edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I thought that was a very good speech and I don't want to risk the member's career by saying it sounded more like a National Party MP than a Labour MP. I actually feel—[Interruption]. I'll take that back. But I do have to say though she raised a very important point. And I think that actually there's nothing wrong with introducing a motion into this House and into this debate. I think the one thing that we should remind ourselves tonight of is the fact that there are no children in this debating chamber. And actually they rely on us as adults to protect them against the adults that will harm them. And so I think the contribution was timely and certainly much appreciated by myself in terms of starting to complete the debate in this third reading.I want to acknowledge the Minister Poto Williams and I want to acknowledge Simeon Brown because they have worked very hard together. I think it's been important for us to come to this House united on this bill. I am puzzled and confused to be honest with the Green Party's position on this. I just wonder whether they're a little confused on it. I want to acknowledge Jan Logie who's in the House. As an under-secretary in the last Government she did a lot of good work around victims' rights and sexual abuse and I want to acknowledge that.But I think this bill—Jan Logie: The sector opposed this legislation.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well I think you guys have really got this wrong in terms of opposing this legislation because what has happened here is the Supreme Court has quite simply come back and said to us—bearing in mind it was three judges and two actually were OK with it—as a Parliament and said Please be much clearer about your intent in terms of the intent of the bill."And I do want to acknowledge the advisers and the police advisers who have worked on this because they have had to make sure that there is minute attention to detail to ensure actually that the bill does do that job.I want to acknowledge our shadow Attorney-General Chris Penk because he has gone over this with a fine-tooth comb. And when you talk about the Attorney-General's report I can assure you that if he felt the balance was wrong in terms of the issues raised by the Attorney-General he'd be the first one to stand up in this House and raise it and highlight it. So it gives me great confidence from this side of the House that he has stood up very clearly and said that certainly the balance in terms of protecting our children by making sure that these sex offenders are actually captured on a register far outweighs any of the issues raised in the Attorney-General report.So I just want to wrap up by saying that I'm very proud to stand in the House and support this bill. The Supreme Court came back to us three to two the judges to say that we need clarity around it. I think there is clarity now in the bill and I'm very happy to stand and support it. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise this evening to take this call instead of the Māori Party. I hear the whakaaro the discussions this evening where we talk about our tamariki—tamariki that we treasure as whānau amongst our communities amongst our iwi and hapū and the places of which we come from. What comes to mind this evening is a whakataukī: Whaia te iti kahurangi ki te tūohu koe me he maunga teitei.[Seek the treasure that you value most dearly. If you bow your head let it be to a lofty mountain.]As I reflect on the discussion this evening that is a whakataukī that we share amongst our kids amongst our tamariki. We encourage them to aim for that lofty mountain. I hear the sense the call the karanga from across the room for kotahitanga this evening on supporting this bill and that we stand by our tamariki. What this bill does is it ensures that our tamariki are protected through this bill but it also isn't an incredibly punitive approach to our offenders because they also have the right to rehabilitate themselves to re-integrate themselves into society. But I know the impacts across all of our whānau of sex offenders intergenerationally that impact our whānau and intergenerationally it takes time for families to heal and to recover. What this bill does is take steps towards protecting our tamariki so that they can aim and strive for that lofty mountain and we have a responsibility as whānau members as parliamentarians to ensure that we take our best step forward to protect them. I commend this bill to the House.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): I rise as well for the third time tonight and again in support of this bill. I'd like to begin my last speech with acknowledging once again the Minister of Police's work. You've put through a tremendous amount in a very short period of time and you've managed to get mostly cross-party support so well done to you for that effort. I also just want to put on record as I already had my concerns about new clause 11 of Schedule 1 inserted by clause 5. I hope that we are using this urgency well and that we are fixing now what the Supreme Court saw as an error and that we don't have to come back to do further fixes because of new clause 11. High-risk offenders are captured by a register. They are being watched by the agencies. They're being supported by other agencies because they are on that register. In a way it is helping to prevent reoffending and I think this is the evidence that my colleague in the Green Party is looking for. The fact that we have low reoffending rates from those on the register is the evidence that the register actually does work. But there is an error that the Supreme Court has found in regard to how people get on to that register and our job here in this House is to fix that error. I am quite happy to be a part of that fix. This is about an investment in our communities. By having a register we are making sure that we are keeping our children safe that mums and dads out there feel confident to let their children go out and play go to school and do all those good things that we probably took for granted when we were growing up. I would like to see and make sure that my grandchildren have the ability to go out there and play without wondering or worrying about who might be in their community unwatched and unmarked. So in that respect I do commend this bill to the House and I thank the Minister for the work that she's done on it.
