Hipkins Chris: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8105. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): If I had been part of the select committee process which of course has not happened on this bill there are some questions that I would want to tease out as part of that process. I want to turn particularly to clause 17 of Part 2 “Criteria for determination that person is returning prisoner”. One of the things that I would have wanted to tease out through the select committee process is the comparability of laws and sanctions in different jurisdictions to ensure that we capture through this clause all of the people whom we hope to capture. So it seems to me that the principle that we are trying to achieve here is to ensure that somebody who is coming back to New Zealand having been sentenced offshore is treated in New Zealand in a similar way to the way they would have been treated had they been sentenced for that offence here in New Zealand.The wording of clause 17 leaves a little bit of ambiguity which I would like to seek some reassurance on from the Minister in the chair Nicky Wagner. Clause 17(1) 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;”. So the first part of that suggests to me that if someone has been sentenced offshore for something that is not imprisonable in New Zealand they would not therefore be covered.Other jurisdictions have things that are illegal that in New Zealand are not illegal. So if somebody had been sentenced offshore and is returning to New Zealand and that was not an illegal activity they would not therefore be covered. My understanding of what the Minister of Justice contributed in the debate yesterday was that that therefore meant they would not be covered. The Minister used the example of some jurisdictions having imprisonable offences for criticism of the monarchy for example. If somebody did that offshore and was imprisoned for that and came home to New Zealand they would not be covered because in New Zealand that is not an imprisonable offence. But when we get to clause 17(1)(b) it says “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 that I am interested in this is that different jurisdictions will obviously treat things more severely or more leniently than they may be treated in New Zealand.So the question that I have is if someone had served a prison sentence overseas for example that might have been significantly less than what they would serve in New Zealand and therefore does not fall within this criterion does that not mean therefore that we are not capturing all of the people whom we are attempting to capture through this legislation? So had they been sentenced offshore to say 6 months’ imprisonment for something that in New Zealand would have given them a minimum prison sentence of say 2 years why would they not be captured by this? That is one of the questions that I would like to get some reassurance from the Minister on because it seems to me that clause 17(1)(a) suggests that what we are trying to do is achieve consistency with New Zealand law yet clause 17(1)(b) does not have any such additional requirement in terms of the length of the sentence. So I would like to get some further clarification and advice from the Minister on that.The next part in clause 17(1)(c) says: “is returning or has returned to New Zealand within 6 months after his or her release from custody during or at the end of the sentence.” And again there are some areas of ambiguity that I would quite appreciate some clarification from the Minister on—and can I welcome the new acting Chairperson to his significant elevation and I congratulate him on that. Some clarity from the Minister just regarding the returning to New Zealand within 6 months is needed. The reason why I am interested in this is that if somebody is sentenced for child sex offences in an overseas jurisdiction they have completed their sentence are released into the community and have been at large within the community for more than 6 months why would they not therefore be covered by this clause and if they are going to be covered by other provisions what would those other provisions be? Those are the sorts of questions that had this bill been to a select committee I think we would have clearer answers to than the ones that we have had so far to date from the Minister.Those are the brief questions that I have for the Minister at this point in the debate. I have further questions as we go along but I see the Minister taking notes so I am hoping that we will get some answers to some of those before the debate proceeds.