Moroney SueSUE MORONEY (Labour): First of all I would like to just come back to the theme of retrospective legislation because it occurs to me as I have listened more and more to the debate I wonder if this is about child sex offenders being on a register why on earth—and I just cannot get my head around this—we would need that to be retrospective. They have not been on the register since 14 October. Why would we make it retrospective that people who have not been on the register will what be deemed to be on the register for that period? What does that trigger is what I need to know because if they were not on the register for that period surely all that Parliament should really be fixing up is the loophole because they were people who were intended to be on the register. Surely we just make that from today's date or the date that the Act comes into being. What is the purpose of them having retrospectively been on a register that they were never on? I cannot understand the point of that.My understanding of the register was so that people in the community would become aware of where these people were and they would ensure that the community was kept safe because of that. But these 107 people have not been on the register for that period. I do not understand what the intent is of retrospectively saying they are deemed to have been on the register since 14 October. What possible purpose could that actually have for the community if they have not already been on the register? I really fail to understand what it is that we are doing retrospectively here.Is there some other consequence that I am not aware of with the primary legislation? Does it mean that they come off the register after a certain period of time? Is that why we are making it retrospective so that they can come off the register early or earlier than if we just re-enacted this from today? I really do—and it is a serious question that I am asking here for the Minister to explain. Why is it that we are retrospectively putting these people on a register given that the community's knowledge of them being on the register can never be retrospective because they were never on the register at that time? So why are we making it retrospective? What are the series of actions that that puts into place—what are the consequences that that brings about?I am also curious given the Minister's answer to my colleague Kelvin Davis' question about people who have been deported from Australia. She has been very clear—and I thank her for that because that is the one bit of clarity that we have—that none of these 107 people are people who have been deported from Australia under that very odd regime that was brought in last year or I think it might have been the year before now actually and most of them were coming back as we heard around about February last year. So if none of those people are these 107 people then I need to understand why in clause 5 we are amending section 8 of the original legislation to replace this phrase who has been convicted of a corresponding offence in a foreign jurisdiction and" with these following words: "who as a consequence of a conviction in a foreign jurisdiction for a corresponding offence". I assumed that that was covering off the situation where a person is in the situation where they had been convicted in Australia they had done their time in jail and then they had been into a detention centre—I understood that that change in that phrase was to cover their situation. That is what it sounds like to me because it has changed from saying "who has been convicted of a corresponding offence in a foreign jurisdiction" to "who as a consequence of a conviction" which I thought it seemed obvious—well I thought it was obvious I assumed it was talking about that detention period. However the Minister is telling us that this loophole does not apply to any of those people. None of the 107 people who should have been on the register but were not because of what we are trying to fix up today are in fact those people. So I am now very confused about why we are doing clause 5 at all. Why are we amending that phrase about people being "convicted of a corresponding offence in a foreign jurisdiction" and replacing it with "who as a consequence of a conviction in a foreign jurisdiction for a corresponding offence" being a corresponding registrable offender?"