Sepuloni Carmel: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8094. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I have got a few different queries about Part 2 of this bill. I am going to start right at the beginning here where it says: “A ‘returning offender’—(a) is a person who has been convicted in an overseas jurisdiction …” and I will not even continue with that because I would just like clarification from the Minister of Justice about what constitutes an overseas jurisdiction. I notice in Part 1 it is defined. It says “ ‘overseas jurisdiction’—(a) excludes the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but (b) includes the self-governing state of the Cook Islands the self-governing state of Niue Tokelau and the Ross Dependency”.I am just a little bit confused because I thought that those were the only islands that made up the Realm of New Zealand. So I am wondering whether the Minister of Justice can clarify that for us. So just again to repeat “overseas jurisdiction”—that definition is a bit confusing because clause 4(1) says “(a) excludes the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but (b) includes the self-governing state of”—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 2.CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes Mr Chair. I am relating it to the fact that a person who is a “returning offender” in Part 2 is someone “who has been convicted in an overseas jurisdiction” and so I am just talking about what the definition of “overseas jurisdiction” is there. But I will leave that to the Minister to ponder and it would be great if she could respond because as I am sure she can imagine we are all a little bit confused by that.I just want to get clarity around what happens with these offenders when they are returned to New Zealand. It does say that a returning offender “is a person who has been convicted in an overseas jurisdiction of an offence for conduct that constitutes an imprisonable offence in New Zealand and being liable for deportation or removal as a result of that conviction”. So looking at that initially I am thinking that they have been deported but are we saying here that they might not necessarily have been deported they may just have been liable for deportation? Because if they had been deported then I would assume that they would be met at the airport by someone here to take over from whomever has escorted them back to New Zealand and in that instance I would think that the identifying particulars that are also talked about in Part 2 could then be gathered at that point rather than leaving it to potentially some time within the first 6 months that they are back in New Zealand.On that subject just in terms of being able to gather those identifying particulars within the first 6 months after the offender has returned to New Zealand I just want clarification from the Minister around the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the police to detain that returning offender. So would that be because they have been taken in under some other charges or they have come under the watch or notice of the police because of some other potential criminal activity or could the police just be informed of the fact that this person is a returning offender and then just show up to their house or their place of work or a mall on the street where they perhaps were and then detain them at that point? I guess I am just trying to work out what the appropriateness of detaining these people within the first 6 months of them returning to New Zealand might be.Looking further down where we see “Storage etc on Police information recording system of identifying particulars” there is one bit that is a little bit concerning. It says: “However photographs or visual images of a returning offender and impressions of that person’s fingerprints palm-prints or footprints that are provided in response to a request under section 9 or obtained under section 11 in error must be destroyed as soon as practicable.” I want to know what situations the Minister envisages where someone’s identifying particulars might be taken in error because this is really specific to returning offenders. Are we saying that there is the potential here for someone to be identified as a returning offender and that actually being mistaken identity—in which case that is why this particular clause is in here: to cover off that particular scenario?I guess I would just like to know from the Minister whether or not there have been situations in the past where these types of things have arisen or whether she can envisage that as being a potential problem down the track. I guess especially in light of the fact that there is a 6-month period to gather that information are we going to potentially see people who are not returning offenders—