Dean JacquiHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you Mr Seymour for that. I don't think that your characterisation of what we're attempting to do is actually accurate. We're not attempting to override the decision of a court. The court has made a decision which has then resulted in that particular view being applied to others. So what we're attempting to do is tidy up the law because it was clear from the Supreme Court that our intent and the clarity of the legislation that we passed were not the same. So what we are doing with this amendment is actually indicating our intent which is that people who have offended prior to the passage of that legislation were charged and convicted after are captured.The whole point of this is about ensuring that people who have historic sex offences against children are eligible to go on to the register and therefore be monitored and therefore supported by Government agencies—that is the whole point of what we are trying to do here. We're not trying to override decisions of courts. We're trying to ensure that the courts are able to use our legislation to the full effect of the intent of Parliament.Can I come to the matter of clause 12 and clause 11—and this was a question that Mr Penk posed. There is no competition between clause 12 and 11 because they are consistent. Clause 11 is the exception and clauses 5 to 8 do not apply to the appellant so clause 12 does not apply to the appellant.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I wish to ask the Minister a simple question from a humble electrical engineer. This legislation is all about overriding a court's decision and saying that this Parliament doesn't agree. We would like to see certain people registered as offenders but it has in new clause 11 of Schedule 1 of the Act as set out in clause 5(7) an exception that says while we're happy to override one decision of the court we're not going to override another particular decision. Now obviously it's been controversial and people around the House have taken different decisions about whether Parliament should override a Supreme Court decision the way that it is. I just wonder if you could explain why we seem to be prepared to override one decision but not another.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I've got a couple of questions on two separate matters and that's it in relation to this part. So the first question is in regards to the judgment by the court where they now consider it legitimate to take into account the updating reports of clinical psychologists on appeal. Now on that particular point whilst this legislation doesn't necessarily deal with that issue I'm wanting to know if the Minister has received any advice in regards to this particular issue because for a sentence such as this this individual would be on the register for eight years. This essentially gives the ability for appeals—it would appear that it gives the ability for appeals—to take place and for individuals to then present new evidence and then to be potentially removed from that register before that eight-year period is over. I'm just wondering if the Minister's received any particular advice on that issue or has any concerns about that issue.The second is in relation to clause 12 which is the overriding of any inconsistent other laws and this is a very important section because essentially this is the section we hope means we don't have to come back here and do this again at some point because it essentially overrides section 6 of the Sentencing Act and sections 25 and 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and this judgment and whether the language in that section is expressive enough and whether the Minister is confident that that language is expressive enough to express Parliament's intent that we are overriding these other pieces of legislation. I do note the Supreme Court did refer to the language used by the Parole Act in relation to its retrospectivity and provided some recommendations around the type of language which could be used such as to avoid all doubt" "to avoid doubt" and whether this particular section avoids all doubt and with expressive enough language so that this is not an issue which has to be potentially traversed again."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you. Just very straight—oh well firstly just a request for clarification. My colleague Michael Woodhouse had previously asked the Minister whether it's the case in her mind that for the appellant in the D v New Zealand Police it's only going to be that he would be registered in relation to any hypothetical future such offending in the same way that that would also apply to any other person in New Zealand to whom the law applied!And my other question is a reasonably straightforward one: does she believe that this bill is consistent or inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?
