Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise for a third time in a very quick succession to raise the Green Party's concerns about this bill. I thought I'd begin by answering a question raised by Paul Goldsmith earlier when he said Is there really a 2016 judicial review that raised these same issues?" There is and it was in fact referenced in the very first paragraph of the declarative judgment that came out in June that we're all here to discuss. So yes in 2016 the National Party Government found out that these issues existed and didn't act and then successive Governments didn't act for seven years. Then in June we had the declarative judgment. So it is deeply disappointing that we're gathered here today on the final day of Parliament over an hour and a half or two hours to quickly pass this law.People who've spoken have kept saying we're striking a balance but realistically we're not engaged with the balancing exercise at all. What we have is a court decision—or several court decisions starting in 2016—that told us that a number not just one not just two but six New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights are being breached by the practice of Corrections in the application of the existing law. To be very clear this is separate to the Sentencing Act so it absolutely is not part of people's sentences. This existing law is breaching in its application—or Corrections are breaching in their application of that law—six different rights. Now to examine whether or not those breaches are necessary for public safety—and sometimes they absolutely are. That is built into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act system: that we balance rights as against the interests of public safety or other people's rights. Absolutely. But there has to be a good faith serious examination of what is needed by way of the infringement of an individual person's rights as against what we're trying to achieve. What we haven't done is that balancing exercise.What we've done is we've found out that those breaches exist. We've gone "Oh no they're really serious offenders and we quickly need to fix this before anyone finds out and tries to assert their right." And we've come to Parliament and we're passing this law to make it legal to continue to do the thing that we just found out was breaching all those rights. We haven't actually examined any of them in detail. We haven't examined the practice in detail. Some of us know something about the way that the programme is implemented and some of us have raised the issue of child safety. Some of us have raised the seriousness of the offending. But actually that process needs to take place with the detail with the lived experience with the expertise of Corrections coming to a committee process with other legal experts engaging in it. We need to relook at what we've been doing and why the court has raised these issues. That hasn't actually happened. To be very clear we're just passing law to keep doing the thing we were doing. Whether or not it's justified we don't actually know because we haven't examined it.What we also haven't done is look at what we can do to prevent people from being released. It's also interesting that people are saying "It's not detention but we don't want them released." What we haven't done is look at the existing avenues we have to bridge that gap like applying public protection orders like implementing a sunset clause on this bill right now so that that proper legislative process can take place at a later time—the way that was always intended; the way that it is our duty and responsibility to do as responsive responsible lawmakers. So it is hugely concerning to us as the Green Party that this type of knee-jerk response would happen in the criminal justice space where rights breaches are the most serious because they impinge on people's liberties and the most fundamental of those with the mighty force of the State. I say again that if we're not willing to uphold fundamental rights when it's difficult when it's a bit icky when prejudice is high actually we can't say that we are truly committed to a rights-based framework. So I don't commend this bill to the House."