Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. Child safety is an absolute priority. We need to protect our young people from sex offenders. Child sexual abuse causes significant and long-lasting harm to the children in our community and to their families. In 2014 alone 451 offenders were convicted of a child sex offence, and 307 were sentenced to imprisonment. The aim of my bill is to amend the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995 to prevent convicted child sex offenders from legally changing their names.

This bill seeks to protect vulnerable members of society from child sex offenders by preventing those individuals convicted of a child sex offence from changing their names. This will ensure that the appropriate agencies can properly manage these offenders to assist in their rehabilitation and to maintain public safety. It will also reassure parents that, along with changes already made by the Government, they can have faith in the vetting of anyone being employed in a job related to children. Parents and children should be able to trust people in positions of responsibility. The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill will enable this. This will prevent other sex offenders from being able to change their names in an attempt to get closer to innocent children. This bill serves an important objective. Victims of sexual abuse are extremely vulnerable and the resultant harm is often very serious and long-lasting.

Sections 21A and 21B of the principal Act provide for the right of eligible persons to register a name change and the procedures for doing so. Section 21 of the principal Act defines “eligible person” as: “a person—(a) whose birth is registered; or (b) who is a New Zealand citizen or is entitled, under the Immigration Act 2009, to be in New Zealand …”. The bill extends the definition of “eligible person” by providing that the term does not include a person who is a child sex offender. The bill defines the term “child sex offender” as: “a person—(a) who has been convicted of a relevant offence; and (b) whose conviction for the relevant offence has not been quashed.” The bill provides that the term “relevant offence” has the same meaning as the term has in section 107B of the Parole Act 2002. The relevant offences listed in that section include a great variety of offences including, for example, sexual violation, incest, murder, manslaughter, acid-throwing, and kidnapping. Some of the offences listed as relevant offences in section 107B apply only to offences against a person below the age of 12 years or 16 years. However, most of the offences listed are general offences applying to persons of any age. I look forward to the select committee input on this bill to meet the objective of preventing convicted child sex offenders from legally changing their names.

My bill dovetails into the National Government’s programme of work aimed at keeping our young people safe from harm. This programme includes a Government bill to establish New Zealand’s first child sex offender register with the aim to reduce the risk posed by child sex offenders. The Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill received its first reading in September and has been referred to the Social Services Committee. I will ask the select committee to consider my bill alongside the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill, and I look forward to working with the committee. The register will provide information to authorise the Police and Department of Corrections staff, which will identify and manage the risk posed by convicted child sex offenders who have come to the end of their sentences, or some who are serving non-custodial sentences. The aim is to have the register established by July 2016.

It is estimated that 472 offenders will be registered in the first year, rising to 1,541 in year 4 when an evaluation will be completed. Registration will apply to offenders convicted in New Zealand and to those who move here following a similar conviction overseas. At the moment offenders can disappear back into communities when they finish a sentence. We want authorities to be able to keep track of them and get information on any change in their circumstances that may increase their risk of reoffending. Last year 294 child sex offenders were released from prison back into the community. The majority of these offenders will have no ongoing contact with justice sector agencies after they complete their sentence or orders, even though their risk of reoffending may be high.

This Government has already gone a long way towards addressing the risks presented by high-risk sexual and violent offenders, with the introduction of public protection orders and the enhancement of extended supervision orders in 2014. In addition, National introduced 24-hour GPS tracking for high-risk child sex offenders. We also have the Centre for Impact on Sexual Offending. Police and corrections staff started working more closely to share information intelligence, resulting in the centre, which profiles child sex offenders who are about to be released from prison or who are serving sentences in the community. Under this Government, we are changing the system.

National legislated the Vulnerable Children Act to protect children from the adults working with them. The Vulnerable Children Act requires State sector agencies that work with children, and the organisations they fund, to have child protection policies in place. They will face a requirement for all paid children’s workers to be safety checked in a consistent way. Also, we have stronger child protection memorandums of understanding with Child, Youth and Family and other agencies, including police, health, and education, and for iwis.

I look forward to the select committee discussion on this bill, as child safety is an absolute priority. We need to protect our young people from sex offenders. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. It is a great pleasure to stand to speak to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the promoter of the bill, Dr Jian Yang, first of all, for the purposes that he has set out, which are very admirable. But the question that I have to ask myself is whether or not this bill is able to deliver on the purposes set out by the member. From my perspective, we also have to ask ourselves whether or not there is any value in sending this bill to a select committee for further consideration.

