ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


New Zealand: Ex-NZ First MP Darroch Ball, advocating for victims, blasts ‘out of touch’ Greens for opposing child sex offender list

[ – 3/17/21]

Former NZ First MP Darroch Ball, who advocates on behalf of victims, has described the Greens as “out of touch” for opposing the registration of child sex offenders.

Nearly 600 child sex offenders will be put back on the national register after MPs rushed through urgent, retrospective changes on Wednesday to the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the law was not clear enough when it came to people who committed an offence before it came into force but were convicted and sentenced after that time. It meant hundreds were removed from the register.

The amendments passed on Wednesday – with support from National and ACT – means the law now applies to all individuals who have committed a child sex offence, regardless of when it happened. It means those people can be monitored by police but the public cannot access it.

The Greens were the only party to oppose the amendments, and Green MP Golriz Ghahraman went further by questioning in Parliament the need for a child sex offender register altogether.

“Children and young people are most often abused, in terms of the types of offending that this piece of legislation encompasses, by those who are very well known to them, in their own homes. They are very rarely abused by strangers,” she said.

“These registers have existed and been applied in other jurisdictions for many years. It’s a measure that we’ve taken… It’s neither here nor there, I guess we could say, if there’s no evidence that it works.

To persist with it, to lie to ourselves, to lie to victims and the public and say that we’re doing something that is essential to protecting children and young people, whilst we weaken the rule of law as a Parliament is, I would say, unacceptable.

Ball said any step taken to protect children from becoming future victims of a convicted child sex offender is one that should be taken.

“To say there is ‘very little evidence’ that registers work is disingenuous. The fact is there is no evidence that these registers don’t work. We need every step and protection we can have to put between these offenders and our children,” he said.

“On balance, however, I consider the degree to which the Bill and the principal Act intrude on the right not to be subjected to retrospective punishment outweighs the importance of the Bill’s objective.”

Finlayson also questioned the effectiveness of child sex offender registers, but determined that the objective to protect children outweighed the lack of evidence.

Read the full article

Related links:

Police forced to remove hundreds from child sex offender register [ – 3/17/21]


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This article clearly shows the emotional foundation of support for registries is just as a security blanket even when they know it doesn’t work. Sort of like a kid hiding from imaginary monsters under her blankets.

We are in a war of emotions, not logic.

The most powerful tool I have seen in this war is for us and our spouses to share about how the registry has caused collateral damage. Of course, it must be done in the right way and the right time (such as talking with individual legislator staff when ACSOL goes to Sacramento, a neighbor or friend we know well, to someone who saw us on the registry, etc.)

All power to the greens. Let’s go libertarian left.

Kudos to MP Golriz Ghahraman for her articulate and correct speech before the NZ parliament, which said precisely what needs to be said. She is intelligent, thoughtful, and tethered to veracity; precisely the opposite of Lauren Book. My vain hope is that she would become an American citizen and run for office here (bring your friends too). Hey, we can dream can’t we?.


“Finlayson determined that the objective to protect children outweighed the lack of evidence.”


What an arrogant, ignorant and selfish sentiment.

Finlayson lacks a fundamental understanding of how Probability Theory works.

Identification is not awareness and awareness doesn’t translate into prevention.

Life is rife with uncertainty, risk and chaos. Online registries simply do NOT minimize risk. All they do is offer fleeting psychological comfort for mothers and a false sense of control over there children’s safety.

I’m just glad someone has said that the registry has no basis in fact. A legislator no less.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x