Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to add a perspective to the intervention from Mr Brown on the tabled amendment in his name deleting clause 11. I want to look at it from the constitutional perspective because this is on the face of it quite a drastic action by this committee. But as Mr Brown describes if one looks deeper into the decision of the Supreme Court there were obviously quite different views amongst the Justices about what to do firstly in respect of whether or not even the legislation passed by this House in 2017 was insufficient to prevent someone convicted in that window between the commission of the offence and the passage of the law. I'm moved by Justice Young's consideration in paragraph 9. I quote the judgment: [Justice Young] considers that at the time the appellant was sentenced he posed a real or genuine risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children or children generally. The making of a registration order was therefore appropriate. He would have dismissed the appeal."Now we work in this House as a democracy and so—in this case at least—did the Supreme Court. They were 3:2 in favour of allowing the appeal. They were 2:1:1 on the matter of whether the individual the appellant should have been given relief from a registration order. So I reconcile the apparent constitutional conundrum where this House is being asked to consider the deletion of this clause by applying the same democratic process that the Justices did. We have a choice now to determine whether or not on the balance of our view of this case a registration order should be made. As I said in my first reading speech the idea of us passing legislation effectively expunging potentially part of the registration order—the Supreme Court has effectively done that. If indeed that's the case then this is a clause that isn't necessary. But actually I think when one looks at the legislation and the offending and asks oneself whether or not this was a case that members of Parliament foresaw would have qualified for a registration order I think the answer is yes.So in recommending the deletion of clause 11 I'm at pains to point out that we are not attempting to ride over the Supreme Court's ruling which is constitutionally difficult but rather it should be seen as this House considering by its numbers the same question that the Supreme Court did. Now whether or not that amendment is successful will be a matter for the committee but I don't want members to think we are setting a precedent here where the stuff we don't like the Supreme Court doing we can simply ride roughshod over. I don't think that is what we are trying to do here. I think we need a careful consideration of our House's intent the Supreme Court's careful consideration of what that intent was and to step back from it and say "What is the right thing to do for New Zealanders? What is the right thing to do for the children some of whom have been hideously harmed by the images that this individual sought gratification from?" I think that when we look at it through that lens I believe Mr Brown believes and the National Party believes it is appropriate for the individual who was the appellant in this case to be subject to a registration order."