The Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.

Clinton Bowerman’s submission and overview with relevance to the police functions and police immunity under section 9 of the 2008 Police Act:

?

Proposes key changes to the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, marked in Italic. Its aim is to enhance the protection of children and improve registry processes for child sex offenders in New Zealand.

?

Submitters Key Amendments in the Bill.

?

1. Enhanced Offender Reporting Requirements:

- Registrable offenders must now report the presence of a child supervised by a fit and proper adult guardian or relative without criminal convictions in their home at least 48 hours before the child or vulnerable person arrives, rather than after. No unsupervised contact with children or any vulnerable person.

- Offenders must report voluntary work and attendance at educational or training courses.

- For offenders with no fixed address, the definition of "locality" is clarified, mandating precise reporting of whereabouts.

?

2. Travel and Location Reporting:

- Offenders must notify authorities 7 days before international travel (previously 48 hours).

- On returning to New Zealand, reporting requirements have shifted to within 72 hours by electronic means instead of the prior 10-day in-person reporting requirement.

?

3. Technological Adaptations:

- The amendment allows offenders to receive and acknowledge receipt of notices electronically, reflecting updated modes of communication.

- The registry can now include additional offender information held by the police if it aids in managing potential risks.

?

4. Expanded Registry:

- Seven new offenses, including crimes involving child exploitation and trafficking, have been added to the list of qualifying crimes requiring registration.

?

5. Registry Removal Conditions:

- Registrable offenders can be removed from the registry only if a court overturns their original conviction, establishing stricter criteria for deregistration.

?

6. Operational Changes for Police:

- Section 51C provides that the Police Commissioner must remove an individual’s information from the registry and police records if a court successfully overturns their registration decision. The Police Commissioner’s role in this process is aligned with the criteria under the submission’s new amendments.

?

Relevance to Police Functions and Immunity.

?

The Police are vested with the authority to manage the Child Sex Offender Registry and to access offenders’ information for the purposes of maintaining public safety and monitoring risks to children, as set out in the Policing Act 2008. Section 9 of this Act enumerates key police functions, including crime prevention, community safety, and law enforcement. However, the immunity provisions within section 9 effectively shield the Police Commissioner from legal consequences in instances where the Commissioner may fail to investigate or prosecute valid complaints or to act upon relevant and credible information indicating the potential commission of criminal offences.

?

This immunity extends to circumstances where such information is in the possession of the Police or associated domestic and international law enforcement agencies, raising serious concerns about accountability, particularly in cases involving high-risk offenders. Considering these concerns, it is imperative that Parliament considers amending these provisions to ensure that the Police Commissioner and law enforcement agencies are held to a high standard of accountability, particularly in matters affecting the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

?

The immunity granted to the Police Commissioner under section 9 of the 2008 Police Act has significant implications for public safety, particularly when it comes to the accountability of high-risk offenders and their enablers who are listed on the sex offender registry or not. This immunity can foster systemic inaction, effectively shielding offenders and prominent enablers from prosecution, even in cases where evidence of serious misconduct is substantial.

?

This concern is especially pronounced when abusers, including convicted sex offenders and their enablers, are influential political/business figures with extensive networks within business, legislative or governmental circles. Notable examples include prominent individuals such as the pestiferous paedophile the late Honourable Anthony "Aussie" Malcolm, a former cabinet minister and respected business consultant, whose role as a director of Team New Zealand and as a leading immigration consultant allowed him significant influence. Prime Minister Luxon's recent remarks regarding a "parliamentary paedophile ring" highlight with pan ultimate authority the deep concern around how these networks may have fostered a culture of evasion, where such paedophiles could avoid prosecution and accountability due to their connections within New Zealand's parliamentary and legislative precincts.

?

These immunity provisions pose a critical threat to the protection of children and other vulnerable populations, as they limit the public's legal recourse to demand accountability when police fail to investigate or prosecute credible allegations. As is the case in New Zealand over the 60 years.

?

To promote the protection of the most vulnerable, legislative reform is essential to remove immunity barriers that enable high-risk individuals and their influential enablers to circumvent justice. A stricter framework is necessary to ensure that police and prosecutorial bodies fulfil their responsibilities without obstruction or political interference, upholding a commitment to safeguarding the community and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

?

Issues and Recommendations

?

The Bill does not address the immunity of police under section 9 of the Police Act, which may lead to gaps in accountability, particularly in ensuring that complaints and reports related to registry enforcement are effectively acted upon. Strengthening legal recourse against administrative inaction or negligence could better support police functions in crime prevention and public safety.

?

The Bill in its current form favours abusers, paedophiles and convicted sex offenders and does not protect the rights of children and vulnerable people.

?

Clinton Bowerman.