SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Oh look I thank the member for his always considered probing into the way in which we're making law and particularly when it rubs up against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and these significantly important constitutional questions. I've got four questions; let's see where we go. So just look on the process I think always when we are legislating under urgency and particularly when there is this rub up between these constitutional questions the interplay of comity the interplay of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act there is a discomfort. That said I think you know it's all about making judgment calls right?So the tipping factor in terms of—process was jolted a little bit in a couple of ways. This case was heard early in 2022. The judgment was released in that third week of December after the Parliament had lifted and that required an urgent application for a stay on the impacts of that decision because you had the Department of Corrections in a position where effectively any conditions that were imposed or any obligations that they had with any of the returnees would be inoperational and therefore unlawful. Ordinarily we would've brought that issue directly back to the Parliament so that we could clarify pretty swiftly what Parliament's intent was in 2015 when the regime was originally passed. We didn't have that luxury because Parliament wasn't sitting; this is that first available opportunity. But I think because we are only going so far as to restate what I think this Parliament considered the law already was on those bigger issues where we would usually probe more we've decided that we're falling on the fact that public safety in this circumstance—and it is very much this circumstance—trumps. So that's to those process issues.On the questions around new section 3B(5) inserted by clause 4—so the wording for the benefit of the record is: This section overrides any inconsistent other law." Directly following that is new section 3B(6) and it specifies that for the purposes of subsection (5) for any other law for the purposes of subsection (5)—and it specifically references three provisions or three elements: section 6(1) and (2) of the Sentencing Act sections 25(g) and 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and G v Commissioner of Police [2022]. That's really specifically targeted towards the common law elements which arise out of each of these to specifically address where there may be any inconsistencies. So that's for the purpose of clarity and going to the honourable member Simon O'Connor's point for express—express—clarity of what the Parliament's intent was.I'm going to come to your question four about what a penalty is and how we understand a penalty and how the courts have been interpreting "penalty". There's been an issue—I was just going through some of the case law earlier. There's a body of case law now which the range of additional restrictions imposed on an offender now constitutes a penalty for a broad range of purposes. In Davies v R in the Court of Appeal in 2012 it was held that the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment by the sentencing court had been found to independently constitute a penalty. Outside of sentences of imprisonment the imposition of an extended supervision order under the Parole Act 2002 that constituted a penalty. There is a series of decisions on that commencing—basically anyway it went right up until 2002. From the original imposition of a sentence until the case under appeal the Supreme Court has held a court order placing a person on the child sex offender register under the Child Protection Act is a penalty. So the courts have read more and more into extending any condition to become a penalty and I think that's where we're finding ourselves currently.One of the things that you originally posed was whether or not there could be some type of review I think you said "post enactment" into the review; it might be the scheme more generally. I don't have any opposition to that. I think what we needed in the emergency interim was just a real clarity of law so that the departments charged with custody or supervision or other obligations to those currently in New Zealand and those that were coming in—that they could continue with their ability to do so.But with respect to a broader look into these areas—I mean if there's a case to be made I really genuinely am not opposed to it because I think there probably are—if more challenges are presented to us I think that that's certainly something whether you do it through a review or otherwise. Yeah—I think I've got to your four questions.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members with apologies to the member but the committee is suspended and will resume at 9 a.m. in the morning. Mā te wā.Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)"