Clendon David: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8064. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): At this stage in the proceedings we are normally debating a bill as reported back from a select committee. That is the nature of the second reading of a bill. After the first reading a bill is sent off to a select committee. Typically there will be a period of some 6 weeks or so when the public and interested parties can make submissions. The select committee then hears some of those submissions orally. We will sit around a table with all parties represented and we will hear what the general public and people with some expertise have to say about the provisions of a draft bill. From that we cogitate digest and come back to the House I think almost inevitably with something better than was first presented as a draft bill. I think every drafter of a bill be they a Minister or a member will confess that bills are seldom perfect at first blush but they are improved.We have been denied that opportunity with this bill and I think that is significant given the public interest in it and the fact that it does make a number of people in our communities uneasy. We have already had proof just in the last few days that broader consultation has actually generated some improvements to this bill. I think there is some irony in the fact that in the regulatory impact statement which as I said earlier we only got to see at about 3 o’clock this afternoon the point is made in paragraph 98: “The timeframe for developing the proposals”—being the policy proposals on this bill—“did not allow consultation with the public. The Parliamentary process for options requiring legislation will get an opportunity for public consultation.” Unfortunately that has been denied to members of the public because of this urgency process. It is not a defensible process.Yes there is some need to get this legislation through. We concede and we have the need for some haste. We do not accept however that even a truncated select committee process was beyond the means of this Government. We could have reasonably expected to hear from the Law Society the lawyers and the judiciary who will obviously have a role in the implementation of this legislation. They are generally quite good at spotting fish-hooks and operational matters that we as legislators might miss. We almost certainly would have heard from the Human Rights Commission. We know from the report on compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—which again we have had access to for barely 2 or 3 hours—that there are concerns about that particularly around the bodily samples issue. We could reasonably have expected to hear from advocacy groups like Rethinking Crime and Punishment like JustSpeak like the Howard League for Penal Reform and like Prison Fellowship New Zealand—organisations that are credible with good evidence-based contributions to make with long experience in working with offenders both in prison and after their release.These people could have made a really valuable contribution to developing this legislation. They could have made it better and they are now to be denied that opportunity because this is being done with such unseemly and unnecessary haste going from go to whoa in a matter of 2 hours on a Tuesday when Opposition parties have had only a few days to look at the draft bill and did not get a final look at the bill as we are debating it until about 11 o’clock this morning. We could even have heard from the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections. I suspect that Police might have had some points to make about the impact on their budget as a result of the requirements on them to enforce this. We know that Police are already overstretched in budgetary terms. This legislation will add to their concerns and it would have been useful for them to have an opportunity to say that.I mentioned earlier that this bill has been improved given that the Opposition had a few days essentially over the weekend to think on it look at it and give feedback. A number of the improvements include the mandatory review. The Minister has suggested 2 years. We agree with our Labour colleagues that that is far too long. The 2 years will expire slap bang in the middle of—or very shortly after—the next general election which means realistically that it will probably be nearer to 3 years before a review is completed. We should have a review at least within a year if not sooner.The identifying particulars that returning offenders will be obliged to give will reflect the Policing Act. We think that is a good thing. It does narrow the scope. It means that we are not going on a fishing expedition. We will get the necessary information and nothing more than that. We managed to get more information available in determination orders. I will come to the specifics in the Committee stage. For now I express our regret at this very poor process.