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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to ask—it does stretch a few provisions—about the times that have been chosen for notification. I can see that, if you have a child that is coming to the house, there is a time frame that has been chosen, of two days, and then there is another time frame that has been chosen if you are leaving the country, in terms of notification. I would like to know from the Minister of Police how those times were chosen, and how robust are they, really? I can see there has been quite a lot of consultation with various groups as part of the review, so it is a work in progress, but I wondered how those particular times had come to be the picked amount.

I would also like to know a little bit more—we have got a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue, but there has been a decision that this is a proportionate response. I wondered whether the Minister could actually just talk about the nature of that balancing act and why, in this situation, we have decided that this is a proportionate response. It’s fairly obvious that it’s about the impact and the risk to children, so I think it would be good for the public if there was an elaboration on that point. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, firstly, I just want to say that it’s nice to see that, as a committee, there is broad support for the bill, because what we’re trying to achieve is protecting our most vulnerable, and that’s our kids. To the doctor from the Green Party in relation to his tabled amendments, in relation to the tabled amendment relating to clause 11, where a registrable offender is reporting information in good faith, they’ll be complying with their obligations under the Act and will not commit an offence. The register works closely with registrable offenders to help them comply with their requirements. It is only when a registrable offender knowingly provides false or misleading information that they may be charged. This amendment is not required, but thank you for raising it and thank you for taking the time and effort to actually try and improve the bill.

The second amendment, relating to clause 15: the purpose of this amendment is to provide better protection for children and young people. This amendment already provides an exception where it is not practical or possible in the circumstances within the 48 hours before resigning. That one also is not required.

In relation to the issues that were raised by the Hon Ginny Andersen around the email, of course the changes that have been made to the bill need to modernise and reflect the fact that, you know, there are more efficient communication systems available now, which includes email. That is why it has been put in the bill. I’ll get more information if I can around it, but I’d expect that that email system, like any Government email system that requires reporting, will have robust processes around it to make sure that information is received.

In relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, well, that’s not really an issue, is it, because it’s there in the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the main thing I’d really like the Minister of Police to address head on is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act stuff, because you have got a report from the Attorney-General that says that this bill is not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The main reason for that is that this sex offender register and reporting requirement is seen as part of the kind of sentencing process and part of the punishment. There’s a pretty general rule, and it’s pretty common sense, that Parliament doesn’t change punishments retrospectively for sentences that have already been handed down.

Now, we know that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is not absolute. It says there in the bill itself that where it’s justified in a free and democratic society that limitations to those rights, including the right against double jeopardy and retrospective penalties exist. But it’s got to be a pretty high bar. Now, I guess I’m asking for more than just a reassurance, a commitment from the Minister, if you like. The police have come and said, “Look, this sex offender register genuinely keeps children safe.” Overseas studies have said, “Look, this is just making communities feel safe. It doesn’t actually have the effect of reducing child sex offending.” And that’s a concern, right? It’s even worse to feel safe when it’s not having the effect desired: not only is it an unnecessary restriction on freedom but it’s giving a false sense of security.

So I guess, Minister, I’m really inviting you to stand up and address front-on this issue and, you know, give us a reassurance that the work that the police are doing on actually assessing whether the Child Sex Offender Register is implemented and operated in New Zealand is effective, and that there are, you know, fewer incidents than there would otherwise be.

Look, I don’t think—I’ll sit down at this point because that’s my question in a nutshell, and I won’t drag it out. But I would appreciate it if you stand up and just say, “Look, yes, the Attorney-General’s report says it’s in breach, but this Parliament wants to proceed in the face of that because … and in the future, we will continue to monitor this New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue.”

Well, I can accommodate the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb and say that, yes, the bill has attracted a section 7 report from the Attorney-General which is consistent with every bill of this nature—attracting a section 7 report. The reality of it is this: sometimes legislation in this House will attract a section 7 report, because we decide that sometimes people have to give up some rights to protect others. In this case, we’re deciding that child sex offenders are going to have to forfeit a couple of rights to make sure that we protect our kids.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the spirit of exchange, I fear that the Minister of Police has fallen into a trap, because it’s very easy to accord human rights to people who aren’t criminals, and it’s very easy to take them away because they are criminals. But one of the hallmarks of a civilised, democratic society is that human rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights are accorded to everyone. I’m a little alarmed that the Minister just stood up and said, “Well, these people are sex offenders, so we took rights away from them.” Sure, you can take liberty away from them—that’s what sentencing does—but the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sets out a framework which says, “Look, be very careful.”, and I actually invited the Minister to not just stand up and say, “We don’t like these criminals, so we’re taking away their rights.”, but to give a reasoned justification for the retrospective nature of these penalties and for increasing the penalty that a previous court had imposed by changing the law under their feet.

