Sabin Mike: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1105. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I acknowledge my colleague from the north Pita Paraone for his contribution and also the member who brought this bill to the House Asenati Lole-Taylor. I also obviously acknowledge the Hon Brian Donnelly as being the bill’s original genesis. I guess the first point I would make is that I think the honourable member from New Zealand First Pita Paraone made some very very good points. National was certainly supportive of taking this bill forward to the Law and Order Committee to explore the relative pros and cons of this amendment. It is fair to say that since Brian Donnelly and since the genesis of this concept I would suggest that there have been some quite substantial changes to the Sentencing Act that really go to the heart of addressing some of those aggravating features that exist where children are subject to the criminal activity of parents caregivers or other adults within their vicinity. That is something that was obviously fleshed out during the select committee process and I think that that is really the nub and the essence of what we are talking about in terms of striking the right balance between overcomplicating or over-legislating a situation and giving judges the adequate discretion inside the parameters of the existing legal framework to apply sentences that would involve an aggravating factor such as offending in the presence of children. Whether that may in fact eventuate in harm or not I guess is neither here nor there. The reality is that there are many children who are subject to adult criminal behaviour because it happens in their presence.When we look at some of the issues that the select committee actually did tangle with one of the challenges was around the definition of “in the presence of a minor” and what that would actually look like. I have to say that I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee at the time although I did speak in the first reading of this bill and I do see significant relevance to it actually making its way to the select committee on a number of grounds. One of them from my previous life was the advent of methamphetamine clan-labs and the dangers of meth labs to children. There may be no intent whatsoever—the offending adults may go about drug manufacturing without any real recognition of the danger not only to themselves but actually to the children who live in those environments.In that circumstance when you are talking about highly volatile chemicals—some of them explosives some of them highly toxic; anything from strong drain cleaners to paint thinners insolvents acids hydrochloric acids and sulphuric acids to name but a few—the combination of these creates a toxic cocktail. For every kilogram of methamphetamine you are getting about 9 kilograms of toxic waste which actually goes somewhere. It falls from the atmosphere on to the ground. Children crawling around can ingest these volatiles and toxins and in fact methamphetamine. We see chemicals stored in fridges in drink bottles and so forth. We see chemicals that are discarded and dumped down the drains in the yard. Children will find themselves in contact with those substances notwithstanding the fact that someone who is manufacturing methamphetamine is often in a position where they are using this stuff as well. So they will spend long periods of time awake followed by long periods of sleep where they may be asleep for anything up to 2 to 3 days. And what are their young children doing during that time? Well I can tell the House that what they are doing is having to fend for themselves.This country was in an absolutely dire situation in the late 1990s and early 2000s when we saw this increase and prevalence of clandestine drug laboratories. It was something that was seen in more than 60 countries around the world. It is the only hard drug in the world that can be made from locally accessed retail chemicals and on your kitchen bench—an absolute toxic time bomb. The most vulnerable people in that equation were the children and often multiple numbers of children. It is fair to say that I think the police Child Youth and Family and a number of agencies were actually really challenged by that.Subsequently though—and coming back to the importance of this bill and avoiding the legislative overlap in terms of the judges’ discretion in the current legislative framework—there were provisions for the police. In fact it is now commonplace for the police to charge adults in a meth lab situation for a range of child neglect offences.Jacinda Ardern: Not successfully.MIKE SABIN: Well some certainly are. The member makes a very good point: is that enough? The reality is that when it comes to methamphetamine manufacturing the risk of harm is very high and often the scale of consequence or the penalty has little or no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the individual is going to partake in that activity.So actually removing the children entirely seems to be one of the only ways to do that or in fact removing the adult from the equation by way of them being imprisoned which for an offence involving a life imprisonment is more often than not the case.That one example gives some idea of the fact that there are other legislative mechanisms available to the judiciary to seek out relevant punishment for what would be an aggravating offence. This really is where the Law and Order Committee has landed in its concerns and the issues that were raised during the submission process. I think that Pita Paraone the member speaking prior to me alluded to the Law Commission’s submission saying essentially that it did not believe it was necessary. There is a danger I think that when we are well-intentioned—and I certainly believe that all members in this House are well-intentioned around the importance of keeping young children safe—arguably laws are made for law-abiding citizens but when adults are committing offences in the presence of their young ones you know it is fair to say that they are pretty much ignoring the consequences of those laws let alone the consequences to their children. So we are at the starting point where essentially the laws do not mean that much to them.What is important though if offences are detected is that a sentencing judge is able to apply the relevant aggravating factors and features into any sentencing regime. It seems quite clear from the submissions and the process to date that actually there is a very broad framework of tools if you like available to sentencing judges within the Sentencing Act the Crimes Act and a number of other pieces of legislation that actually do in large part resolve the vast majority of circumstances—I guess the point being that this House through this process if nothing else is able to send a very clear message to the judiciary about the importance of this. I am not suggesting that the judiciary does not take this into account in a very strong manner but if this House was to say that these tools are available to it then those tools should be used in the appropriate manner because not only are children who are subject to criminal offending by their parents in and around their environments in harm’s way but there is a high likelihood that they will go to perpetrate similar criminal offending in their own lives and so that cycle tends to continue.So from the National perspective we are satisfied that although it is a very worthy bill and certainly one that I think the select committee has done well to traverse within the current legislative framework there exist sufficient tools for the judiciary to exercise a sentence by way of an aggravating factor where children are involved and are present. It is fairly clear-cut. There is little confusion about how that is used and interpreted. It is fair to say that the important lesson from this is that if those tools are there then they should be used and that would be my message. Although I accept that the member Asenati Lole-Taylor who brought in this bill was certainly very well-intentioned—as I believe other members in the House are—it is about striking that balance and not overlegislating where it is unnecessary. For that reason the National Party will not be supporting the bill beyond this point but I do acknowledge that it is a very very worthy piece of work. Thank you.