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

I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Government wants to reduce the harm to children from sexual offending. This bill updates and clarifies the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. That Act established a register to reduce sexual offending against child victims and reduce the risk posed by serious child sex offenders living in our communities. The bill seeks to make some improvements to the Act to ensure that we’re doing everything possible to keep children in our communities safe from harmful sexual behaviour. The bill has been considered by the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee, its diligent consideration of the bill, and those who made submissions to the committee. As emphasised by the submitters on this bill, child sexual abuse is a serious problem in New Zealand. It causes significant and long-lasting harm to the child victims in our community and also to their families.

The bill will help manage the risk to children. This bill will improve the effectiveness of the Child Sex Offender Register and will help registry staff manage the risks presented by child sex offenders living in the community. A number of the amendments will require offenders to provide additional personal information, in particular about their location and activities, as well as their likelihood of contact with children. Other amendments will make it easier for offenders to comply with reporting obligations—for example, by being able to report changes to their information by phone. These changes will support Police and the Department of Corrections to keep children safe from harmful sexual offenders.

The bill makes a number of amendments to the Act. The bill will require offenders to report additional personal information to help inform risk management approaches; require some information to be provided within different time frames, to better enable registry staff to manage and monitor risk; and, most importantly, require offenders to report that a child is going to be living at the same address as them 48 hours before this occurs, rather than the 72 hours after; and provide registry staff more time to make the necessary international notifications and border alerts. It makes it easier for registry staff to contact the principal caregiver if it is necessary to make a disclosure about an offender who may pose a risk. It makes it easier for offenders to comply with reporting obligations. The new reporting requirements and changes in reporting time frames will create additional obligations on offenders currently on the register. The bill also improves the clarity of the Act and updates it to reflect evolving technology and address several gaps.

A key change in the bill is the addition of seven qualifying offences to the Act. Most notably, the bill adds seven additional qualifying offences. These are offences that cause an offender to be placed on the register. The seven additional offences are four Prostitution Reform Act 2003 offences, which were unintended emissions from the original Act; two Crimes Act 1961 offences; and one Customs and Excise Act 2018 offence. These offences have been added because they align with offences already covered by the Act. While this bill is largely technical, it will deliver practical improvements to further support the protection of our children. Taken together, these amendments will keep children safe from harmful sexual behaviour, balance individual rights with additional reporting requirements, and make it easier for offenders to comply with the Act.

Two key themes were considered by the Justice Committee: the retrospective application of the bill, and the effectiveness of the register. I want to acknowledge that several submitters were concerned about the retrospective nature of the bill. The Attorney-General presented a report on this bill pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, advising that she considered the bill as introduced was inconsistent with section 25(g) of that Act, which is the right to benefit from a lesser penalty where penalties change, and with section 26(2), which includes the right not to be subject to retrospective penalties. I note that section 7 reports were also presented by previous Attorneys-General for the principal Act and when previous amendments to the Act were passed.

I consider the bill goes some way to addressing these concerns. To start with, the seven additional qualifying offences will not apply with retrospective effect. They will only apply if a person commits one or more of the additional qualifying offences on or after the date the bill commences. In addition, while the administrative changes being made through the bill will have retrospective application, they will only have retrospective effect to existing offenders from the point at which the bill comes into force. Offenders will only be required to report current information—for example, current voluntary work being undertaken, but not a list of all voluntary work undertaken since registration. Retrospective application of the administrative changes will ensure that the necessary information can be collected from the over 4,000 offenders currently on the register, 66 percent of whom will remain on the register for life. This will support the register’s ability to manage the risk of offenders reoffending, therefore providing greater protection for children from harmful sexual behaviour. Collecting this information supports the purpose of the bill, which is to improve the safety of children and young people in our community.

Some submitters expressed concerns about the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of sex offender registers, both in New Zealand and internationally. This issue has been raised previously, both in the development of the principal Act and through subsequent amendments. Evidence from overseas jurisdictions has indicated that sex offender registers have no or very little impact on child sex reoffending rates or public safety unless they are supported by an active risk management framework. The New Zealand register is complemented by a risk management framework. Case managers assess the level of reoffending risk each offender poses. This risk assessment helps case managers to determine what sort of preventative action can support the offender to live offence-free. Additionally, initial findings from research commissioned by Police indicates that the New Zealand register is achieving a 40 percent to 70 percent reduction in the likelihood of recidivism. This provides tentative support for the proactive case management and risk management approach being used in New Zealand to manage child sex offenders living in the community.