McKee Nicole; Williams PotoNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. When I look at clause 11 and hear the arguments from my colleagues across the way there I can understand and hear both sides of the argument and what concerns me is our intent could be erroneous again if we don't get the wording just right. What I mean by this is with that first bullet point apply to the particular appellant in" the decision so while you Minister tell us that it's about the decision that was made in the Supreme Court at that time the argument is: is that clear enough in that bullet point? Because what we don't want to occur is for the potential for the appellant to go on and reoffend and read that bullet point the same way that the National Party and the ACT Party have. We want to make sure that this bill goes through absolutely watertight. To be honest with you I'm not quite sure how we go about doing that. But that's just the concern that I think that that particular bullet point can be read in two different ways and therefore leave a door open for that appellant and a smack on the hand to us from the Supreme Court once again. Thank you.Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I thank the member for that comment. I just want to reassure that member that the legislation that we're passing today deals with retrospectivity. So any future offending will not be captured by that that we are very clear that this is about ensuring that people who have committed an offence prior who were charged and convicted after the passage of the legislation are now going to be included in the ability to have registration. It does not preclude future offending. Someone who is charged and convicted of future offending that is eligible to go on to the register will do so."
Brown Simeon; Williams PotoSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I think my colleague Michael Woodhouse makes a very good point. The point I'd like to make though—another argument in favour of removing this which I'd appreciate the Minister's consideration of—is this clause 11 is an exception for the particular appellant as it relates to them. It says here clauses 5 to 8 do not apply to the appellant in that case or affect the judgment as it relates to that appellant. I can understand (b) which is the constitutional issue but (a) essentially gives this individual an exemption around any other offending that he may have done prior to 2016 and this legislation coming into effect. This is a very broad exception in my opinion to this individual which I think needs to be taken into account very seriously.Because what we're doing here is essentially saying any offending which happened at any time prior to that legislation can then be brought to the court the individual charged convicted and then for that person to be placed potentially on the register. There's a discretion for the courts in some situations to place a person on the register. If this individual has—and we're not aware of it yet—for some reason offended in addition to the offending that he's already been convicted of effectively if he is convicted of that the courts now have no opportunity to place this individual assuming that offending happened prior to 2016 on the registration for a separate historical offence. That is my reading of clause 11(a) because that does not necessarily relate to this particular judgment but relates to any offending that may have been done by this individual prior to the 2016 legislation coming into force.If my reading is correct it should concern the House that this particular individual has now been exempted in a way that every other person who may or may not be going through the courts or who may have offended but the offence has not been yet discovered and has not been charge with still could be put on the register but this particular individual cannot. So I'd appreciate the Minister's consideration on that particular point.Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): That's not my reading of clause 11. My reading of clause 11—or my understanding is that the court quashed the registration order based on the offending and the conviction that was presented to the court. It's not my reading that other offences that may or may not have happened prior to the legislation would be captured by that.SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): So has the Minister received advice regarding that particular point in regards to clause 11(a) because I think it is of quite serious concern and what does that advice say?
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you. I would just take a very quick call in response to the Minister's first comments about the passage of clause 11 not precluding the appellant being placed on the register. I want to just clarify that I think what the Minister means is that in order for that to happen further offending needs to take place and that's the same for everyone. Whether they have committed an offence or not in the future—if they further offend or offend for the first time—they could be subject to a registration order. So I want to just clarify whether that's what she intended to say if that's what she meant but also point out that the placement of this offender on the register now may well prevent that future offending. That is in part what the register is designed to do and potentially the likelihood that further offending could take place may be reduced.
