Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. If any contrast could indicate the variation we have in members' bills the contrast between the last bill and now this one does that. I want first to commend Mr Greg O'Connor whose bill this is and also Ms Stanford across the House for her bill and for the fact that the two of them have decided to work together to bring together two related bills which will make each other stronger. It is my position that this bill needs to go to select committee and does deserve to go to select committee.Sex offending is abhorrent as we all know. It is also pervasive. The figures that over the last 40 years have been gathered consistently show offending rates against girls under 16 at about the rate of one in four and about one in eight to one in nine boys under the same age. Most of those people—and I think this is a really really important thing to bear in mind—most of the offenders we are talking about are well-known to those children. Often they are within their own families and often as Mr O'Connor said at the beginning they are repetitive offenders.I have spoken to one long-time treater of sex offenders who said that she began treating sex offenders in the 1980s when she had her sixth child brought to her offended against by the same man. It made no sense to continue to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. In her mind she needed to become part of the solution and to look at how to stop sex offending. A sex offender register—and this is a bill and a Supplementary Order Paper that effectively extends the sex offender register we have—is one of our possible responses to sex offending. I look forward to discussing its efficacy and the efficacy of this extension in select committee.The previous speaker from the Green Party Golriz Ghahraman is correct that there are differing opinions on the efficacy of sex offender registers particularly the sort of behaviour that we see in the US where they are aimed at naming and shaming. I do not see in my own research proof of the efficacy of a naming and shaming approach. But what people who treat sex offenders consistently say is that because this is compulsive behaviour because it has very deep roots in the way the person sees their sexuality and the way they relate to others it is necessary to continue to monitor that person and to keep them wrapped in layers of monitoring.Now a police monitoring may not always be the be all and end all but it is certainly one of the ways that we can act as that person's conscience and to extend that to sex trafficking and to sex tourism as my colleague Vanushi Walters so eloquently described the scourge that it is—that seems to me something that we really do need to consider. We will need to consider how then to activate and actualise the registration of a past offender's intention to go overseas. That is where I think Ms Stanford's bill which talks about the mechanism by which that information can be conveyed to the intended destination potentially patches and extends and encourages and makes better the original bill.This is something we need to deal with. I think it is important that we acknowledge that disgust and emotional reaction is not the way we best design laws but this is not that sort of law. This is not a gut reaction knee-jerk. This is one of a number of sensible graduated measures that we can take to contain what is a scourge internationally a crime against children that cannot be permitted. I commend this bill to the House.