Nash StuartParts 1 to 3 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): In the purpose clause of this bill it says: The purpose of this Act is to establish a Child Sex Offender Register that will reduce sexual reoffending against child victims". I do not think there is anyone in this House—and I very much doubt there is anyone in New Zealand—who does not want to reduce sexual offending against victims. We will support this bill through to the Committee stage but I have some very serious concerns about whether in fact this bill will actually meet its intended purposes.We know that the number of offenders is increasing and the number of sexual offences against children is increasing. For example there were 505 offenders who committed nearly 2000 sexual crimes against children in 2012 and 2013. This is an absolute travesty and something must be done about this—of that there is no doubt. But when we are talking about spending nearly $150 million over 10 years I wonder—and I wonder out loud—whether this is the best use of this money. We know that children who have been victims of child abuse of sexual abuse are more than likely to enter into a life of drug abuse mental health issues suicide and a number of other antisocial behaviours. For a Government at a point in time with a limited budget—is this really the best use of money to address this crime? The police themselves are under immense pressure at this point of time. They say themselves they cannot afford more officers on the front line. At a time when burglary resolution rates are below 10 percent they are having to find $14 million immediately out of their own budget to fund this sex register. I estimate that is around 100 extra police officers on the ground—who could be funded by this money if it was spent on police officers solving crime and preventing crime.When I have a look at this I think—well we all know that child abuse is insidious. But we also must I believe put in place evidence-based legislation. The Law Commission itself which knows a little bit about this sort of stuff has come out and agreed that we need to do something about this problem. But it has also said that it is opposed to this because the evidence does not exist that this bill will actually solve the problem. When the Law Commission itself comes out and questions the human rights implications of this I think we should listen.Let me have a look at the regulatory impact statement and what it says. It actually says: "In particular there is limited research evidence from other jurisdictions about the effectiveness of sex offender registers and the best practice for long term monitoring of high risk sex offenders in the community after their sentences end." The officials themselves have come out and questioned the value of this. The officials also note that "an estimate of the value of anticipated benefits has not been possible."I find it difficult to stand up here and support something that is going to cost us $146 million when in fact the officials themselves state that they cannot quantify the benefits. I find it difficult to stand up here and saying that this is a good thing when the officials themselves state that in other jurisdictions it has not been proven that this works. It is a substantial amount of money—a substantial amount of money—on something for which we have no evidence that it will make a difference.The reason I will support this bill is: let us see how it works let us give it a go and if in fact it does make a difference—and I am highly sceptical—then let us develop it and let us see where it goes. But I would really like this to be a trial. Let us not say we are going to do this for 10 years and commit $150 million to this. Let us say we are going to trial this for 2 years or 3 years or a statistically valid period of time and see whether it does work. Then if it does not—like it has not in other jurisdictions—let us not be afraid to say: "Let's put the money into other areas that will really make a difference." We all agree with the objective of this piece of legislation—there is no one in the House who does not—but we all have concerns about whether this is the best use of the money."