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you to members for their questions. I'll go to Nicole McKee's first regarding whether clause 11 would prevent this person from future placement on the register. No this only applies to the appellant in the particular case—that is the offending that's being dealt with by the court; this person the appellant would be subject to consideration for placement on the register for any future offending. I will come to Mr Brown's question—and I just want to clarify the answer that I should have given before but didn't give quite enough detail: the court actually quashed the registration order on the basis that the appellant was not eligible to be registered because he was not convicted and sentenced until after the Act commenced; basically the issue at hand.Simeon Brown: Like everybody else.Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That's right. The court went on to—as we know as has already been spoken about in the House—consider whether a registration order would have been made if he was eligible. And that is where we've come to the matter where the two judges found no two judges found yes and one did not express a view. That does not change our view that we will not be accepting the Supplementary Order Paper to remove clause 11.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I've just tabled an amendment to this bill which effectively removes clause 11 so as to ensure that this legislation doesn't actually provide a particular exception for the particular individual in the Supreme Court case. I believe there's a number of reasons why this particular tabled amendment should be considered by the committee of the whole House and that first and foremost my reading of the judgment indicates that this judgment discussed two issues: the first was the issue of retrospectivity in which it found that the Parliament was not clear enough in its intent and therefore quashed effectively the registration for this particular individual and said he is not eligible to be placed on the register. The Supreme Court then went on and debated other issues which included whether it was legitimate to take into account updating reports of the clinical psychologist who treated the appellant since his original sentencing.Effectively what happened was that the court decided that yes the Supreme Court could take into account those updated reports and then they made a decision as to whether based on that decision they were satisfied that the appellant posed a risk to the sexual safety of children. Two of the Supreme Court Justices said they believed he did not continue to pose a sexual safety risk; one decided based on the facts on the new evidence that he did continue; one Justice considered that actually the evidence should be considered at the time and then based on that that the registration was appropriate; and one Justice did not decide on that issue. So basically she said Given her view"—this is paragraph 10 of the judgment—"the registration does not apply to the appellant and Justice Ellen France does not consider it necessary to express a view as to whether a registration order should have been made under section 9."So I guess the concern on this side of the House around this clause is effectively that we are confirming a position about the risk of this particular individual which was an issue which was not actually decided upon by the Supreme Court. They did decide on the point of law and on that point of law six hundred and something individuals could be removed—and we're saying actually we don't want those people removed; we don't believe that should happen—but in this particular instance this individual is being removed by that point of law but we're here in clause 11 saying we're giving effect to the Supreme Court's decision that the prior legislation was not retrospective enough for this one individual. And on this side of the House I don't believe that's something we can accept and that we should be removing clause 11 and then allowing this individual for the process that all of the other 600 individuals would have to be going through to ensure that their registration is retained or that decision would have to be made or clause 8 allows for a prosecutor to apply to the court regarding individuals around their registration. So that's what we're effectively doing and arguing for and we would appreciate the Minister's views and potential support to that tabled amendment."
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): I'd also like to speak to the Minister please on new clause 11 of Schedule 1 inserted by clause 5(7) just because clause 11's first bullet point is that the decision—Hon Member: What clause are we on?NICOLE McKEE: Sorry—Exception for particular appellant and decision as it relates to them". Clause 11 provides that the new clauses 5 to 8 do not apply to the particular applicant. So does this mean that if that applicant went on on another case and was convicted of something else that this would now not apply to him for any potential future cases?"
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister in the chair Poto Williams for the clarification. My understanding of the case was that the issue around whether there was enough evidence was actually not concluded completely in that two Justices said the new evidence did conclude that issue that there was new evidence and therefore the offender shouldn't be registered. Two Justices said the registration should remain and one Justice didn't actually make a conclusion on that matter which means that the paragraph 3 in the judgment would indicate to me that the decision to have the offender removed from the register was based purely on the point of law which is the issue that we are essentially legislating on today.So effectively from my reading and my understanding of this judgment we're effectively passing legislation here today to reverse the Supreme Court's interpretation clarify the matter and say Actually no Parliament's intention is we intended this to be retrospective." So we're essentially disagreeing with the Supreme Court on—well we're essentially clarifying Parliament's intention that this is their view of the old legislation. We're essentially clarifying the position. As they in my reading of it didn't actually come to a conclusion as to whether this new evidence should be taken into account whether it was relevant for the removal of the individual's registration we're in a position where we're effectively saying of the 600 people who qualify for potential removal if we don't act tonight—we're saying 600 of them we will ensure they can go back on the registry but there's just this one guy which we're going to leave off based upon this decision.So that's my understanding of the case and I'd appreciate if the Minister could clarify that particular issue and any advice she's received. She did allude to in her answer the issue that if we were to remove new clause 11 of Schedule 1 inserted by (clause 5 she said potentially there could be further action taken by this individual in terms of court action. But my read of it would be that this particular individual would then fall under new clause 8 of Schedule 1 and would require a prosecutor to potentially take the issue further if that's what they decided to do."
