Davis Kelvin: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8057. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would just like to take over from where the previous speaker Jacqui Dean left off with the review by the Justice and Electoral Committee in 2 years’ time. What the member is in effect saying and what the Minister of Justice was in effect saying is that they are going to trial law for 2 years. That is not the role of Parliament—to test law out and to trial law out. You either make law that works or you do not make it at all. I think it is silly to say: “Let’s just try this law let’s just put it out there and see how it goes. In 2 years’ time we’re going to have a look at it.” It would have been a lot more sensible to have two bills one with a sunset clause and one that continues on.I would also like to talk about clause 17(2). Jacinda Ardern spoke about the “release from custody” which means “release from custody in a prison or if a person is detained in an immigration or other facility following release from prison”. I just want to finish off a point I was trying to make earlier. When there is a review of what has gone on in the immigration facilities in Australia guards will be asked why they participated in the abuses. Their answer will be that they were simply following orders. Where have we heard that type of defence before? That is why it is imperative that even though the Australians are a sovereign nation and they can make the laws that they want it is imperative that we stand up to laws that are wrong and that lead to human rights abuses.I would just like to talk about the criteria for determination that a person is a returning offender or a returning prisoner. They are similar but different. A returning prisoner is a subset of a returning offender: “A ‘returning offender’—(a) is a person who has been convicted in an overseas jurisdiction of an offence for conduct that constitutes an imprisonable offence in New Zealand and being liable for deportation or removal as a result of that conviction has returned to New Zealand; and (b) includes a returning prisoner.” That was clause 7. So clause 17 “Criteria for determination that person is returning prisoner” says “The Commissioner must determine that a person is a returning prisoner if the Commissioner is satisfied that the person—(a) has been convicted in an overseas jurisdiction of an offence for conduct that constitutes an imprisonable offence in New Zealand; and (b) has in respect of that conviction been sentenced to—(i) a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year; or (ii) 2 or more terms of imprisonment that are cumulative the total term of which is more than 1 year;”.The reason I raise those two definitions is because I have an actual case of a detainee. My understanding here is that he is still on Christmas Island. He is a guy that I met there. But who knows he could be on a plane right now and be ready to land in New Zealand in the not too distant future. But here is his story from an email from his mother. The young man’s name is Beaudine Adams. She says he has been in Australia since he was 4 years old so “All he knows is Australia. He has no connection with New Zealand at all. He is a son brother father fiancé and friend to all whose lives he enters. So he got into a toxic relationship. His partner used to beat the living—out of him. It was reported to the local Ipswich police several times. The response was always the same: ‘You’re a big bloke and she’s hitting you?’ There was never any paperwork filled out as they made Beau feel like a wimp. The partner’s father was a police officer there. Beau had asked her to leave many times. One day she was hitting him with a pole and it broke the skin on his right wrist. He grabbed the pole out of her hand struck her on the top of the leg. She left and went to the police station taking out a DVO.”—which I assume is a domestic violence order—“No mark was left on her leg. He decided it would be easier to get away from that relationship so he left and went north to Mackay.She constantly texted and phoned him then within a week of him leaving she boarded a plane and flew up there. She phoned him claiming she was going to drop the DVO and had no way home and no money. She pleaded with him to take him back to Ipswich. He answered her text answered her phone call picked her up from the airport and took her back to Ipswich. They argued all the way back. Back at the house she attacked him. He restrained her by the wrists while she constantly kicked him in the shins. She went straight to the police station and said he had broken the DVO and claimed he assaulted her. So he was charged with occasioning bodily harm and three breaches of the DVO: one was the texting one was the phone call—both of which she instigated—and one was holding her captive.” They assume that was because he was driving her in the car back to Ipswich.“He went to Brisbane Correctional Facility awaiting his hearing. He was there a total of 159 days. They took his issue to the Supreme Court. Judge Donaldson presided. He was shocked at her claiming she was ‘scared for her life’ yet continued to contact him and then boarded a plane to be with him. He was released on bail. He never broke the bail but he did break the parole conditions or the conditions of his release because he smoked cannabis. He was due to be released on 18 May.” They went to collect him only to be told he was going to Perth. He was flown to Perth and then went to Yongah Hill which is a detention centre. On 8 October he was sent to Christmas Island. The reason I raise this case is that reading this story—and I admit that this is one side of the story—I am not sure that he is either a convicted prisoner or a—what was the other?Metiria Turei: Returning offender.KELVIN DAVIS: Or a returning offender. So he has been in trouble with the law. It sounds like he was on remand. It does not sound like he was actually convicted of anything. Like I say I am just taking what I am reading here from the mother’s email. But if that is the case then what applies to him if he happens to be on the plane that is heading here in a couple of days? What category does he fall under? Does he turn up and have no conditions imposed on him? Does he turn up and certainly get no social support nor any sort of support to get himself back on his feet to get a job to feed himself to clothe himself? That is why I have concerns around this bill. It has been rushed.I have to admit I stumbled over a few words because of the wording. It says in clause 17: “Criteria for determination that person is returning prisoner”. Being a former school teacher I do not know whether I would have accepted that grammar from a student. This is why we have concerns that the bill actually does not cover everything that it should do. The least of the problems are grammatical errors; the worst of the problems are that some of these returning people are not actually going to fall into the auspices of this bill.I just also want to touch again on the social side of things. There is nothing in the bill around the social side of things and looking after these detainees when they return to New Zealand. Again it was about 5 or 6 weeks ago that I suggested that the Minister for Māori Development put some budget aside to look after these people when they arrive so they can be fed and housed on a marae for a few weeks so that they can get on their feet. He said no that is not necessary because every Māori—and let us face it many of these people are Māori—has some sort of connection to somewhere in New Zealand even if they do not know it. Earlier in the day when the Minister spoke about the terrible events in France he finished with a waiata: “Mā te tika mā te pono mā te aroha” which means: through the truth through faith and through compassion we can achieve things. I am just asking where the compassion of the Minister for Māori Development is for these people. If he is saying that all Māori have connections back here in New Zealand where is the compassion for these people so that we can actually stand them on their feet and get them back to those very people whom they are meant to be related to?I met Raymond. I forget Raymond’s last name. He was on TV the other night. He said he was born in the South Island. He was deported back to New Zealand and arrived a matter of weeks ago. He had nowhere to go nowhere to stay. An elderly couple from Tai Tokerau from Whangarei actually put him up in their place. That was a great act of compassion. The trouble is that that set a bit of a precedent. Not every person who comes back is actually going to have that sort of support when they get here. Kia ora.