I can report that we on this side of the House have looked very carefully at this bill, and there are some very concerning things about the way it is drafted—things that mean we have to ask ourselves whether or not we can indeed support this bill to go to a select committee. It is our assessment that, actually, this bill needs to go back to the drafting table to be completely rewritten, and that it would be a waste of the select committee’s time to spend time on this bill. I will set out the reasons why.

We do not think that it meets the standard required for any bill to be considered by a select committee, and I point, first of all, to the report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applied to this bill. There are some very concerning things that the Attorney-General has stated in his report. The very first one is that he has said that he has concluded that “the bill limits the right to freedom of expression affirmed in s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act and that limit cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” That alone would indicate to me that there is a very high threshold for this bill to make it over on that particular part of that report. It actually goes on, and there are many other aspects under each and every part of this report that the Attorney-General states his concern about, and uses language like “it would not meet that” or “merely” meets it, or words to that effect.

One of the areas that drew my attention was where he states that—and I will read the exact words—“Further, an exception could be allowed in cases where prohibition would be manifestly unjust.” Of course, within this bill there are no provisions for an exception to what has been proposed. I got thinking about what kind of exception there might be. Over my time working with my community, with my hapū and iwi, on a number of occasions I have had the situation where a person has been fostered—for want of a better word—out of their family into another family and has assumed the name of that family. They have got themselves into a little bit of trouble, come back home to their hapū and iwi, and have wanted to reconnect with their whānau. That reconnection has played a very important part in their rehabilitation, and part of that, in at least two situations that I know of, was to reclaim their Māori whānau name.

From my perspective and my view of the world, if this was to be prevented in a situation like that, then not only would it be contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but it would also be a breach of that person’s Treaty of Waitangi rights. It is not good enough for us to stand in this House, talk about the settlement of claims, and make really wonderful speeches about how we are going to create a better society for our iwi and hapū through these settlements, and then bring in legislation that potentially impacts on our Treaty rights. That is just not right, and I stand here to say that this is a really important thing for me to address in this House.

In saying that, I can well imagine that some people will say: “Well, what will be the solution?”. I think, as the Attorney-General’s report points out quite clearly, that there are other measures already in place and there are measures—which, I have to acknowledge, the Government is currently pursuing through legislation—that would adequately take care of the situation that this bill purports to be able to deliver on. I think that it is unfortunate in one sense that I am having to address this bill in this way, but we have to be true to, one—in particular—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and, two, the Treaty of Waitangi.

I ask the member Dr Jian Yang—and I listened very carefully to his contribution. He did not once mention the Attorney-General’s report. I think that every single member of Parliament—and I cannot speak for everyone, but I think everyone should actually read this report, in all seriousness, if we are to have the best legislation for this country to address an issue that has impacted on all communities in this country. Because I know, and I am not speaking because I have read something—I am speaking because I have been part of my hapū and part of my iwi and have actually had to deal with these issues, and they are really difficult issues to deal with. I think, from the value base that our hapū and iwi come from, this particular bill will impact quite negatively on them.

I think that a better way forward would be to look again at these particular issues within this report, and, as I say, come up with a better way forward. I am not convinced, actually, that there is any need for legislation to prevent people from changing their names. Surely the register that is currently being promoted would adequately deal with that issue. There are also, in relation to that, a number of other ways in which we can ensure that the safety of our children and young people is preserved. So I stand here before the House and say that Labour will not be supporting this bill. We will be voting against this bill, not because of the purpose of the bill but because it just cannot deliver on the purpose of the bill. Nō reira, e mihi kau ana ki Te Whare e tū ake nei, oti noa, ki te mema e whakatū ana i tēnei pire, ahakoa taku kōrero ka mi’i ake ki ngā whakaaro kei roto i tēnei pire.