This bill is another example of this Government’s focus on law and order. The bill represents a careful balance that recognises the right of the community to be protected from child sex offenders as well as the rights of the offenders themselves. It is also a reminder that our focus on reducing crime is about reducing harm—in this instance, preventing harm to children. I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you to the Minister, who seems to have changed allegiances party-wise from where he’s sitting, but you never know. Look, we support this bill, and it’s actually a really good example. I want to make some comments and notes and reservations, but it’s a good example of good justice policy because it is looking at risk and taking all reasonable steps to ameliorate it. It’s not waiting for a disaster to happen and waiting for crime to occur. It’s identifying—admittedly through prior behaviour, but identifying—that there are people out there who are at risk and is taking a fairly careful approach to how we can manage that risk and—I think, roughly in the Minister’s own words—assist that person in managing their lives in a way which doesn’t put them in a risky situation for further offending.

That is exactly what we should be doing in terms of reducing crime, because sex offending, along with other crimes, is a good example where the threat of going to prison is not a deterrent, because these people are broken, in a sense. However, if you say, “Let’s make sure we don’t put these people in a situation where they are around young people or”, if their offending was electronic, “where they’re given access to unmonitored electronic devices.” In general, the offenders are grateful for that, because whilst they have these predilections, they don’t actually want to be offenders; they want to buy into a framework where they can protect themselves and others from themselves. So that’s why we support this bill.

I note the Minister’s useful discussion of the Attorney-General’s section 7 report, and the Attorney-General did come out and say that this was not compliant and it was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because of, largely, the retrospectivity point that people who have previously been sentenced will now have great impositions on them. There’s a few things I would say about that. Firstly, the additional impositions are slightly more extensive—things like having to give greater notice that a child is going to be residing at an address; 72 hours as opposed to 48 hours. It is a more onerous obligation, but it’s an obligation of the same kind. It’s not a massive change. Or there’s additional greater notice of when you’re travelling overseas. Again, it is more onerous, but it’s a change in degree rather than a change in kind.

The other thing is this, and this is where I differ a little from the Attorney-General because these are seen, by the Attorney-General in her analysis and the analysis that her team did, as a punishment, and whilst I accept that it’s an incursion into liberty, I actually don’t see it as a punishment. I see it as a protective step where you’re assisting the offender in managing their lifestyle. Perhaps that’s not a black and white thing. Perhaps there’s a more nuanced way to view it. But if we think of steps which are purely punitive—we’re only doing it to punish; you can think of pure imprisonment, imprisonment in a cold cell; that’s pure punishment; there’s no good coming out of that—through to a rehabilitated programme where it’s very helpful. Well, this sits further down that end. It’s compulsory, but it’s down that end of the spectrum. So I think when we come to do that balancing exercise—and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does ask us to balance it—whether the incursion into liberty and whether the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act breach is justified in a free and democratic society, I tend towards recognising that the harm is modest. The negative aspect of this retrospective imposition is modest.

As the Minister also said, the committee was very keen to understand how effective this was. Certainly, I brought, as I’m known to do, a high degree of scepticism to the committee around the effectiveness of the child sex offender register, because I had understood, from international sources, that these things were an imposition but, in fact they didn’t do much, and that there was no statistical difference between monitored offenders reoffending and people who weren’t monitored reoffending. It was reassuring to me to be told that, whilst the data and the studies aren’t absolutely robust at this stage, there was very promising evidence that this kind of intervention had a genuine reduction in offending and, consequently, a reduction in the numbers of victims. So, when I took together the fact that I see this to have a low punitive element and that they’re changes in degree rather than kind of the impositions and also that there was a significant degree of effectiveness in statistical terms, I was prepared to back this, notwithstanding the Attorney-General’s opinion. I must say, I do respect the Attorney-General’s opinion, and I know that it’s well-thought-out and that her team in justice do a good job of that analysis.

I guess the other thing just to note is that there are some good things in here as well, because it is important that the system works well. It was getting a little outdated. Things like email notifications by the offender are making it actually easier to comply, because I think it’s really important. We don’t want to come down heavily and say, “Well, you know, you’ve got to turn up to the police station in person and tell us this.”, when all you really need is an email. That’s a good change, because it means compliance is much more likely. And if it’s much more likely, then it’ll be much more effective. Good on the New Zealand Police for taking an approach where they see what works and they build on it. We’ve got a protective set of steps here that, actually, could be a model—I’m not saying we can’t improve it; I’m sure we can. But what I am saying is, perhaps, we should learn from this and start thinking about where else in the justice sector we can use interventions which identify risk and intervene before the event rather than after the event. So that’s why we’re pleased to support this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, which has returned from the Justice Committee, and I was able to be part of the whole process there. This bill seeks to amend the 2016 principal Act by enhancing reporting requirements for registered child sex offenders, updating provisions to align with technological changes, and ensuring agencies can better manage risk in our communities.

