Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. Since we're doing these speeches thick and fast I will repeat some of the concerns but also respond to some of what I've heard in the House since.The Green Party does oppose this bill. We don't see the problem as having arisen moments ago and the type of urgent approach that's been taken by the Government some of the these concerns were raised—well the majority actually of the core concerns that came up in the June declarative judgment of the High Court were raised in a judicial review in 2016. We see this as having been a core issue raised some seven years ago ignored by two different major party - led Governments. So to deal with these significant rights issues on the final day of the sitting of this Parliament in extended hours in one go is not acceptable given what's at stake given that we're not talking about some technical discrepancy—people have used the word anomaly". Actually in the criminal justice system the rights that have been raised as being breached are not anomalies at all; what is an anomaly is seeing a bill or a system that's been in place that breaches so many of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights being passed without examination in one morning.So we have this House on notice that what we're passing breaches six of the 30 fundamental rights contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that's one in five of the fundamental rights that are being breached. Normally when the judicial branch of Government puts us on notice that rights are being breached that isn't a trigger for this House to pass urgent unexamined legislation to make it legal for us to continue to breach those rights; normally that's a signal for us to come back take the rights breaches seriously hear from the community hear from experts and examine the law.Now I've heard one National Party speech that I find particularly offensive in terms of the mischaracterisation of the balance that the Green Party is talking about here. Of course we're not talking about a balance of the rights of child victims of sexual offending as against the offender. It's extremely offensive that that member especially a lawyer would suggest that. The balance of rights that have been raised with us here as always is the balance of the breach the incursion on someone's rights as against what is necessary in a free and democratic society to uphold the interest that the bill is seeking to protect.So the interest being public safety: do we need to impinge on a particular right in that particular way in order to uphold public safety? And that's always the case. We always have to examine rights breaches in that way. It's absolutely not the case that we get to invoke the name and the harm of child victims in order to justify anything we want to pass in this House and in particular holding that balancing exercise of what is necessary in terms of rights breaches as against any interests that we're trying to protect—in this case public safety. This is absolutely at the heart of a human rights - based system and always a careful assessment in justice lawmaking because of course it's in the criminal justice space that prejudice is always high. Sympathies rightly run deep so to invoke the name of victims to justify rights breaches in an unexamined way or to criticise anyone who wants to engage in that balancing exercise which is necessary and our duty is offensive.So coming back to this process the process means that we won't have that examination that we will pass law just to make it legal to continue those rights breaches. We've heard repeatedly about some of the issues that the offenders that this bill will apply to have. We've heard the seriousness of their offending. We've heard that they are the most dangerous but we've also heard that public protection orders will somehow not apply to them or that they won't meet that standard. It's not to say that public protection orders should always be utilised but if we are really talking about the most dangerous offenders then I do have a question of why they aren't quite dangerous enough for public protection orders.I also have a question around why we won't be implementing for example a sunset clause which would have made this urgent and unexamined process that we're running through here if it is that urgent more in line with what we normally want to see in a democratic system which is to say "OK we quickly need to take care of this. We don't want any unintended releases."—we've also heard that this isn't really detention but of course a court found that it was—"but we will in fact examine the law." What we in fact need to say in that law and what we need to in fact empower Corrections to do as against the rights that may or may not be breached in a proper legislative process later on—and we will necessitate that by building in a sunset clause here. That hasn't happened either.So this is a degradation of the way that we normally do things and the law itself is a degradation of rights and it's been done in an entirely unexamined way. So we don't commend it to the House."