Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. I am frustrated. I'm frustrated by the suggestion from the Green member that because we in this House care about sex offending against children that is the reason why we as parliamentarians are considering a bill with a retrospective provision and that is why we are entertaining it—that somehow this debate tonight has been emotive lawmaking that the parents in this House have been considering these provisions which perhaps are a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because we are somehow emotionally invested in this that we are somehow considering the rights of our children in an inappropriate way. I'm frustrated by that because I find that to be out of touch to be cynical and to be wrong in law and to mischaracterise the role of parliamentarians here tonight.I have two questions for us to consider as we consider this bill. The first is: what is the rights balancing exercise that is before us? We've heard a lot of discussion tonight about this issue of retrospectivity and how we should consider it best. I think it's really important first to consider that when Parliament first considered these amendments it had the benefit of the Attorney-General's reports which considered this possible incursion into the rights of people to know the law and for the law to be knowable. The Attorney-General provided his advice at the time about how that may be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. My point here is that Parliament passed that amendment with the full view of the Attorney-General's advice. It knew exactly what it was doing in considering the retrospective nature of those provisions at the time; it chose to do that anyway—that is the role of parliamentarians. At the time that rights balancing exercise was required. We needed to consider whether or not that retrospectivity was balanced in this situation. We did; we've had that debate and it is appropriate that tonight we correct the drafting error which didn't reflect that intention of Parliament at the time.We also have to consider what rights are being compromised possibly on the other side of that coin. We've heard some submissions from my colleague Dr Duncan Webb as well as the Minister in charge of this bill Poto Williams about how being required to register your personal details on a register which is only available to police is not in fact a penalty. I would just like to add that when you consider the other penalties that apply to offenders in this category—the other penalties that apply to child sex offenders—registering your name and giving details about where you live is a very minor infringement on your rights compared to the raft of other penalties which are imposed upon you. So when we're considering a rights balancing exercise in the context of someone who has already committed what could be very serious offending we should consider that that simple tool to allow police to do their job of making sure that the conditions are complied with and that police have that information which they need is in fact a really minor incursion. We should be aware of that before we bring emotive language about the rights of offenders into this debate.My second question that I would like us to consider is the role of parliamentarians in this. It would be a mistake for any members in this House and the Green member who made these comments to hide behind what the Supreme Court said in its judgment as if parliamentarians should play the role of Supreme Court judges. What the Supreme Court was observing in their judgment was that they did not have the power to presume retrospectivity even though the Act in its purpose said that it was intended to be retrospective. They could not imply retrospectivity where they didn't see it clearly.Parliamentarians are asked all the time to consider those balancing of rights and to make a call. We should make a call tonight that we stand really clearly on the side of police managing child sex offenders in our community and protecting children and families in our communities. We should stand on the side of parents who care about this issue and we should not consider that making law in favour of those parents those families those communities is somehow emotive and somehow not doing our duty as parliamentarians. That is why I strongly commend this bill to the House.