Paraone Pita: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParaone Pita: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1104. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PITA PARAONE (NZ First):I move That the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It is with mixed feelings that I lead off the second reading for this bill because it was originally introduced to this House by the late Hon Brian Donnelly who at the time had a very strong belief in this country’s responsibility for the care of its children.I do not know whether it is just a plain coincidence that this bill is now being read for a second time following the previous bill—again all around the care of children.Subsequent to the late Brian Donnelly’s introduction of this bill back in 2005 if my memory is correct it was subsequently taken over by a former colleague of ours Asenati Lole-Taylor and when she introduced the first reading of the bill to the House she also expressed her acknowledgment of the Hon Brian Donnelly who strongly advocated for a bill like this to be developed in order to tackle the issues that this bill intends to address.My colleague Asenati Lole-Taylor prefaced her introduction to the first reading by quoting from Jim Rohn who said that “Happiness is not something you postpone for the future; it is something you design for the present.” If you consider that this bill is about the protection of children then one can easily connect that quote to mean the future happiness of our children.The bill was subsequently referred to the select committee and I think it was—Carmel Sepuloni: Law and Order.PITA PARAONE: —the Law and Order Committee and 10 submissions were received. Ironically half of those submissions that were made actually came out in support of the bill. However the report from the Ministry of Justice suggests that there is no need for this bill. I want to take my time while I am on my feet to suggest otherwise. I am not intending to devalue the advice given by the ministry but I think that if you consider the number of young people who beyond their control are being confronted by acts that are totally against the law of this country then obviously those perpetrators are not receiving the message under the present legislation notwithstanding that the advice from the ministry stated that the present legislation is more than sufficient to cover the intent of this bill.I just want to make some reference to the report prepared by the ministry. It says that if the bill is to progress beyond this second reading there needs to be some amendments to clauses 4 and 5 that will clarify the meaning of aggravation and clarify the meaning of “minor”.Although the New Zealand Law Society was one of the submitters that felt that the bill was unnecessary one can only wonder that if in fact it is not necessary why are we witnessing children still being subject to recalcitrant adults committing crimes while these young people are present? It seems to me that the sentencing being used to sentence the perpetrators does not seem to be strong enough. I just wonder whether or not those who will be taking a call in this debate would consider allowing the bill to go to the Committee stage and so giving the opportunity of introducing appropriate Supplementary Order Papers to account for the concerns of those submitters who feel that this bill is not needed to make the bill more relevant. I just wonder whether in fact some consideration would be given to this.In the report received from the ministry it analysed each of the submissions and commented on them clause by clause. I want to take the opportunity of saying that I was really impressed at the time and obviously the research that it had to undertake in order to provide a report that is very clear for the committee. I notice that the report back from the committee suggests that this bill should not go any further. But there is always a first time and I actually stand in the hope that consideration may be given by the House today not only to say that this bill is going to progress to the Committee stage but also to give some due recognition to the member who originally introduced this bill to the House. Those of us who knew the Hon Brian Donnelly know that he would have given very serious consideration and thought to this bill before introducing it to the House.I just want to commend this bill to the House and plead to those who obviously have the power to decide on the future of this bill on whether or not they will give consideration to referring this bill to the Committee stage in order for there to be an opportunity to introduce Supplementary Order Papers that address those concerns that have been expressed by some submitters and the ministry. Tēnā koe.