Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I want to start by looking at Part 1 subheading Offenders to whom Act applies". This starts at clause 6 "Who is a registrable offender?". Clause 6(1)(a) says it is someone "sentenced to imprisonment;"—we get that. But clause 6(1)(b) says "sentenced to a non-custodial sentence and made subject to a registration order." So basically someone who has not gone to prison but the courts make a decision that they should be subject. If we go to clause 8(1) it says "the court may"—may; and I do not know what constitutes "may"—"order that the person must be placed on the register and must comply with the reporting obligations of the Act. (2) … if the court is satisfied that the person poses a risk to the lives or sexual safety of 1 or more children or of children generally." Well the first question is: what judge would actually order a non-custodial sentence if he or she thought that a person posed a risk to the life or sexual safety of a child? I think that anyone who poses a risk to the life of a child should be in jail anyway—but let us not argue about that. What happens is that the judge must consider 10 variables when determining whether to make a registration order. I am not going to list all the variables but they are listed under clause 8(3) and there are 10 of them. The thing that concerns me about this is that they are subjective to the point where I think there may end up being judicial inconsistency here. You are going to get a so-called hanging judge who says: "OK I can't order you to jail because of past precedent but you're going to go down because I'm considering all of these."The thing that concerns me about this is a lack of objectivity—I think that what the bill should have done is been a lot clearer in determining who actually comes under a registration order if there is a non-custodial sentence. That is something that I think will have to be sorted out in the courts. What I would be loath to see is people appealing their registration order simply because they felt it was unfair so that we get another layer of process or court there.The other thing I would like to talk about is the child sex offender register itself. Now the Commissioner of Police he or she is the person or the position responsible for this. But the interesting thing if we go into clause 10 "Administration of register"—in clause 10(2) it says: "Before making significant operational decisions about [how] the register is administered the Commissioner must consult with the chief executive of the Department of Corrections." Again what constitutes a "significant operational decision"? I am assuming that what will happen is that the Commissioner of Police and the chief executive officer (CEO) of corrections will sit down at the point that this register comes into law and have a memorandum of understanding about what constitutes a significant operational decision so that there is no grey area there—so that they have sorted it out and they know when the commissioner must consult with the CEO. But again when we have subjective words like "significant operational decision" it does allow for grey areas that are open to contestability.If we go down to clause 10(3) it says: "For the purpose of administering the register the Commissioner may appoint … (a) 1 or more Police employees …". But this comes back to the point—will the information get out there? This is one or more employees for the administration of the register; it is a different definition for those who are responsible for implementing or monitoring the people on the register because it actually says in the legislation under clause 25 that a person who delivers a report—I will come to "report" and soon—can go into any police station designated by the commissioner. Now there are 281 police stations in New Zealand at the moment so theoretically what could happen—probably practically actually—depending on where the sex offender lives the commissioner will designate that that person must go to make their report to the closest possible police station which makes sense. So there are another 281 people brought in.I would never ever question the integrity of the police or of corrections staff but let us be honest about this. If a police officer or a corrections officer finds out through dealing with the register or someone on the register that that person lives next door to—or two doors down from—a niece or nephew or something human nature dictates that that information will get out there. When David Clendon mentioned that this information will leak—we know it will leak because that is human nature and that is something that concerns me."