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the member for the question. My understanding of it is this and I may not articulate it as well as the many lawyers that are in the Chamber. This person took a matter to the High Court to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justices decided that there was not sufficient gravity to justify the making of a registration order. So in the Supreme Court the decision was made about whether that person in the court—remember they're appealing the original decision to have them on the register in the first place—the Supreme Court found that it was not of sufficient gravity to justify the making of a registration order. What we have here is a situation which is very delicate. As a Parliament we should not be reviewing individual cases and there is a principle of the separation of powers here. So in this case the insertion of clause 11 is to provide for the fact that it has been decided that this person by the virtue of the Supreme Court decision would not have sufficient gravity to have a registration order. So that's the compartment with which we deal with this particular situation. The other thing we need to consider is that this person may go back to court should we exclude clause 11 and then we may find ourselves in this situation where we come back to correct this again. Now don't get me wrong I have some sympathy for the position that you are trying to articulate but in this case we would not be supporting the removal of clause 11.
Brown SimeonPart 2 Amendments to Schedule 1 of principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 5 which amends Schedule 1 of the principal Act. The question is that Part 2 stand part.SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to take a call in regards to Part 2 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I have a few questions for the Minister in relation to clause 5 and my questions specifically relate to new clause 11 which is the Exception for a particular appellant and decision as it relates to them" and which says that "new clauses 5 to 8 do not—apply to the particular appellant" in the Supreme Court case which has brought this piece of legislation here to the House and does not affect the judgment as it relates to that appellant.My understanding of this issue is that based on the advice from the Minister this clause has been included based on the judgment due to the fact that the Supreme Court found that the registration should be quashed on the point of law that the Supreme Court found that Parliament was not clear enough in its intent that the retrospective provisions were retrospective enough effectively. That's what the Supreme Court found. The question I have is what advice the Minister's received on this particular issue and was the insertion of this clause based upon the fact that the decision would be based on the point of law or based upon the new evidence which the Supreme Court accepted at the time of their hearing whereby two of the Supreme Court Justices concluded that based on that new evidence they did not believe that the registration order should have been made in the first place notwithstanding their view of the point of law. And two of the Supreme Court Justices said that the registration order should remain. Effectively they said that it should remain. One Supreme Court Justice didn't make a determination based on the new evidence at the time. So in my view that issue is inconclusive based upon the new evidence. So my question to the Minister is whether the insertion of this clause is therefore based upon the conclusion that this case be decided on the point of law which we're not overturning today."
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill — In Committee — Part 1
Dean Jacqui; Webb DuncanIn CommitteePart 1 Amendment to Part 1 of principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House in committee on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. Members we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clause 4 which amends Part 1 of the principal Act by repealing section 9(1A). The question is that Part 1 stand part.Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave that the matter be put as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Part 1 agreed to.
