Ardern Jacinda: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11624. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my duty on behalf of Labour to give a second reading contribution on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill. I think it is really important particularly with legislation like this—as it was with the legislation that we had before this House in a member’s bill around name changes of sex offenders via the Birth Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act—that we are absolutely clear about what bills like this will achieve and what they will not achieve.Sometimes the mere title of a bill can be very misleading. I want to use my second reading speech to be very clear on that front but to also extend some challenges to the Minister regarding our support for this bill because during the debate—particularly during the submissions at the Social Services Committee—it became very clear to us that unlike what the Minister has set before this House there have been trade-offs with this bill. The amount of expenditure that will go into the creation of this register will be well beyond what the public would expect and is undoubtedly coming at a cost to investment in other areas. I will set out that challenge a little bit further on.Firstly what does this bill do? Well it requires offenders to register with an official sex offender register if they fall under certain criteria: if they are convicted of one of the child sex offences listed in a schedule of the bill if they were aged 18 or over when they offended—very important because of course there is separate jurisdiction for those under that age via the Youth Court and Rangatahi Courts and we deal with them there—and if they are sentenced to either imprisonment or a non-custodial sentence and if it is a non-custodial sentence they are specifically directed by the judge to be registered. I think that is an important point. If it is a non-custodial sentence that will be indicative of the severity of the crime and in that circumstance we would not want a blanket rule of thumb; we would want the discretion of the judge to be applied. And then also of course a person guilty of any offence set out in the schedule who may have committed that crime in a foreign jurisdiction would also have to register.The onus—it is not a default registration—would sit with the offender to fulfil those requirements. Of course that will in and of itself require certain mechanisms to be set up for returning offenders to ensure that they are aware of that responsibility and likewise for anyone who is covered by the bill and who changes their details at any point because there are requirements that fall upon them to make sure that those who hold the register are aware of those detail changes.This is where there will be confusion however. The bill in its title the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill implies that that is an accessible piece of information. The reason that it probably implies that I would say is because there has been some debate for some time driven by groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust that there should be a sex offender register for public safety. They never put in a caveat when they talk about it about whether it should be publicly available or available only to Government departments. This bill is very clear that the register is available only to specified agencies—the police the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand—and they are able to share amongst themselves. The only exception is where the Commissioner of Police—the commissioner so it is at a very high level that this discretion is used—believes that an offender poses a threat to the life welfare or sexual safety of a particular child or particular children. Affected persons such as parents guardians or teachers can be informed under those circumstances.That is very particular and we might consider it to be a set of circumstances.For instance where someone may have been the victim of predatory behaviour and that sex offender perhaps has some potential for contact might be an example. But what I will be seeking from the Minister in the Committee stage is a few more examples of the ways that discretionary power would be used. In the bill it does seem to be rather confined but it does still allow groups such as teachers—and does not necessarily give the degree to which the individual or individuals are to be informed. Could for instance that include an entire classroom of children or an entire set of parents for an entire classroom of children? I think we need to be absolutely clear that where these details are revealed to the public we know the parameters and the criteria that will apply to that. Otherwise this is not a public register.One of the amendments that Labour will be seeking for this bill is to change the name. It is misleading and as part of the need to protect this register from ever becoming public I think the name of the bill should be changed to something like the “Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Database for Government Agencies) Bill” or something to that effect—something that implies this is definitely not a register that can be accessed by the public nor should it ever be. And the penalties need to reflect that. I see the quizzical look across the Chamber from my colleague Chris Bishop. The reason that I am so stuck on this point is that it would take one amendment by one Minister in the future—and he knows this to be true—to dramatically change this bill and allow it to be a public register. It would not take much. And I think that this Parliament needs to be clear in its intentions and be clear that the evidence states—Chris Bishop: Changing the name doesn’t change the facts.JACINDA ARDERN: Well I think the change of name would give clarity to the public because I have certainly heard members of the public who believe that this is a public register. The word “register” implies that because of the way the debates have been constructed around the issue of registers.Chris Bishop: What about “Database”? This could be a public database.JACINDA ARDERN: Well maybe I need a little more creativity and time Chris Bishop but the point is there. We do need something that clearly indicates that it will not be a public register and we need the penalties to reflect the fact that this should never be made public.The reason that it should not be made public—I want to come back to this point—is that the evidence tells us that a public register would do more harm than good. When I say “harm” I do not mean vigilante harm; I actually mean the harm that sits at the core of the purpose of this bill which is to keep families and children safe. If it is about keeping children safe we know that the likelihood of reoffending by those who are convicted of sex offences is heightened by acts like having public registers. International evidence makes that absolutely clear. So if it is about safety then we should be absolutely rock-solid that this should never be made public.The second point is a point that was made very clearly by submitters who work in this field every day. I want to talk particularly of a submission that stands out in my mind from an academic from Auckland University who specialises in the kinds of rehabilitation programmes that are offered to sex offenders in New Zealand and who has done a lot of research into the most successful interventions when it comes to sex offences particularly those perpetrated against children. Her submission was very very clear that a bill like this does very little—does very little—when we are talking about reducing risk and keeping people safe. But we are about to spend—and this will stagger people—$146 million over 10 years on a database to be shared by Government departments. That is $146 million—that is staggering.The Minister tells the House that that will not lessen the amount that is therefore spent on rehabilitation. Well it is certainly not going to increase the amount either and our concern is that the submission that was made by experts in the field was that there is already a shortage of programmes in this space and access is difficult. So I would like the Minister at Committee stage to tell the House that she will be investing the equivalent amount over 10 years—$14 million per annum—into rehabilitation programmes specifically in this field. If she is willing to do that then we will believe that nothing is being lost in this space by spending $146 million on something that is unproven to reduce harm. We will be looking to support this bill or not based on some of the amendments that are made in the Committee stage. We are heavily caveated at the moment because we are not necessarily convinced that this will make families and children safer.