Dyson Ruth: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8126. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): There will be plenty of opportunity I am sure for my colleague Sue Moroney to take another call to finish off that contribution. Mr Chairman it will be a relief to you I am sure that I want to speak to clauses 1 and 2 on the title and commencement.I want to begin with a contribution on the title clause. An earlier contribution described the title of the bill Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill as a misnomer and I think that is an entirely appropriate reference. The bill’s title is wrong it is misleading and it is totally inadequate to describe the purpose of this bill. And I have to say that I think all members in this House would agree with the purpose of the bill; it is to make sure that New Zealanders are protected. People who are convicted of offences overseas and come back to New Zealand deserve to have a level of security around them that other New Zealanders have if they commit comparable crimes and serve sentences in New Zealand.I was reminded earlier today at the White Ribbon breakfast of how important it is for relationships to be open and respectful. I would recommend to Parliament that we reflect—and a number of members were at that breakfast this morning—on some of the contributions that are made as this bill proceeds because as is obvious in clause 2 on the commencement date this bill is going through an unusual process.We are not having the usual process of a bill being introduced by a Minister clearly outlining the point of why are we having the bill introduced to Parliament. It then usually gets referred to a select committee where people with expertise in the area or people who just care a lot about it can make a contribution and can add to the thoughts of Parliament. We then come back and go through a considered debate in detail. But we have not had that opportunity because as clause 2 outlines this bill having been introduced only yesterday has gone through the entire process until 10 o’clock last night starting again at 9 o’clock this morning and it will go through until midnight tonight without the opportunity for that rigour.The Labour Party proposed a parallel processto the Minister of Justice. We have heard that this bill needed to be introduced under urgency because we have got a boatload of so-called—as described in the title of this bill—returning offenders coming to New Zealand this week. So we had to do this bill under urgency. Why was work on this legislation not commenced last December when everyone in Australasia knew that the Australian law had changed and that offenders were going to be treated differently in terms of them having to be returned to their country? I will ask the Minister again: what happened between December 2014 and November 2015 when we suddenly have a bill—which has taken only 10 days to write—introduced and passed through all stages under urgency when everyone in Australasia knew that the Australian Government had changed the law in December 2014?Then in February of this year when the then Prime Minister of Australia met with the current Prime Minister of New Zealand at the cricket did they not discuss the implications of this significant law change on New Zealand? And if they did did the Prime Minister just forget to pass on that critical bit of information to the Minister of Justice?There is no explanation as to why this bill has been introduced under urgency and rushed through and why under clause 2 we are going to see the Act coming into force the day on which it receives the Royal assent. We have had a year. We are rushing through legislation. We know what happens when legislation is rushed. It is always wrong and critical questions from members of Parliament—none from the National Party because none of them has made a contribution—are still unanswered.So just to go back to the title clause 1 of this bill—“Returning” is one of the biggest misnomers. We have heard over recent weeks tragic stories of people who went to Australia as children. They have no connection with New Zealand other than in theory and have been raised made friends made contacts have worked and have contributed in Australia as though that was their place of birth—but in clause 1 they are described as returning. Many of those people do not see themselves—