Andersen Ginny; Salesa JennyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's important that we stress that this bill is about the narrowest aspect of what we've been discussing and it's specifically about making sure that the existing provisions apply in the way that Parliament initially intended them to do. So in terms of making sure that we protect the wellbeing of children and that we protect the safety of our whānau we need to make sure that we do that effectively. So this bill clarifies that the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act's retrospective application explicitly includes those persons who committed a qualifying offence before—but who were convicted and sentenced after—the Act came into force. Look there's been some arguments in this House around retrospectivity and also some very good arguments about how we strike that balance between making sure we are fair making sure we are firm but also making sure that we protect the wellbeing of our communities. So this bill I believe strikes that ability to give us safety in that area. I think it's important to reflect also that it is important that we put forward what was originally intended by Parliament and that's exactly—for that to be included. So to give effect to the Act's intent the bill inserts amendments and new provisions into Schedule 1 of the Act and that is quite clearly making a provision that validates a person's placement on the child sex offender register if their registration would have been valid if the amendments were in force at the time of their registration. So it makes it clear that those individuals are in fact included and I know that that will give a strong peace of mind to our communities to parents to children to community leaders to know that this Parliament is vigilant and watching to make sure that we have those things in place. Just to conclude it's important to note that this clarification is in response to a recent Supreme Court decision and that was D v New Zealand Police which has just recently been at court in February—9 February I believe—and that determined that the qualifying offence was committed before the Act came into force. The Act is not sufficiently clear about the eligibility for that registration to displace the right in section 6 of the Sentencing Act 2002. So that has called upon the requirement of this legislation to be issued under urgency to make sure we get that completely straight. So without further ado and without further delay of the celebrations for New Zealand winning the America's Cup I wish to commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. This House will be in committee after the dinner break at 7.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.
Ngobi TerisaTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō 'aupito Madam Speaker. It's an honour and a privilege to take a quick call on this bill but may I first acknowledge and mihi to the Minister the Hon Poto Williams for the mahi she has done across the House but also on this bill and the police as well for their mahi to progress this much-needed amendment to the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act.As we have heard this bill clarifies in the Act that retrospective application explicitly includes those persons who committed a qualifying offence before but who were convicted and sentenced after the Act came into force." Essentially the amendments in this bill ensure the safety of our children our tamariki and their families and whānau by making sure offenders who have previously been convicted of such damning acts are included on the Child Sex Offender Register as these amendments will now include those that were previously convicted before the Acts came into effect. This bill goes some way to ensuring peace of mind for the offenders the victims and their families that those who have been convicted of these crimes remain on a register so that our authorities are able to continue to monitor these offenders thereby knowing their movements and ultimately ensuring our victims the whānau and our community are far less likely to see these offenders reoffend while we are monitoring them.Being able to have convicted child sex offenders on a sex registration regardless of being convicted prior to the Act coming into force also ensures the Parliament's intent of this bill and what it was meant to do to cover all offenders under this bill. I believe it also makes sure that it gives our authorities and our forces the mandate to continue to monitor these people and keep our communities safe.I have worked and supported tamariki and their whānau that have unfortunately been victims of such crimes and offences and I can tell you the trauma that our babies our tamariki and their families go through is deep and takes time to even try and see the light at the end of the tunnel. So I've also seen victims take years of work they have nightmares sleepless nights bed-wetting night terrors worries that the people who attacked them—these offenders—will come back and offend and attack them again. So I believe that again it's a small way to go towards ensuring for these poor babies that have been victimised while we have these offenders on a register that the forces that the police that our heroes can continue to monitor them. So we will make sure that while we are monitoring them on those registers these monsters that came and attacked you will not be able to come back on our watch but that means they need to remain on those registers. This bill is about fixing really a drafting error. So again to keep our communities our tamariki our babies our whānau safe and again to give them some assurance that us as lawmakers are going to do everything we can to keep protecting them I commend this bill to the House."
