Ngaro AlfredALFRED NGARO (National): I take a call and I just want to respond to a couple of the comments made by the previous speaker Darroch Ball. We actually had 135 substantive submissions that were made to the Social Services Committee. There were 98 of those submissions that were actually calling for a public register and we heard 22 oral submissions. The member noted that those who were advocating on behalf of victims out of the 98 submissions were asking for a public register. There were those who were actually perpetrators and offenders who actually asked for that. Here are some of the reasons—which the member may have forgotten—why.When we think about those who are offenders there is a continuum. There are those who are absolutely at the extreme end who we know do not comply who need restrictions and monitoring and management in their situation. There are also down at the other end of the continuum those who yes have made mistakes. You can also think about scenarios where there may have been an 18- or 19-year-old who unfortunately may have had a relationship with a 15- or 16-year-old. It has happened. That is classified as statutory rape if there is a charge and a conviction that is held. So there is a continuum that we need to be aware of.In one of those submissions that were made there was an offender who actually said that he had rehabilitated himself—had been many years without offending. He has a young family now and all he was asking was that there be some understanding for his situation. That is the reason we need to be cognisant of the fact—when we think about a public register and the harm that it could cause what about those who have admitted fault who have had rehabilitation but who want an opportunity to make sure that their lives can continue on for them and their family? That is part of the reason why.Darroch Ball: What about the victims?ALFRED NGARO: The member there talks about—oh absolutely we are taking the victims into consideration. Here is the thing that the member also needs to remember: this is not the silver bullet as I know we have all been saying. In fact this is to enhance the CISO which is the Centre for Impact on Sexual Offending. That is where the police collaborating with corrections have come together since 2013. What it has asked for with this registration is to ensure that it has up-to-date information. That is the power of registration. It is not just a list of names. What it allows the CISO to do is put together what it calls a product of intelligence so that when it comes to the risk management of an offender that information and that up-to-date data give it the best possible ability to manage the risk. That is the reason why we have the register. That is what it is doing as well and we think that is important.The member talked about the lack of evidence and he is correct in saying that there is no comparative jurisdiction. In fact in the States there are multiple jurisdictions that are operational at that point in time—in other words different corrections departments and different police departments are trying to work in different states. New Zealand is unique in that it has one jurisdiction—the member is correct. But there is the evidence that states this—and it is in the departmental report paragraph 21. It states: There is however evidence that public notification can severely disrupt the life of the registered offender and their family and thereby increase the risk of reoffending." so you know we need to take that into account as well.I also want to then approach the member—if he reads on to paragraph 22 it also says that the largest and most comprehensive study about the impact of registration which was carried out by Prescott and Rockoff talked about: "We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offences by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders." This is what we are talking about. This is what the register is about. This is what it is intended to do and this is the intent of what it is actually trying to achieve. What it is doing is it is a register for those two enforcement agencies to ensure they have up-to-date information and to ensure they have a product. What that does is create a profile around certain offenders for whom—the member is absolutely right—we need to have some concern for our communities as well.I just want to comment on the cost. There has been some issue around the $146 million and we did hear—and Mr Clendon talked about the fact—that the police talked about what that would cost if they were to break down those costs. There is $5 million for capital set-up of that service and around about $54 million over 5 years but what they also told us was that two-thirds of the $146 million was already consumed in services and also in the intelligence that they currently have as well. So we are talking of a portion of the $146 million that is already there and all it is doing is actually pointing those services—of intelligence in particular—directly into ensuring that the register is up to date and has information that is critically important. We think that is actually an appropriate use of that resource—to ensure that we actually ensure that offenders are kept in line as well. I also just want to make—"