Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): I would just like to take a quick call to address a couple of the things that the Hon Judith Collins said and what Jono Naylor has just said. First of all I would like to thank the Hon Judith Collins for correcting me on who monitors those on electronic monitoring or bail or whatever. Of course it is the Department of Corrections; it is not the police. But what I intended to say was that the police the Department of Corrections and the courts all have to absorb the costs of this register. The intent of what I was saying still remains: the fact that of the $150 million - odd that this is going to cost the total that the police the Department of Corrections and the courts actually have to absorb is around $85 million. What we heard I think during the first reading and certainly through the select committee process was that it was OK firstly because it was over a 10-year period but secondly that a lot of it was work that the police the Department of Corrections and the courts have already been doing. So part of that would be just a double-up overall. But that does not make sense when the regulatory impact statement says that the extra costs that are being absorbed will be pursued following decisions by Cabinet to implement the policy. So there is obviously a need that has been identified by the Minister for Social Development to actually sort out where this extra money is coming from. It is not being absorbed just by the police the Department of Corrections and the courts. The point I was trying to make about the issue with relying on the authorities as the only ones at the moment to be monitoring and using this register is the fact of the environment they are using it in. The fact is that we have got dropping police numbers per capita we have got a demonstrable increase in crime and we have got those three authorities—the police the Department of Corrections and the courts—screaming out for resources as it is. The fact that they have to try to stretch resources even further and add further tasks is the point that I was making. New Zealand First has concerns with that. The second thing I would like to mention about what the Hon Judith Collins spoke about was one of the issues with making the register public which was the fact that you could not put on a public register all the information and the level of detail that you can have on a restricted register. New Zealand First understands that and that is why in our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 178 we want a restricted register to remain to have all of those details and all of that information that the Hon Judith Collins was talking about. That will remain. But there will be a separate publicly available register for communities to know the very basic information—to know who and where the child sex offenders are. Lastly I would just like to quote from New Zealand First's SOP the last paragraph of the explanatory note because it sums up exactly our position. It states that New Zealand First is against using ideology that places the rights of the perpetrator above the protection and rights of the child. Public safety concerns and the safety of children who are the most vulnerable and defenceless outweigh the privacy or equal-protection claims of a sex offender." Thank you."