Clendon DavidDAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to make some brief comments on this bill. Sadly I need to disrupt the unanimity of support for this bill by saying that the Greens will continue to oppose the legislation as we have done throughout. I would certainly acknowledge that the bill is in better shape than after its first reading. The Law and Order Committee did a good job and entered some new provisions that are useful and amended some of the provisions in it. It was a good committee but it did not quite deliver a bill that the Greens could come to support.Could I in passing just acknowledge the chair of the committee Mr Bakshi. I always admired his calm and respectful approach to chairing that committee which sometimes was marginally volatile and he also was very reliable in the provision of biscuits and refreshments which is always an admirable quality in a chair. He was an excellent chair and I do acknowledge that.We have heard many times that this legislation was in response to Mr Phillip Traynor/Smith's escape to South America. Oddly enough I see very little in this bill actually that would have contributed to preventing that fellow from escaping the country. The fact that he was able to get what was in essence a legal passport illegally procured but actually a passport in a legal name was due to a bureaucratic blunder going back many many years. I am not by any means convinced that anything in this bill would prevent that sort of human error from recurring. His escape could have been very easily prevented had the Corrections department followed its own processes. Maureen Pugh in her comments made the point that Corrections has adjusted its processes. It has a little; she is entirely correct. But actually if Corrections at the time had simply complied with existing checks and balances; had they bothered to listen to the advice of their own senior police officers who were very sceptical of the trustworthiness of this fellow; had they bothered to make that one phone call which I think Mr Little mentioned to the sponsor who actually had no idea that Mr Smith was being released—so Corrections made a series of errors.At any point in that chain of errors this escape could have been prevented and an unfortunate consequence was initially the complete ban the halting of the temporary release release-to-work programme and even now that programme is not back to the volume it previously was at. That is most unfortunate because release-to-work particularly and temporary release does provide a staged transition of offenders back into the community that has proven to be very positive. Simply being in prison one day released to the community the next is actually less ideal in many cases than having these people able to have a staged return a managed return back to the community.Mr Little also made the point that this bill has been 3 years in the passing. Arguably it has been rather a slow progress through the House but in a sense we have had the worst of both worlds. If you read the advice to the committee from the Justice officials the early analysis of the problem the framing of the apparent solution the drafting—it was all done in considerable haste and that is made apparent in the advice from officials who have made it quite clear that this was the advice the best analysis they could offer in the time that had been given them and implicitly if they had had more time they may have presented a much broader analysis of what the issues were and suggested some solutions to them.We are under no illusions. We entirely agree that there is an issue around information sharing within and between agencies—not least of all in the justice sector. I know that there are some very hard barriers preventing exchange of information between the Family Court and District Court which on occasion has had the effect of actually endangering people for example when a protection order is being applied for in the Family Court but they are unable to access information about other matters being dealt with in the District Court. That is entirely unhelpful and there are many other examples of that. I have heard from lawyers from the judiciary from stakeholders that we need to do better in that space. We do need to find solutions where we can ensure that Government agencies that legitimately need particular information and can apply that information to improving or ensuring public safety—we need to enable those flows and those connections. We also need to find those enablers in a way that does not compromise people's reasonable expectation of privacy in information that they give to multiple Government agencies.So on balance while we agree there was an issue here and there continues to be a problem around information sharing we are not convinced that this bill provides the solution to it and therefore cannot support it. Thank you.