Now, we’re supporting this bill. I’m actually trying to give the Minister an opportunity to stand up and say, “Look, we’re convinced that children are better protected by this.”, and I’m asking you whether you will continue and endorse the police’s continued work to assess and improve this system, to show that it doesn’t fall into the trap of overseas systems which impose restraints on sex offenders but no with benefit to children?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think with what I was about to contribute as well, I think the Minister of Police may be able to tie it all together into a response.

I’m going to say thank you to the Minister for addressing some of my amendments, but I think the one on clause 11, it does deserve some sort of fleshing out because I agree with the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, around the section 7 report being of a quite serious nature. Because sometimes the Government—any Government—or this House introduces legislation that does limit rights, which is what section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is supposed to do—it looks at things on balance, whether the right is meant to be or is ought to or is justifiable in terms of being limited. But in this case, it was considered by the Attorney-General that it wasn’t. One of the things, as we see from a previous ruling in terms of D v Police, is around the fact that section 25(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is considered a fundamental right in terms of not having lesser punishment.

I was really reassured by what the Minister said in terms of that the punishment or any consequences, in terms of the relevant personal information, would only be for on the registerable offender if it was deliberately misleading or giving wrong information. I think that’s actually really reassuring.

I guess, in the context of this, one of the things we’re looking at is under section 35 of the principal Act, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, it sets out different lengths that a person is meant to be on the register, which is in brackets of eight years, 15 years, and lifetime, and for someone to be having to do all of these—which is understandably important, but also very bureaucratic in some ways of having more reporting requirements on very specific details—the concern that would be highlighted by the Attorney-General is on the onerous nature of that reporting. So part of my amendment was around possibly what the Minister has clarified already, that in some ways we do take a benefit of the doubt that people genuinely want to do the best they can in terms of the register and give as accurate information as possible. But sometimes they may not fill out a form correctly because people make mistakes and that’s sometimes OK.

What I want to check, then, with the Minister is sort of the broader idea that, with the additional requirement to the reporting, would we be looking at a comparable amount of resources that are going into supporting people on how they can register their relevant personal information in the best way possible without having some of those—you know, like potentially missing out on certain information?

I guess the checks and balances there for me are: what additional resource does the Minister expect to support the rehabilitation effort of people when they genuinely want to put in that information, and how they can best fill out the form in a way—or report on these details or register this information in the most accurate way?

Yeah, I’d just like to read into the Hansard around the issue around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because it is an important issue. Of course, we try as parliamentarians, as a Parliament, and as an executive to be as compliant as we can to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But the fact of the matter is this: as part of an organised society, you have got responsibilities. If you don’t meet those responsibilities or you decide that you’re going to offend, especially against the most vulnerable part of their community, then, actually, the consequence of that is, sometimes, you lose some rights.

The retrospective application of the administrative amendments is necessary to ensure that the information needed to effectively protect children from harmful sexual behaviour can be collected from the over 4,000 registered offenders currently on the register. Of current registered offenders, 66 percent will remain on the register for life. Without ensuring that the new provisions are retrospective, registry staff would be unable to identify or manage the risks presented by one group of registered offenders to the same extent as the risk presented by the other group, even though those risks might be comparable.

For example, an existing registerable offender will not be required to notify registry staff of the presence and details of a child living at their address until 72 hours after they have arrived. In contrast, registerable offenders placed on the register after the commencement of this bill will be required to report this information at least 48 hours before the child arrives. Exempting this considerably large and stable cohort from these new requirements would reduce the effectiveness of the risk-management approach, and that is why this approach has been taken in the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that explanation from the Minister of Police around the retrospectivity, which does clear up one of my amendments and I acknowledge the position that the Minister has taken. I just want to clarify, if the Minister could answer my question, the support for registrable offender in this case, under the new requirements under clause 11 of this bill, that “Section 16 and cross-heading above section 16 replaced”. Because of the fact that there are now more requirements, is there going to be equitable or improved access to support to ensure that those registrable offenders understand fully when and how they are going to be able to register the new requirements for the relevant person information?

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clauses 11, 14, and 15 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 20, amending subsections (2) and (4) and the heading be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.