Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): I would just like to take a quick call to address a couple of things that have been said first of all by Alfred Ngaro actually—what he was saying. He actually contradicted himself. He was talking about the scale of offending. First of all he was talking about the scale of the offending but it is important to note that this legislation—this register—has got nothing to do with the decision-making process about putting someone on that register. That comes before they are put on to the register. So if Alfred Ngaro wants to talk about the scale of offending and who should go on the register and who should not go on the register that comes before any decision is made about the role of the register and how the register is used. The authorities make that choice. But he contradicted himself when he agreed with what I was saying about there being no jurisdiction—that you can accurately rely on any research for any information that would be accurate to New Zealand. Within the same breath he starts quoting research about overseas—about what this register is for and why it should not be made public. If he would like me to go back into the Hansard and quote it to him at the third reading I will be able to do that for him. The second thing I want to talk about is actually one of the major concerns that New Zealand First has. It is what the Minister for Social Development said talking about the police and what they would do with the register. She literally said: The police may well drop in" and "make sure they are living where they say they are." We have heard from all of the Opposition parties throughout the readings and the processes of the bill about the issues with the funding the stretched budget of the police as it is and the failure of the police at the moment to be able to adequately monitor those on electronic monitoring and bracelets. Then we have an added task and duty for the officers to stretch their budget even further to be able to go and monitor offenders. The issue here with this legislation—the main one is that it points to the fact that the offenders themselves have to update their information. The offenders themselves have to update their own information. They have to say whether they are moving they have to say whether they are going to be in contact with children where they are and then the police have to react to that—the police have to react to that. New Zealand First has got major concerns around that as well. I would just like to briefly read out two submissions to the Social Services Committee because they highlight a couple of the points that New Zealand First is making. The first submission is about the need for the public to be able to be the eyes and ears for the police and the importance of that. It states: "If the success of this register is going to rely on just the Police and Corrections to monitor 250 child sex offenders released in the first year followed by an extra 250 in year two on up to 2500 by year ten then supervision is going to become non-existent due to sheer numbers. … The task of Policing is not the sole prerogative of the Police. At any one time there is a very high level of dependence on the general public to see and report what they see to the Police for action." That is one of the major reasons why New Zealand First believes that the public need to be the eyes and ears within the general public for this register and that means that the register needs to be public. The second submission is actually from a victim of child sex abuse and gives her views on why she believes the register needs to be a public register: "I am a sexual abuse survivor and from personal experience I cannot stress the importance of having a Child Sex Register available to the public. After what I had to go through … I would hate to think this could happen to another young and vulnerable child. Knowledge is power and that 'saying' couldn't be more true in this situation. If parent's and members of the community are able to have access to those that pose a risk to children then they can in fact make informed decisions around where they live where to send their children and where they deem safe." Those two submissions are the basis of why New Zealand First is putting forward Supplementary Order Paper 178 to make the register public and we hope that the Minister supports that."