O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I want to look in this second reading speech a little more into the detail of the bill but before doing so I would like to comment on a couple of things that we have heard the Green Party MPs talk about. I appreciate their point of view. I think it is a point of view that they are entitled to have. It is not one that we in New Zealand First agree with but they are certainly entitled to it. I think that they have stated very well why they are opposed to this bill and I want to respond to only two aspects of that.One is that as I listened particularly to what Mr Clendon said it seemed to me that there was an insufficient appreciation that the people we are dealing with here are not normal ordinary everyday people. They are people with problems; they are people who need to be dealt with differently from other people for that reason. I think that by implication what the Green MPs seem to be saying is that the standards that apply to the community generally must be maintained in every respect in terms of those people who are in that position. I do not think that is actually possible. They are people with significant problems. They are people who need monitoring and who need support and if we do not do that I think it is not going to be good either for them or for the potential danger that they represent to public safety. I think that we all do understand what public safety means in this context; I think we understand that very well. That is one thing.The other thing I want to comment on is that if there is no register then I do not see how it is possible that those people can continue to be identified for the purposes of monitoring. I would agree with one thing that Mr Clendon said which is that we should be concentrating on treatment for those people. I do not disagree with that; I think that is fine but I also think that those who are living in the community certainly need monitoring as well. But without a register you cannot actually do anything much at all. I think that it is good basic common sense. There is a need to have basic information. Who these people are and what their circumstances are is necessary information if we are actually going to have a chance of doing anything at all in this area.I want to move on as I said to some of the detail of the bill. It is true that it is not just a correction; it is an extension of the terms of the original legislation to a wider group of people. I particularly want to refer to clause 7 which replaces clause 1 of schedule 1. New clause 1(1) of schedule 1 extends the retroactive application of the Act to persons whose sentence expiry date has passed (in relation to a sentence of imprisonment for a qualifying offence) but who are still subject to release conditions". I refer in particular to new clause 1(1)(b) which says: "This clause applies to a person who on 14 October 2016 is in respect of a qualifying offence— … (b) serving on parole or on release from custody on release conditions the sentence of imprisonment that was imposed for that offence;". That is what was not in the original legislation and those people—probably a relatively small number in relation to the whole—will now be included.I also wanted to refer to paragraph (e)—so just reading new clause 1(1) again—"This clause applies to a person who on 14 October 2016 is in respect of qualifying offence— … (e) no longer serving the sentence of imprisonment that was imposed for that offence but still subject to release conditions following the sentence expiry date of that sentence." So these people would still be subject to conditions. Obviously if there are going to be conditions they have to be monitored and if they have to be monitored it seems to me that there has to be a register; otherwise the whole thrust of the legislation really does not make sense.Furthermore we see that new clause 1(3) "makes the same clarification in relation to corresponding registrable offenders under section 8." If you look at section 8 which is amended by clause—I am just looking for that; just give me a moment there. Section 8—yes. [Interruption] No I am just getting the right page. Anyway section 8—here it is—clarifies that "the definition of corresponding registrable offender turns on sentencing or being required to report not on conviction" and that it is the conviction that is the precondition. I think that is a very important change. That is a clarification but it also does extend the number of people to whom this particular legislation will apply.I think that when you do actually look at the detail you can see that this bill really is essential. Otherwise there are in fact potentially three gaps where people would fall through the cracks and that is not what was intended in the original legislation. We are not here to debate the merits of the original legislation—we are here to debate this bill and whether it does what it is claimed to do. I think it does. I think the clauses that I have read out demonstrate how there are gaps and how this particular bill plugs those gaps and fixes the legislation.Although it is a bit sad that we have not had the time to put this through a select committee process it does not really take very long when you read it—it is a relatively small bill—to see what it will do and why it is necessary if in fact the whole legislation is really required in the first place. We in New Zealand First as I said in my first reading speech do believe in this legislation and therefore we do think it is most important that this amending bill be passed tonight because it is urgent it does need to be done quickly and those gaps do need to be filled. For those reasons again New Zealand First will have no hesitation in voting for the bill."