Meager James; Nakhle Rima; O'Connor GregJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Chair. I didn't get time at the end of the last contribution to just finish off and expand on that point. But if we do look at under new Part 2 new section 16 there's actually a very good I think drafting exercise that's been undertaken there. Because what this section actually does is it says Clauses 14 and 15 override any inconsistent other law".So not only have we made the retrospectivity quite clear in the law we've also made it very clear to any possible legal body that may be looking at or interpreting this legislation in the future that despite any other law these clauses override that law when they are inconsistent. That includes sections 25(g) and 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That's very very important because we have seen some developments in jurisprudence where the courts have taken an interpretive approach to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which say that they may choose to not apply legislation passed by this House. That is fundamentally contrary—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No they haven't. You're making it up.JAMES MEAGER: —to our constitution. Well I mean the member opposite can make a contribution—he's a professor of law; he's a very smart talented man who made a lot of contributions during the House. If he wants to give us a rundown of the Fitzgerald case and the court's interpretation of that and how they have looked at how Parliament is passing laws he can do so. But why else would this clause be in here? And why else would the member have supported it through the select committee? And why else will he be voting for it hopefully today if not for that very fact?In fact new section 16(2)(c) explicitly names a particular case of which these clauses will override—to avoid any doubt at all by any judicial body in the future whatsoever. So the member can make a contribution—and it's a debating chamber it's the committee of the whole House stage; it's the last chance for him to change that if he thinks it's an egregious overstep by the only democratically accountable body in our constitution. But if he doesn't make that contribution then I will have to just assume that he agrees with me wholeheartedly now and forever. So on that part Mr Chair and the member I just wanted to make that part finally very clear.Now the only other one I wanted to draw the committee's attention to would be new section 14 and that is the application of section 21(4). It's a difficult one to get your head around this one and the reasons for it being in there but it "applies only to a specified registrable offender who intends to travel out of New Zealand for more than 48 hours."—"On or after commencement".So I'm yet to actually wrap my head around how that interplays with new section 13. I know officials are in the room so if they can just give us a quick couple of lines as to why we have 14 and 15 in place and why that's not encompassed within 13 around—I am only making assumptions it is to do with the retrospectivity sections but it wasn't addressed in our select committee report.It may have been that Dr Webb was making such vigorous contributions in committee that we were all wowed by his oratory and missed the additions of the officials in select committee and we weren't able to actually look at that. So if the officials do have time and if the member can explain just the purposes of 14 and 15 being separate from 13 I would very much appreciate it. I'm sure Dr Webb would appreciate me being able to sit down and sleep peacefully tonight knowing that the jurisprudence in the country won't be drastically altered by our amendments here tonight.So if the member in charge could draw his attention to that—and I know he's looking keenly at his officials—I would definitely very much appreciate that.RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to draw the member's attention to section 15 under Part 2. And I'd just like to ask—this is the section where it "only authorises a specified agency to disclose personal information about a specified registrable offender … to another specified agency." And what I'd like to ask is does the member for this bill Mr Greg O'Connor foresee that in the future this can be expanded to not just another specified agency but agencies in general that will relate or pertain or can assist in the kaupapa that we're trying to reach with this amendment? So can you foresee in the future this being expanded to not just to another specified agency but for example—actually I won't give you an example now. Can you see this section in the future being expanded?GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Well thank you Mr Chair. Anything's possible. Again with a member's bill I think it's pretty important just to keep the eye on the prize and just look at what we're trying to achieve here.Mr Meager interesting questions. Probably going a little bit beyond my Buller High School education a little bit and something that you and perhaps Dr Webb might over a coffee be able to have a much better dissertation on. But certainly from my point of view I look at the broad outline of what we're trying to achieve and I'm very happy with the select committee's work that saw that very important—I think the clause that you've discussed there that clause 16(1) "The following clauses have effect despite any other law if or to the extent that the other law is inconsistent with them". And I think when I saw that again in my humble police officer training I thought that certainly gave me the reassurance I was looking for. But again I'm not a trained legal mind so it may well be it does need more.But just give me one moment I have been handed a note just to see—my advice is that only the travel after the amendment. Making it very clear that specific registered offenders are catered for.James Meager: It's travel after the amendment date?GREG O'CONNOR: Yes yes. It's making sure it's catering for those registered offenders is my advice. Thank you."