First, I want to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue we are discussing today. Child sexual abuse has devastating and lifelong impacts, not only for the individual but also for their whānau and their communities. It’s essential that we can continually evaluate and strengthen our frameworks to minimise the risks and ensure that our laws are fit for purpose. Preventing child sex abuse and ensuring the protection and safety of children is necessary and urgent in our work here in Parliament.

The changes proposed by this bill focus on several key areas, including tightening reporting time lines. These include requiring offenders to report 48 hours before a child resides at their address, rather than the 72 hours after, which it is currently; providing advance notice of overseas travel at least seven days before departure; and reporting their return to New Zealand within 72 hours, rather than the previous 10-day period. These amendments aim to ensure that agencies can track and assess potential risks in a more timely and effective manner.

Another significant aspect of this bill is the expansion of qualifying offences in Schedule 2 of the principal Act. The inclusion of offences related to making intimate visual recordings, commercial sexual exploitation, and objectionable publications reflects the evolving understanding of harm and acknowledges the ways in which digital platforms can be weaponised for exploitation.

I was involved throughout the whole select committee process, and we received 22 submissions and heard from five oral submitters. One of the key things that was raised in submissions was whether the register itself is an effective tool for preventing reoffending. As noted in the committee’s report, a 2019 evaluation of the register and the associated risk management framework found that they were broadly performing as intended. However, submitters called for further scrutiny, particularly regarding whether the register actually reduces recidivism rates. While preliminary findings from PhD research commissioned by the Police indicate that the register may reduce the likelihood of reoffending by 40 to 70 percent, the final findings will not be published until 2026. Further longitudinal study on recidivism is not due for interim reporting until 2027. These ongoing studies highlight the need for robust, evidence-based policy-making that evaluates the effectiveness of legislative interventions over time.

One of the more contentious aspects of the bill is its retrospective application. The bill would impose additional reporting requirements on offenders who are already registered, rather than applying only to those convicted after the bill’s commencement. The Attorney-General, in a report presented to the House, has determined that this aspect of the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990—the NZBORA. Specifically, it conflicts with section 26(2), which protects against double jeopardy, and section 25G, which affirms the right to the lesser penalty when penalties change. The key question for this House is whether we as legislators think this conflict with the NZBORA is justified. The Attorney-General did not, and it’s important that we consider this advice really carefully.

Retrospective laws always demand careful scrutiny. The principle of non-retroactivity exists to protect individuals from laws that unfairly penalise them from past actions. However, this bill’s advocates argue that without retrospective application there would be two different sets of reporting requirements, one for those already on the register and another for the new registrants. They contend that this inconsistency could create operational difficulties and gaps in risk management. However, some have stated that the argument is not compelling, pointing out that varying levels of supervision and reporting requirements already exist in the justice system, such as with bail conditions. There is a clear conflict in retrospective laws that can threaten legal certainty and rights, but supporters argue that they are necessary to protect children. As policy makers, we must carefully consider that balance, ensuring that legislative measures are both effective and consistent with our legal and human rights obligations.

This bill deals with an area of law that carries significant consequences both for public safety and for the legal rights of those subject to the register. They need to protect tamariki and ensure that our tamariki safety is paramount. At the same time, the concerns raised about retrospective application and potential inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act warrant our close consideration. These are things we do not take lightly. As the bill progresses, it is important that we continue to engage with the ongoing research on the effectiveness of the register and ensure that any legislative measures are guided by strong evidence. We must also remain vigilant to the broader policy context, particularly how we prevent harm in the first place through early intervention, education, and comprehensive support for survivors. That means honouring our cross-party agreement to honour Te Aorerekura, that action plan and that work plan, working with communities for prevention so that we can eliminate family and sexual violence in Aotearoa. That is a vision that we need to hold on to, and make sure that our laws, our resourcing, the way that we are as a country, honour that and ensure that Te Aorerekura is a success, because we need to create a world that our mokopuna deserve.

I want to acknowledge those who made submissions, those who work tirelessly to support survivors, and those who advocate for a justice system that is both effective and rights-based. I look forward to hearing further debate on the bill and considering the perspectives that will be brought to the table.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m honestly very confused by that previous speech. I was quite heartened by the beginning of the speech, thinking we may have a cross-Parliament work where we are actually in agreement that the most important thing in this world is keeping our most vulnerable safe, especially from sexual violence and from people who are sexual offenders out in our communities. I’m still confused by that speech to be perfectly honest, because I’m not even sure if the Greens are supporting or not supporting this bill by that speech.

