Nakhle Rima; O'Connor GregRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Chair thank you. Look again I'd like to add my thanks and my gratitude to Mr O'Connor for championing this bill and not only that but for having the foresight to see how important it is to make these changes.As I mentioned during the first reading to me sexual abuse against children is a different level of abhorrent and the child sex abuser is not merely an offender but he or she is a life wrecker a youth destroyer and a thief of innocence. And so for me personally yes children's rights in this instance do outweigh natural justice. And as Minister Mitchell just said if we happen to save one child from the abhorrence of sexual abuse then I feel our job is done to a great extent.So Mr O'Connor what I'd like to just explore if you can please not really reiterate but expand more upon a couple of things. In the first reading one of the members from the Green Party said that this only captures convicted known offenders and my colleague across the House kind of alluded to that just now in her kōrero. Can you just expand please your thoughts on that on how in light of what you said earlier that the thing with sex offenders is yes they're one of the lowest reoffenders but one of the reasons is because they haven't actually been monitored before they've been caught? So for me I wonder: the lack of being caught does that mean as well that by putting in these extra regulations we're almost certain that this will prevent sex offenders—will they think twice three times before going out of the country and trying to sexually abuse children?The second thought I'd like please from you Mr O'Connor is to just expand on that example that you mentioned earlier—and we've spoken about in private before—about the possibility of sex offenders popping over to countries like Australia and about 90 percent of sexual abuse happening at the hands of people that are known to the victim. So can you give us maybe another example of how easy it is for sexual offenders to go under the radar under a pop-out visit from New Zealand?GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Madam Chair. Yeah well I'd say that that's the essence of sex offending—that it is under the radar and because it happens in families. Again without the risk of moving off the topic at hand I remember when I worked in Porirua—in fact I established a sexual-abuse team out there in the 1980s—and we had several cases where offenders from families in Auckland had been moved on down to Porirua because of the shame in the families. They'd been found out in families but rather than be dealt with they'd been moved to Porirua. And three in about a fortnight came in and in the case of each one of them the victims disclosed the offending to school friends and it came through the school. We work backwards on some of their offending. So these people do exist in a world where as I said when they do get found out it's so important that we do have them in a system that monitors them because as I said before many of them are quite pathetic individuals who don't respond to a lot of the same stimuli in life as the rest of us do and so they need to be under this system of offending.I go back to the question by our Green colleague about this balancing of the rights and one thing I can assure is that with the register now the monitoring that takes place in the register by the teams is commensurate with the risk. So the more serious offenders those deemed more likely to offend will have greater requirements placed on them by those administering the register. So it's not just a one-size-catches-all and that takes into account that—you know people—even with the 48 hours and the questions asked earlier—are better off having a job. We don't want it so onerous that they can't ever work so that may require them to move around. That's where the 48 hours pretty much came from I'm led to believe.