Deborah Coddington: We have credit checks - why not checks for kids?

Perhaps the select committee report on my Sex Offenders Register Bill was right. "In its present form", the committee decided, the bill would not achieve its objective (or words to that effect), its purpose being to help protect the public from sex offenders who take advantage of a naive and trusting public.

Having glimpsed what the New South Wales Opposition proposes across the Tasman, that is, allow the names and addresses of known paedophiles to be posted online, my bill - in its present form - was too soft.

But if enough politicians were serious about the rights of the innocent in our country they would have improved the bill, not dumped it.

A little history.

A private member's bill in the New Zealand parliament hinges on being pulled from the ballot. Depending on how many bills are in the draw, the chances of success are slim.

So when, one Thursday morning in 2003, the Act staffers scurried into my office for a bill to throw in the ballot, I hesitated. Yes, I had the draft of the Sex Offenders Bill, but it wasn't in a fit state for a first reading in the House.

Oh, don't worry, they told me, it won't be drawn for two years. Of course, it was drawn that morning, along with NZ First Peter Brown's voluntary euthanasia bill. Brown's failed early on. Mine was voted by the whole House to proceed to the law and order select committee (later transferred to justice and electoral).

A private member's bill is like a hothouse plant. It needs careful nurturing. It can't be ignored, or it will die. Every other plant in the place needs to be convinced that this strange new hybrid is really okay, and can be supported.

Thus, I wrote to every MP with information. I met with then Justice Minister Phil Goff. Slowly my bill proceeded. The Ministry of Justice advice went from outright negative, to cautiously supportive. One of my colleagues, Stephen Franks, was a staunch critic, nonetheless. He thought the bill should be tougher. I thought I should get something passed which conservative politicians could be comfortable with, leaving time to build on the legislation in later years.

As it was, the bill did not allow public access to a database listing convicted sex offenders - both with and without name suppression. It was not Megan's Law, the US legislation that lists sex offenders' names and addresses on the internet. But it was better than similar legislation in the UK and Canada.

It was a database of information that could be shared by CYF, Corrections, Housing NZ, Winz, justice, police, education bureaucrats and hopefully school principals - anyone with a bona fide reason and who was authorised by the Minister of Justice.

And it was only a small database, perhaps two to three thousand names.

I hoped it would prevent crimes such as the dreadful 2000 rape and murder of Kylie Jones in Auckland. Taffy Hotene, a dangerous rapist, was paroled into her neighbourhood just days before Kylie stepped off a bus into the dark night to walk the short distance to her home. Instead, Hotene grabbed her and committed his ghastly crime. If you had been told a mongrel like Hotene was paroled into your neighbourhood, would you walk home from the bus, alone, in the dark?

As I write, another person awaits trial for crimes committed against a woman living alone, almost exactly the same crimes he committed eight years ago, against another woman, in another town. If the police can warn us about "black spots" on the road, why can't they warn us about people with records?

I know my bill wasn't the magic bullet. It was one weapon in the battle to reduce sex offending in New Zealand. According to research provided to me by the police, one in five women and one in 10 men will, over their lifetime, be victims of sexual abuse or assault. We are a violent country, this is another form of violent crime.

And recidivism rates are bad, despite the statistics. As any copper who has spent his or her career in sexual abuse teams will tell you, sex offenders just get cleverer. One such officer told me last week, referring to a sex offender recently released, "He won't be convicted again, he's too smart for that. But he's not going to stop offending, he's been doing it for 45 years."

Children are particularly vulnerable because they are so trusting. Parents can't watch over them every minute of their lives, but nonetheless they try. Barely a month goes by when I don't get calls from solo mothers or fathers, concerned about someone they've met who takes particular interest in their child - buying gifts, being extra kind, offering to take them on camping trips. "I don't want to sound paranoid," are their first words as they ask if I can check my database.

If these suspects wanted to be trusted with other people's money, via a mortgage or hire purchase, they'd be subject to a thorough credit check.

Why can't we do the same when they want to be trusted with other people's children?