[And so I really compliment the House standing here before me, but at the same time I say to the member who proposed this bill that despite my address I do acknowledge the ideas in it.]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I like to go into Te Reo Māori when people are not making sense in English on the other side. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak on this bill, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill in the name of Dr Jian Yang. First of all, I would like to congratulate Dr Jian Yang, promoter of this bill, on bringing up this very important legislation to this House. I think this is in accordance with what this Government has been doing for the last 7 years to make our community safe. This bill, as Dr Jian Yang said in his speech and in his press release, is to protect children from child sex offenders and keep them safe in our communities. You will remember that a little while ago there was an incident where a teacher who changed his name—and changed it not once, but a few times—went into the teaching profession. He was again caught doing some kind of offence, and he was arrested. That is why we need to have a register where we can see that anybody who has been convicted of child sex offences should not be in this profession. Police vetting is very important in this; that is why we have got this provision where every teacher goes through the vetting process, and anybody who is admitted into any profession that relates to children should go through the vetting.

This bill is part of what the Government has been doing from time to time. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995 to prevent convicted child sex offenders from legally changing their name. In this bill the main provision is to amend the definitions used in sections 21A and 21B of the Act, which provide the right of an eligible person to register a name change and the procedure for doing so. What Dr Jian Yang is proposing is that whosoever is convicted of a relevant offence should not be allowed to change their name, so that he should not get into that profession that is related to any child or any school, so that we can protect them. Vulnerables are to be protected, and I think this bill will do the right thing.

Talking about what the previous speaker from the Labour Party, Adrian Rurawhe, just mentioned—that this bill is irrelevant, or will not do anything—I would like to remind him that today one of his colleagues, Stuart Nash, asked the Minister of Police, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, about what is happening with sex offending in this country. The question was “Is it acceptable?”, and the Minister said it was not at all acceptable. We are working hard to ensure that this community is safe.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: So bring legislation to the House that would actually do something.

Yes, we are doing that. That is what he was trying to tell you, and you were not trying to listen and your colleagues were not trying to listen to what he was trying to tell you. It is very important that something should be done, and I commend—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes—something useful.

It is very useful. Let it happen. You will see what is going to happen out of it. Before it is even happening you are disparaging this legislation. I think this is irrelevant. This is totally ironic considering what this Government is trying to do, and those members are trying to stop us. I would like to once again congratulate Dr Jian Yang on bringing this bill to the House, and I commend this bill. Thank you.

Can I begin by reiterating our Labour colleagues’ comments—we support the intention of this legislation. All of us want our children to be safe. We do need to ensure their security and well-being. Sadly, also in common with our Labour colleagues, we do not see sufficient substance in this bill to suggest that it would contribute to child safety.

The bill itself is short—to the point, to say the least. Bills Digest No. 2292 does not offer much more in the way of evidence or argumentation as to exactly how preventing people from changing their names would actually contribute to child safety in the long run. The only evidence we are pointed to, if you can call it that, is a newspaper article from a month or two ago, when the bill was drawn, which references, as has been noted, the one instance of a fellow—a thoroughly unpleasant fellow, by the look of it—who managed to get work at schools in Northland despite having a history of sex offending and despite having a supervision order out against him. He did that, we are told, by using a fake CV and a fake birth certificate. I see nothing in this bill—this notion of preventing people from legally changing their names—that would prevent somebody from breaking the law in that way. Sadly we had—yes, so I will not go into people using birth certificates badly; that is irrelevant. But there is nothing in this legislation that would prevent the sort of wrongdoing that this fellow used to get himself into that position, where he ought never to have been.

The point is also made that he adopted various aliases. Again, the legislation might prevent somebody from legally changing their name, but it would do nothing to stop them using aliases or other forms of false identity that would enable them to avoid and evade any controls on their behaviour. The bill goes beyond that.

Unfortunately, the drafting of the bill is such that not only sex offenders would be captured by it. It references section 107B of the Parole Act, which includes a large number of offences, including violent offences and murder—a whole host of things—but it also deals with indecent assault. It is entirely conceivable that under this bill a very low-level incident of indecent assault could put somebody into the basket that would prevent them from ever changing their name. Indecent assault is not a minor matter, but there are levels of offending. A young man in a bar, too much to drink, lays hands on a woman without her consent, and he is rightly convicted of an indecent assault. In the cold light of day, sobered up, he thinks better of it, and does not behave in that way again in his life. However, under the legislation proposed here that young man would be for ever prevented from changing his name legally, for whatever reason he might choose to do so.

