Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you for allowing me to take a short call and the opportunity to speak to this bill. As a mother and as an educator I cannot recommend this bill to the House. Everybody in this House wants to keep children safe. That is a given and to imply otherwise in rejecting this bill isn't helpful. It is interesting to hear the member who is sponsoring this bill suggesting that the only difference this bill brings is compulsion. It is broader than that. It isn't just the compulsory notification; it is about the compulsory notification of a much broader range of offences than is currently part of the system. As he has noted and many have noted Corrections already has a notification system in place. It has a process for notifying schools when a child sex offender is placed in the community under supervision on a case by case basis. What he's suggesting with compulsion is that every time there is a sex offender under one of those 17 offences listed a school will be notified. It doesn't matter how far away from a community that person tries to remove themselves; there will always be a school somewhere that will be notified. This is very broad and very blunt and will not be helpful. The current approach enables a framework that helps to balance that public safety with maximising the possibility of successful reintegration into the community as well as minimising the risk of reoffending. When we can provide the continued support to offenders to ensure their best chances of reintegration and rehabilitation we are actually more likely to better protect our children and that is the goal is it not? Compulsion has consequences. Blunt processes have consequences. There is evidence and we've heard from many of you in the House who know much more about laws and the academic rigor behind this than I do but I've done a bit reading and there is clear evidence. Rather than the gut the evidence says that while notification doesn't appear to reduce recidivism with regards to sex offenders it does actually lead to an increase in other offending. When there is a failure of communities to support the successful reintegration of offenders they are more likely to not be able to form healthy connections to have a roof over their heads to get a job and to actually build or rebuild relationships with their families with their whānau. It is more likely that their families that children will also struggle with social and economic engagement. This bill with its compulsion with its blunt and broad approach and with its inflexibility and quite frankly reckless plan will not help to better protect our children. And I've got a question for you. I know we've talked about principals. As someone who has been an educator and a board of trustees member I am curious about what you expect principals to do with this burden. The general policy statement and the explanatory note say that local schools will be able to make informed decisions about the risk of the sex offenders placement" in their communities. They're going to be told because they will get this notification when they are within 5 kilometres—or as I said before the nearest school—of every sex offender that is convicted of an offence listed in section 107B(2) of the Parole Act 2002 and it's a big list. There's 17 offences and not all of them are clearly suggesting that children will be the target of reoffending. So these decisions these informed decisions our principals are going to be burdened with making—what are they going to be? Will it help them avoid unknowingly employing or accepting the volunteer that rocks up on their doorstep? Well we've got a police vetting service that does that already and what else are they going to do: warn the board put posters up around the community label the offender? That does not help. There's clear evidence again about the negative impact and the increased likelihood of some sort of reoffence. We cannot put this burden on to our schools and their communities. You are suggesting that it is more likely—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Don't bring me in. "The member is" or "The House is". ANGELA ROBERTS: Sorry I apologise. Thank you for your guidance. The member is suggesting that principals are better qualified to help these offenders and protect our children and—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."