Turei Metiria: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8089. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): One of the issues I raised with the Minister of Justice late last week was the definition of a returning offender in clause 7. The whole point of the returning offender clauses in this bill is to capture personal information—name address date of birth fingerprints—of people who have committed offences in Australia and have been deported. In the description of this the rationale is that they have been convicted of an offence in Australia that would be an imprisonable offence here and have been deported because of that offence but that is not what the definition says. So I would like to just get some clarity from the Minister about how this definition of a returning offender came about and particularly the extent to which it captures people who really there should be very little public concern about—so people who do not pose a risk of any kind and so therefore it is unjust to require this additional information from them by the police.A “returning offender” is defined as including a returning prisoner but that is irrelevant for this discussion and as “a person who has been convicted in an overseas jurisdiction of an offence … that constitutes an imprisonable offence in New Zealand” so it is a similar offence to what we would have in New Zealand that would lead to imprisonment or at least has a sentence of imprisonment. Then it goes on to say “and being liable for deportation or removal as a result of that conviction has returned to New Zealand;”. It says “being liable for deportation or removal as a result of that conviction” not being deported or removed as a result of that conviction.So I just want to get some clarity around those cases. There may well be people who are being deported from Australia because they fail a different part of the good character test and there are lots of examples of that—for whatever reason the Minister over there decides that they do not like them and they want them to be sent back here. And it has got nothing to do with any previous convictions. They may well have been convicted of an offence 20 years ago 25 years ago—Marama Fox: Forty.METIRIA TUREI: —10 years ago or 40 years ago. They could be convictions that actually do not have any genuine relevance and do not pose any risk to New Zealanders. The person might not have been convicted of anything in the ensuing 40 20 or 10 years and there might be no evidence that they propose any genuine risk here but because they have a conviction in Australia it makes them liable for deportation and so therefore they are caught by this bill. I ask the Minister whether we could find some ways to constrain this definition more so that those people who commit minor historical offences—where it is pretty clear that this is a person who has been kicked out under the ridiculous rules of Australia as opposed to an actually sensible reason—are not caught by this legislation. There is no need for them to be caught because they do not pose any risk to New Zealand society.There is a degree of discretion in clauses 8 and 9 allowed the police in seeking identifying information but as we know there is not always a great deal of trust in the police and its ability to use this kind of discretion wisely. For those of us who have been involved with the Māori community for many years we know that Māori tend to be targeted and so we want to be able to protect particularly those who may not have a relevant conviction in the sense that it poses any kind of genuine risk and is very minor and very historical but may be subject to other kinds of profiling by the New Zealand Police and who are then subject to this law. And there is no protection for them here.This definition of returning offender captures practically everybody who will be deported if they have any kind of conviction in Australia no matter how historical. The key part of this key point is that it then means that this definition of a returning offender is largely dependent on the criteria that Australia sets for deportation. They are not independent criteria that we have set here based on our own assessment of what constitutes a genuine risk of recidivism or a potential threat; the law is premised on Australia’s definition of what a qualifying offence is. And frankly I have no interest in Australia’s definition. Its law is a disgrace. It is contrary to human rights. Its law explicitly says that all rights of natural justice do not apply. So I would like some of this addressed if that is possible.