Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 40, “Amendments to Parts 1 and 2”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister of Police, I guess, for his advice. But also to clarify that I’ve got three tabled amendments on this bill—two of which I will speak to in this part, one of which will be part of a later part. But I will speak to my first amendment because one of the things that we have seen in the context of this bill is the Attorney-General’s section 7 report in terms of consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The three amendments I have drafted here are hopefully done in a way that is consistent with the purpose of this bill, while also moving towards consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The first one I would like to address is on clause 15. This is to do with the section 20 replaced and this is specifically in reference to section 20. One of the things that we do see that is being changed in terms of this is the reporting requirements from the existing bill and the existing registry around the fact that the registerable offender must report any anticipated change—and this includes having a relative with children arriving at their place of residence—at least 48 hours before.

However, one of the things that we note—and this is something that has been alluded to in the Attorney-General’s report as well—is this severely limits the ability for close relatives with children to spontaneously visit the registerable offender, even if the kids are supervised the whole time, which has the adverse effects to both isolation of the registerable offender and also being an impediment to their rehabilitation. Our amendment, on one hand, would say that rather than saying “at least 48 hours before”, it’s “as soon as reasonably practicable but no more than 24 hours after”, which still has the requirement of reporting, but it allows certain instances where there’s spontaneous visits. In this case, it does also, in some ways, limit in terms of the current legislation of 72 hours. So it’s, in some ways, a more restrictive approach as well.

However, just also wanting to check—drawing the Minister’s attention to the replacement of section 20(4)(b). If the interpretation of that and the prevalence of (4)(b) allows for those kind of spontaneous visits anyway, then potentially it is already consistent with my tabled amendment, but I would like to seek the Minister’s advice on that.

I guess the two questions, then, would be: would the Minister consider my amendment, which is done in a way that still fulfils the purpose of the bill but moves it towards a more consistent way? And also: if the Minister doesn’t, then would the Minister clarify if what I’m proposing in this amendment is already covered under section 20(4)(b) of the legislation?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, I’m interested to know a little bit more in and around the name suppression. We’ve had some quite good information come through the select committee in terms of the amendments to the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act, and there’s been some very good points in terms of tightening up those requirements and making sure they’re compliant overall.

I’m interested to hear from the Minister of Police as to what was identified as those gaps and weaknesses. We know that the sex offender register has been operating reasonably effectively. There are no reports of there being any issues. But the main purpose of these changes has really been to enable a tightening-up of any lags and of any alerts in order to prevent children or young people being subjected to any unnecessary risks.

I also understand that one of the ways that this is happening is that there will be less of a reliance on postal notification and a higher ability to be able to use email in terms of transferring information. Coming with email, I’m just interested to know if there’s been any analysis done on what happens if it’s not received. We know that there’s a lot of spam these days in our email boxes. This is quite important information that’s going to be conveyed back and forth, and I’m just really wanting to know what types of verification, in terms of email address, and what types of assurances the Minister has had that if you’re giving this type of heavy information, via email, that has an impact on when people are being notified about quite sensitive and really important information, how has he been informed that this will be ensuring that the information reaches the designated person?

I’ve also got an additional question. I noted in the regulatory impact statement that the paper proposes technical or minor amendments to the existing Act, and it doesn’t alter the policy intent legislation or the implications for the Treaty of Waitangi. I do note there’s been a general trend under this Government to remove Treaty of Waitangi references, and I’m wondering how this one squeaked through. The amendments will not significantly alter the existing impact of the legislation for registered offenders who are Māori, but there are no implications there at all. So I’m wondering if there’s been any other advice received, specifically on the implications that come under the Treaty of Waitangi, noting that it’s recognised that some of the required personal information provided by a Māori individual on the register must be treated as taonga and the personal information relates to a person’s whakapapa. It also notes that mātauranga Māori is not generally considered to be owned by the individual concerned but held by them as a kaitiaki on behalf of past, current, and future generations. It’s nice to see that those provisions have remained. I’m just wondering—there are other pieces of legislation that we’ve discussed recently, in other areas, that haven’t left those parts with Treaty of Waitangi implications with them. I just wonder if he’d had responses as to why they’d remained here.

It’s also important to note that there will always be a retrospective part, I understand, to this legislation, and I’m really interested to know if there’s been any additional information that the Minister received in and around implications to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We know that, by introducing these changes, they not only apply to those offenders who are yet to be registered on the sex offender register but also to all of those who are already on the sex offender register. And so it would be really interesting to know if the Minister had any additional advice as to any potential legal challenges that he may foresee coming as a consequence of this or whether he’s had adequate information and advice to think that that’s not a risk for this piece of legislation.

I’d just like to wrap up. So the questions I had for the Minister were to get down to the email delivery and, secondly, the implications under the Treaty of Waitangi and then, thirdly, the retrospective provisions that are entailed within this legislation.

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. I just have to clarify now what we are going to be talking to. The question is now that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3