Brewer Cameron; O'Connor GregCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It's great to stand up in support of Greg O'Connor's member's bill here and as we did in the last reading we salute his passion and dedication to this cause. As I think we noted last time members are almost unanimous in our support other than the Green Party who have voiced reservations. I've got a couple of questions. They pertain to Part 1 of this bill and one is around the reporting time of 48 hours. The explanatory note to the bill says Section 21 … sets out when registrable offenders must report their travel plans to the Commissioner of Police who maintain the Child Sex Offender Register. If they are travelling overseas for more than 48 hours they must inform the Commissioner at least 48 hours before travelling (unless there are exceptional circumstances)" and so the first question is: why do they have to be overseas for more than 48 hours? A lot can be done on the East Coast of Australia within 48 hours. The second one is: how does it actually look on the ground? Looking at the purpose of the amendments here which is to allow the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Customs Service to use their networks to better protect children in countries where offenders travel and to identify cases of sex tourism noting that these amendments would align reporting requirements with domestic and international travel—but how does that actually work on the ground? We know that this is about improved international cooperation and protection we know that this bill goes some way to demonstrate New Zealand's leadership in protecting children from this exploitation by highlighting our protective reach beyond our borders and we know that it establishes international cooperation and prevents offenders from using travel to avoid detection but how does it actually work on the ground as far as a registered offender who intends to return to New Zealand would also need to report each address at which they intended to stay while they're overseas the dates on which they intended to travel in and out of the country—and again there is the 48 hours for reporting it to the police. How does that actually work—is my question—around the international agencies? On the ground what does it materially look like if that information is given to New Zealand Police 48 hours before they travel and does that information follow them over the border to the New South Wales police? Is that information held in reserve and if an offence is committed or reported they go back to New Zealand and seek what information they have sought at the point of travel? So my two questions are around why have we put more than 48 hours and why not just say that it is for those travelling overseas—period? What is the logic behind that and how will the agencies between countries interact with that information at a material level such as when the registered child sex offender travels does New Zealand alert the next country and if an offence occurs or an allegation is made does that host country then contact New Zealand and obtain that information? So I'd just be interested in exploring those two issues with the bill's sponsor Mr O'Connor. Thank you. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Yes certainly interesting points. As far as the 48 hours go the 48 hours was in the original bill—as in the primary legislation which it seeks to amend. It's two 48 hours. It's advising 48 hours before travel—before travel for 48 hours. And not having been involved in the writing of the original bill and I'd take advice from the officials if I'm incorrect on this I'd imagine that if someone had a job perhaps travelling to the Wairarapa or travelling around going back and forth it would probably be a little more onerous or unmanageable so the 48 hours is simply now with an amendment moving it from the original Act.As part of the second question it doesn't actually change any requirements internationally. My understanding is that the way it works is that currently an offender will notify someone who's a manager of the register and the manager of the register locally—bearing in mind each police district I understand has a register—will then notify for international the national office headquarters who would go through the Interpol office and Interpol would then be liaising with their equivalents in the country the person was going to.As far as yes each jurisdiction—and the Canadians have just done the same thing requiring this—unless you have an international treaty—and there are some international treaties on cooperation—specifically it would require cooperation between agencies which I'm pleased to say is considerable. Our liaison officers—you may have noticed I mentioned in my opening that our liaison officers exist and do develop those relationships. It's likely to be that if the New Zealand—and bearing in mind if an offence is committed there are offences here that were this to be suspected it would be relatively simple to get the agency's cooperation to get it checked to see that they are where they said they were going to be."