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. Before I start on what was going to be a very short speech—it just got longer and that's because I'd like to address some of the points that my colleague from the Green Party Golriz Ghahraman just made one of them being about the Supreme Court making a judgment and therefore we should stick by it. But what I think may be lost is the fact that that case actually went through the High Court and it went through the Court of Appeal before it got to the Supreme Court where we had a 3:2 decision that was made. Effectively that decision was coming back to us to tell us we had an issue and we needed to fix it. We tried to do that in 2016 when we had this piece of legislation. We tried to fix it in 2017 and again a little bit later but we haven't got it right. Now is our opportunity to do it correctly.When the member next to me speaks about how this law will apply and that the legislation will take effect on past offences that's the whole point. The whole point is people decades later come out speak out and say I had an issue. I was sexually abused." The matter goes to the court; the defendant may be found guilty. The whole point of the register is not to punish them but to protect them and to protect our communities. The way that that will go about is because there will be these Government agencies like the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) like Housing New Zealand who will help support these convicted paedophiles to be in places where they should be—to be in homes where they're not near schools to be able to get access to payments and help that they should be entitled to as recovering convicts. That is an essential part of the register as well. The access is not public. It is Government agencies only. And I think that that's a point that needs to be emphasised. Again it is not a punishment; it's protection for everybody. So I'm just going to talk a little bit more on the 600 people that will be removed from the register if this bill does not go through. That's 600 people who police will have lost track of—they will not know where they are. The community will not know that these people are there. MSD and Housing New Zealand will not know where they are and who they are and the rehabilitation process will stop for those people. So we need to make sure for them as well that this continues. There are historic sex abuse cases that are before us now and there'll be many more to come. We need to make sure that those offenders continue to know that we know where they are and we're keeping track—well police are—of how they are behaving.Finally I would just like to say the intent here has been pretty clear—the intent of the Supreme Court the intent of Parliament—and really it's just our job to go about fixing it. So I will further commend this bill to the House after I just make one more comment about retrospective law. If cannabis is ever put through legally through this Parliament in this House and the Green Party look to retrospectively remove convictions of those with cannabis convictions then I will hold you to account for that. Thank you."
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I am just going to take a very short time because I think everybody in this House is quite interested in this bill getting passed fairly quickly but I'd like to thank the Minister of Police for taking the time to signal to each member—it is very obvious that the Minister has in fact taken note of the comments the different members across the House have actually raised with her and I appreciate the sensitivity with which she has addressed them in making those points.Clearly as the Minister has actually said and as my colleague Simeon Brown has actually said—and on that note I just want to say he just stole my thunder regarding congratulating Team New Zealand because to tell the truth I was in fact monitoring the computer and the race was in front on that desk so I could actually lean over and pretend that I was listening to it all—[Interruption] I was; I was listening to all of the comments! But I also had one eye on the America's Cup. I think most of us were probably monitoring but Simeon Brown actually took my lines. Congratulations to Team New Zealand. The auld mug stays in New Zealand; so congratulations.Anyway on to the bill the importance of this bill: it is a simple matter as Mr Brown has actually said. This is not debating the issue about creating a sex offender register; this is actually about an issue where the intent of Parliament apparently was deemed not as clear in the last edition of the amendment that we made. This is the third time Parliament is actually addressing this issue where we are hoping that the intention to put these people who are the most heinous of criminals—and I was really touched when Arena Williams was speaking; she was reflecting on her own children and the emotion that she actually spoke with really touched me. I mean I was almost in tears. My child's not that young—he's grown up; he's 22—but I'm also a mother and as mothers and fathers we want to protect our children keep them out of harm's way and when you have sex offenders you would want to know that the police are monitoring them—that when they have been convicted of sex crimes someone is watching them to monitor that they do not actually commit another and yet another child is abused and hurt and damaged.I have met some people who have been sexually abused as children and the path that they actually go through to recover their own identity their own self-esteem their own purpose in life is a huge journey and we must as members of Parliament do everything we can to make that journey an easier path. Putting sex offenders on a register—that the intent of this Parliament could potentially deregister them isn't something that any of us want and I am surprised that there is a party in this House who actually stand on their principles to make it possible for that to happen. Luckily numbers count and we will pass this legislation making sure that those sex offenders stay on the register hopefully never to offend again but you know that's probably too much hoping. I hope that whatever we do can protect our tamariki who are the most vulnerable. I commend this bill to the House.