to 18 months—and that the lawmaking process can get back on track. We want to have good quality law. We do not want to be debating law that is riddled with mistakes. They are not intentional mistakes; it is just the consequence of a rushed job.We are supposed to be professionals at the lawmaking business and we can do much better but only if the review clause in this bill is changed to make sure that we have the time to do our jobs properly. We owe it to the New Zealand public to do our jobs as best we can and when we are making law about human rights and criminal law to apply all of our best efforts to the best quality job. So I am strongly advocating to all parties including the Minister and those Government parties to support preferably the 12-month review. I think that gives us the best amount of time but even the 18-month review period will at least get us started well before the election. It better upholds our reputation as a lawmaking institution that makes sure it does the best and creates the best possible law in these circumstances. Thank you.