There is a raft of examples like that. The proposer of the bill did identify that there are a large number of offences under section 107B of the Parole Act that have no relation to children, or indeed sexual offending—and yet, according to the drafting of this, anybody convicted of those would be captured by it, which makes me wonder at the disjunct between the name and the declared purpose of the bill, and the actual effect of it, if it did come into law.

We do have on the books a lot of alternative means of seeking to manage people who are of some risk to the community—child sex offenders. We do have public protection orders, extended supervision orders, and preventive detention at the most extreme end.

This bill could actually be quite dangerous, in that sometimes people do offend, they see the light, they turn their lives round, and they seek to put their past behind them. Sometimes changing a name is a means of doing that. We heard this morning, in submissions on the proposed child sex offenders register, that so-called naming and shaming often is counter-productive, in that it might cause more offending rather than reduce the likelihood of offending. Preventing people from putting their past behind them could be entirely counter-productive in this context too.

We see good intentions in this bill. We see a very poorly drafted bill. We see very little likelihood of it actually having any beneficial effect, so, regrettably, we cannot support it.

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill in the name of Dr Jian Yang. I just want to commend the member for bringing this bill to the House. I do not think, for one minute, that anybody expects this to be a silver bullet for preventing sex offenders from committing crimes against vulnerable children, but it is part of a suite of reforms that have been taking place over the past 6 to 9 years. It is an important part of that. I think it is a bit funny for the Opposition not to support a piece of legislation that prevents sex offenders from reoffending and reoffending again. It is not the first time that they have been on the wrong side of a particular piece of legislation that puts vulnerable New Zealanders first, and, I am sad to say, it will not be the last.

With regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which the Labour Party is hanging its non-support of this bill on—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Did you read it?

Yes, I have. It is actually a fine balance between either supporting vulnerable children and providing for their ability to go through life with relevant agencies and their families having access to information that could put them in harm’s way or else balancing the needs of people who have actually made a decision, who have offended against children, and who have made those choices for themselves, around their access to privacy. I think that if you are going to make such a move against a vulnerable child, or any New Zealander, in such a way, you lose part of that liberty.

What we need to be focused on is how we prevent these people from falling into this position of reoffending. Part of it is by preventing them from changing their names. What is the motivation for changing their names? Yes, there are a lot of people in that situation who have probably been rehabilitated. They want to get on with their life, and they do not want to have this scar on their CV or on their life going forward, but there are others who want to be able to reoffend again. I do not think we can be naive, looking at the fact that there are some people who will use this as a loophole—an opportunity to reoffend.

I was working in the office of the Minister of Education at the time when the ministerial inquiry into the sex offenders in schools was launched—it was a few weeks after the Minister became the Minister of Education. You would be surprised at the number of sex offenders in our schools and across this country. There are over 50,000 people who work in the education sector, and there are a lot of people who are in the position where their names come up again. We have heard a number of examples today of people who have been in that position, who have offended in schools once, and they have offended again. It is not just schools. What we are trying to do, though, is to add to the suite of policies that prevent people from reoffending, to prevent the likelihood and the ability for them to reoffend, and also to protect vulnerable children, because that is what it is all about.

We know that in 2014 there were 451 offenders convicted of a child sex offence; 307 of those were sentenced to imprisonment. Last year there were 294 sex offenders who were released back into the community. There is a good chance that most of those will probably not offend again, but how do I know? How do you know? How does anybody know which of those offenders are likely to reoffend, or which ones are not going to reoffend? Most of them have probably undergone some form of rehabilitation while they have been in prison. Who knows to what extent that has worked, but it is down to the individual who is being released into the community. We simply do not know that. The fact is that we cannot be putting these people back into the community, with the best will in the world, without knowing for a fact that they are not going to reoffend again. It is simply not good enough to say: “Oh, well, they’ve undergone some form of rehabilitation. They’ve said they’re not going to reoffend. We trust them. We’ll just let them loose into our community.” It could be my neighbour. It could be your neighbour, Mr Deputy Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not drag me into it.

That is the point, I think. We need to have a level of security and safety in our communities. That is what this piece of legislation does. It adds to that. It is not the silver bullet, but it is part of a wide and impressive suite of reforms that have taken place over the past 6 years. So I would like to congratulate the member and look forward to following this bill through a successful passage through the House.

Debate interrupted.