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's with great pleasure that I get to stand and take a call on this the first reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. Can I just open by acknowledging Minister Poto Williams and the way that she has approached this. She brought Simeon Brown straight in to negotiate and look at a solution and work through this so I want to acknowledge her. I want to acknowledge Simeon Brown for the way that he has briefed and kept our caucus up to date in terms of what has happened and I want to echo some of the comments that Minister Chris Hipkins made and just briefly touch on the fact that the reason why this ended up in the Supreme Court with a split decision is because the Supreme Court felt that the intent of Parliament was not clear enough around how we handled the retrospective side of the charging and then sentencing after the legislation had been passed. But the only thing that I would say in comment to that in terms of my own personal feelings on it is that both the District Court and the High Court were very clear about the intent of Parliament. It was a split decision in the Supreme Court. So I want to acknowledge the police advisers and the policy team and policy unit that Ginny Andersen referred to and the officials that obviously would have had to work very hard to be able to identify and ensure that the piece of legislation that we're now using urgency to take through the House was actually going to fix that gap and send a very clear message—the intent of this Parliament—to our courts. So I want to acknowledge them for the work they've done around that. I think that the one thing that brings us all together as parliamentarians is always to try and protect and look after the most vulnerable in our society and I think that we'd all agree that the children that are targeted by sexual predators would be considered some of the most vulnerable in our society. I think if we're ever going to use urgency in this House then the best use of urgency is to pass a bill like this and we are fully committed to making sure that we pass this legislation today. My colleague Simeon Brown raised a very important point and that is the fact the clock is ticking. We do want to get this legislation passed so that there's not too much work in getting child sex offenders back on to that registry. I think that he also raised the very valid point—it sounds like we'll get to debate and have a discussion on it through the committee stage—and that is the original appellant. I personally feel very strongly that this person has been convicted of serious child—I don't know if it's sex offending. But they were certainly in possession of child pornography and actually they should be going back on that registry. I just want to say that we stand in strong support of this we support those comments that there's been very strong cross-party work and collaboration done on this led by the Minister and we're very happy to be in the House tonight to support and pass this legislation. Thank you.
Hipkins ChrisURGENCYHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.From time to time a situation emerges that requires an urgent fix by means of a law change and this is exactly one of those cases. The bill that the House is about to consider if it agrees to this urgency motion makes amendments to the Child Sex Offender Register to ensure that the law properly reflects Parliament's intention when the register was put in place. The 2017 Act was amended under urgency so as to bring within the scope of the Act some registered persons who had been identified as not registerable under its retrospective provisions. However in February this year the Supreme Court excluded from registration provisions some of the individuals whose qualifying offence was committed before that Act came into force but who were convicted after the Act came into force. It was always Parliament's intention that those people would be covered. Parliament's had two goes at ensuring that they should be covered. The decisions of the court contradict that and therefore we are using urgency to fix something to make sure that Parliament's original intent has been upheld.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No select committee reports have been presented.A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Jane Ludemann for Cure Our Ovarian Cancer requesting that the House urge the Government to support the development of ovarian cancer awareness and education campaigns; ensure women with symptoms have timely access to testing; improve access to approved therapies and clinical trials; and dedicate funding to ovarian cancer research.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.A paper has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Attorney-General's Report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill introductionIncorporated Societies Bill introductionChild Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Dean Jacqui; Mallard Trevor; Hipkins ChrisWEDNESDAY 17 MARCH 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed upon us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.ADDRESS IN REPLYPresentation to Governor-GeneralSPEAKER: I have to announce that accompanied by members I attended upon Her Excellency the Governor-General with the Address agreed to by the House in reply to the speech at the opening of the first session of the 53rd Parliament of New Zealand. Her Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: MR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:I receive with much pleasure the Address which has been adopted by the House of Representatives in reply to my speech at the opening of the First Session of the Fifty Third Parliament of New Zealand. I thank you for your assurance that the matters referred to in my speech will receive your careful consideration.Patsy Reddy Governor-General.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That Her Excellency's reply be entered in the Journals of the House.Motion agreed to.
Tuesday 16 March 2021 - Volume 750
Secondary Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clause 4