Parker David: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8097. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to talk to the Supplementary Order Paper that I have filed and explain why I think it is necessary. Minister Adams at clause 9 of the bill the legislation provides that the police may when an offender returns from overseas “as soon as is reasonably practicable request a returning offender to provide identifying particulars”. “Identifying particulars” are defined as having the meaning set out in section 32(5) of the Policing Act. Section 32(5) has a list of “identifying particulars” and I will read it. It means “any or all of the following: (a) the person’s biographical details (for example the person’s name address and date of birth): (b) the person’s photograph or visual image: (c) impressions of the person’s fingerprints palm-prints or footprints”. It all goes to identification of the individual and facts that go to that end not to the convictions or penalties that that person has had overseas.It is understandable why identifying particulars are that narrow in New Zealand because of course—Jacinda Ardern: The police already know.Hon DAVID PARKER: The police already know those particulars of their prior convictions and their offences from the New Zealand governmental records that the police have access to. What we do not know in respect of overseas offenders—unless we have been provided that information by an overseas jurisdiction which we will not always have been provided—is actually the nature of the offence and the sentence that the person has had in that overseas jurisdiction. Maybe that is not a problem with Australia; I am not sure. We have not had answers to the question as to whether that—[Interruption] There have been gaps in the Australian situation—well you should be able to ask the offender what was the offence that they were convicted of and what was the penalty and they should cooperate with the New Zealand authorities in providing that information. It is even more clear in respect of some other jurisdictions where we do not have those close relationships but none the less this legislation applies to—because this does not apply just to Australia; it applies to other overseas jurisdictions as I am sure the Minister understands.My suggestion Minister is that we in this Committee amend that clause to make it clear that in addition to the identifying particulars that are as defined in section 32(5)—which I think clearly has to be read eiusdem generis and really relates to identifying particulars of the offender rather than their record of criminal offending which is a different thing—the obligation of the person is to disclose the details of any overseas conviction and overseas penalty for any such conviction of the returning offender. Without that I do not understand how you are going to be able to get from the offenders by right of law the information that the authorities need to determine whether the other provisions that kick in under this legislation apply or do not apply because the tests that you have later in the legislation relate to the seriousness of the offence and the convictions. I do not see any way that you have got the right to require that information of an overseas jurisdiction. You might have cooperative relationships that normally provide that information that we in New Zealand do not have jurisdiction to require Russia or India or China to provide that information to us. What we could do through this legislation is require the returning offender to provide that detail of information or at least cooperate with you in a way that enables you to get that information and if they do not well they suffer the consequences of not getting the liberty that they probably want.Hopefully this matter is not a matter that you are going to have to take an instant decision on before 10 o’clock. If you are then you are going to have to—with respect—take a decision in the chair as to whether you think that my analysis of that is correct. [Interruption] Sorry Mr Chairman. The Minister in the chair will have to take a decision as to whether there is a gap in the legislation because in my understanding one of the things that the Government wants to achieve in respect of this is gathering the information that is needed at the border to assess whether these other flow-on consequences should apply to the person and if you have not got the information as to what is the nature of the conviction and what is the nature of the penalty I do not see how that can be done properly.This actually raises the other question as to whether the review provision at clause 37 is adequate. I for reasons that I have said previously but I have not had a response from the Minister while I have been in the House—I have not been in the House the whole time so the Minister may have given an explanation previously. But this is another instance of why the review after 2 years by the Justice and Electoral Committee is no substitute for the process that the Labour Party Opposition was suggesting and you know I like to think that I approach these matters from the point of principle. I agree that urgency is necessary—we are critical of why it is necessary but we do not have to agree on that to agree that we should be doing this in the best possible way given that we are in urgency. I still think it would be desirable to have a companion bill going to the select committee now with a sunset date in this legislation that was a reasonable period out. We had suggested a year—it could be 2 years. You could at the same time have a bill in front of the select committee that was hearing submissions upon it which would have turned up issues such as the one that I have identified and some of them such as Denis O’Rourke and other members have identified which could be resolved at the select committee process in the year so that the legislation that went forward from that period forward after the initial legislation lapsed could take into account all of those issues.Another issue that I still await a response to is arising from clause 28(2) which appears to oust the jurisdiction of the court to consider the validity of a decision made by the Commissioner of Police that triggered the imposition of standard release conditions. It appears to me that clause 28(2) is an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the court. I think it would be helpful to the courts if the Minister has a contrary view that that be expressed. I am not sure what the intention of clause 28(2) is but it appears pretty plain on its wording to say that “A court must not discharge a standard release condition with effect from a date that is less than 6 months after the date of service of the determination notice.” I am not clear whether that is intended to oust the jurisdiction of someone to go to court to say that the Commissioner of Police was ultra vires the preconditions to the issue of—sorry I have forgotten the name—the determination notice that the Commissioner of Police issues. I would request that the Minister particularly consider this issue as to whether you are going to get all the information you need from an offender once they arrive back on the border. Perhaps that could be considered overnight.