There was the talk of inconsistencies with the bill, but, my goodness, the inconsistencies within that speech are actually gobsmacking. It’s left me speechless, to be perfectly honest. I mean, it takes an awful lot to make me mad. Often things will sadden me and disgust me, but, actually, I was getting quite mad listening to that where we have one sentence that says, “We need to create a world that our mokopuna deserve”, but, on the other hand, “Ah, nah.”—all the talk’s about why we shouldn’t be putting forward a bill that actually puts in place some support to make sure that our young children aren’t the victims of sexual abusers and sexual offenders out in our communities.

The whole point of the Te Aorerekura action plan—which was absolutely amazing because it had cross-Government support—was that we, as a Parliament, work together towards a better future for our children and do everything we possibly can to put in place a system that allows our agencies to work better together for the betterment of our children, which is part of what this bill is aiming to do.

At the end of the day, this is a Government that I am proud to work with, that puts the victim first and the perpetrator second. At the end of the day, these victims are children that have no ability to defend themselves; have no ability to actually fight off what is happening to them. They also have no ability to get rid of the nightmares that follow; the years of suffering that follow somebody hurting and harming them in this manner. Not only does it hurt the child, it hurts the whole family. It sets that child up for a hard future. Not only do they have to navigate the abuse that has been brought their way, then they have to navigate probably a justice system—if they’re going through the courts—where, actually, we’ll put the perpetrators’ issues ahead of this young person.

How can you even contemplate putting the perpetrators’ rights ahead of a young person not being sexually violated? Sometimes we have to put the most common-sense thing at the forefront of our decision making. The biggest common-sense issue here is the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, with the purpose of keeping children and young people in our community safe. If this gives our agencies another tool in their belt to prevent a young child having to go through the devastating effects of being raped and molested, then this is a good thing. I stand here and support this bill, and, quite frankly, I still am confused whether the Greens do. So let’s find out.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. This is an important piece of legislation, and, as the Minister of Police talked about, it is administrative in nature, but it is a very important piece of legislation. I will applaud Minister Chhour on her previous contribution—that this is about putting the children at the heart.

Unfortunately, I’ve had to deal with the child victims of sexual abuse, and the nature of the offenders—who have a manner in which they can manipulate their power and control over children to the extent that it is horrific in its nature. When you have an offender who tells you in his interview, admitting to the crime, that it was OK, he always gave her a bag of lollies afterwards, you get to know the evilness that exists in that kind of mentality. Therefore, when we talk about registering, we talk about getting some level of control and visibility over the movements of these offenders.

But as the member on the other side of the House said, this is also about risk mitigation. This is about doing something smart, and this is why our register has been successful and will continue to be successful, because it does allow for that risk mitigation component and allow the offenders themselves to contribute to controlling their behaviour. That is why making it easier to register their movements and their activity just makes perfect common sense.

The retrospective nature that was touched on previously has been addressed to the extent that I think it satisfies the concerns of the Justice Committee and will continue to ensure that it is applied fairly, in balance with the rights of the victims and the vulnerable children and the offenders.

It is of considerable gratitude to me that they have included the production of objectionable material, and the export and import of objectionable material under the Customs and Excise Act. As Minister of Customs, it has become such a prevalent type of offending, in which case young and vulnerable children can be victimised in isolation by the offenders so that they can perpetrate trafficking—a business enterprise, effectively, that victimises vulnerable children in ways that is horrifying, terrifying, frightening, and depressing, and it is just a tragedy to humanity that it is allowed to continue. But, unfortunately, looking at the statistics within Customs, it is a growing enterprise for some individuals who deserve to be put on to registers so that their conduct can continue to be controlled moving forward.

This is an important and special piece of legislation because it is both a preventative measure—it is a society standing up to ensure that we continue to review and consider the suitability and effectiveness of the legislation that we have, and that we will continue to monitor and control ways in which we can protect children from those who will not only gain some level of perverse pleasure in victimising the vulnerable children but also gain, basically, economic advantage from the fact that they are selling and trading in human suffering. Therefore, I am grateful that the Minister has brought this piece of legislation forward, and I’m grateful that there is support broadly across the House. And I take great sadness that we have to have these pieces of legislation, but I commend this legislation to the House.

This debate is interrupted—

💬 Hon Member: Oh.

Apologies to the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 April 2025.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.