Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I have just decided to take a call on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill. Every so often I think that a select committee does a good job of making a bill better and I think when I look at clauses 48A to 48C which are around restrictions on change of name for child sex offenders they have actually done a good job. There was some concern from the Attorney-General that the permanent prevention of changing names by child sex offenders was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I think the office of the Attorney-General did submit to the Social Services Committee that it was probably not the best idea to have that completely absent from the bill. There was also another member's bill that was before the House—and I think may have been before the select committee—that looked at preventing name changes for child sex offenders permanently. But I think the approach that is within this bill is better because instead of going to the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages to change a name someone who is placed on the register because of their having been convicted has to go to the Commissioner of Police to be able to change their name. That comes under clause 48B and if the commissioner is going to consider that there is a set of criteria that he—he or she I should say—will have to look at in order to change the name. There could be some scurrilous reasons for a child sex offender to potentially change their name and therefore not be on the register but there might be some perfectly valid reasons for someone to change their name—getting married is probably one of the most obvious examples of that. Clause 48C does run through what I think is a better way to attack the issue than that member's bill was. The Commissioner of Police has to take into consideration when someone is applying for a change of name (a) the safety of the registrable offender and other persons: (b) the registrable offender's rehabilitation or care or treatment: (c) whether the proposed name change could be used to further an unlawful activity … : (d) whether the proposed name change is likely to frustrate the administration of this Act [that we are debating here] … :" and finally "(e) whether the proposed name change could be considered offensive to a victim of a crime or an immediate family member of a deceased victim of a crime." I think that is an extremely sensible way to address the issue of people who might be on the register changing their names—instead of the alternative that I believe was before the select committee which sought to prevent permanently the changing of names of people who may have been on the register. So I would like to thank the select committee for taking a rather pragmatic point of view and perspective and also for taking into account some of the concerns of the Attorney-General. I think that this change in this piece of legislation is a better balanced and practical way to address the issue of name change. I do note that Mr Doocey mentioned this issue as well. This select committee has listened to the issue around this specific part of the bill. There may have been concerns in the community about it but it is a much better way than taking the rather blunt instrument of permanent prevention of name change in the member's bill that was proposed—and I understand that is not going to go through now—and filling the ballot with meaningless and stupid members' bills."