Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:671] 
Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 We are all haunted by the names of children who have died at the hands of those who were supposed to treasure and nurture them. We cannot stand by and simply brush it off as something that happens to somebody else’s kids. They are all our responsibility. This Parliament must send a message that such acts are obscene. In August 2007 I made a commitment that if elected to Government I would revise the Sentencing Act as it relates to violent crimes against children and ensure that the age of the victim should be more than just an aggravating factor at sentencing. I can advise the House that officials are already working to bring sentences for crimes against children into line with penalties for crimes against adults. This process will result in legislation being put forward when the House returns next year. 
The Sentencing Act already lists aggravating and mitigating factors that can be taken into account when sentencing. Some of these factors will apply to offending that involves violence or neglect of a child. For instance one aggravating factor covered in section 9 of the Act concerns offending against a victim who is particularly vulnerable by reason of age or health. That could cover offending against a child but it also covers a range of other victims and scenarios—quite rightly—including the elderly and those who suffer from a form of impairment. That is how it should be and the bill currently before the House does not change any of the existing provisions. 
This bill provides a new section 9A that deals specifically with offending against children that involves violence or neglect. It actually lists factors that the court must take into account when sentencing for this type of offending in addition to those factors already set out in section 9. All the new factors are designed to make the sentence more severe than would otherwise be the case because they all reflect the fact that offending against children should involve a high degree of blameworthiness and sentencing needs to reflect that. 
The first of the new factors that the new section obliges the court to take into account is the defencelessness of children. Unlike adults children cannot physically protect themselves against an adult assailant or permanently escape the offender. It is the cowardly bullying of a captive and weaker victim that justifies a harsher response from the State. The second factor requires the court to consider the serious or long-term harm that can result from offending against children. A childhood marked by violence or neglect can have profound effects on the individual and society and that individual can even repeat the cycle of offending as a parent thereby perpetuating the misery that this type of offending breeds. 
A crucial aspect of being a child that can be taken for granted is the special relationship of trust that children are entitled to enjoy with adults who are responsible for their care. Children do not choose their parents or caregivers and for the first years of their lives are utterly reliant on their care. This bill puts that trust to the forefront by requiring the court to take the magnitude of the breach of trust into account when sentencing. 
Finally the new provision requires the court to take into account any threats made to the victim that are designed to prevent him or her from reporting to the authorities or any attempts made to conceal the offending from the authorities. There are instances where social workers may have experienced the sudden disappearance of children from a house when they came to it or the sight of children clothed from head to toe on hot days so that bruising will not show. The sort of behaviour that results in these situations must be denounced and this bill will take a step towards ensuring that. 
This bill represents the first step in the Government’s response to offending against children that involves violence or neglect. As I stated at the beginning of this speech we will go further next year by introducing a bill that tackles the issue of setting maximum penalties for offending against children. In the meantime this Government thinks it is important to get this legislation into force before the Christmas break when so many children are especially vulnerable to abuse stressful households and neglect. 
I do not pretend nor advocate that these measures are anything more than just a part of the solution. The Government will continue to work with social policy agencies to prevent child abuse and mitigate the harm it causes and we will continue to look for new responses. There also needs to be a response from the criminal justice system in terms of denouncing such abhorrent behaviour. 
I understand that all parties in the House are supportive of this legislation and I want to thank in advance—unless I am proven wrong—all members for their support. When a New Zealand child aged between 1 and 6 years is 8.4 times more likely to die from an assault than a child in Sweden and a child under 7 is almost 4 times more likely to be hospitalised for assault I am reminded of the words spoken in a different context that strongly emphasise the fierce urgency of now. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 May I say from the outset that I share with the Minister of Justice Simon Power as I believe all members of this House do the utter revulsion that we all feel as we see—too frequently—these cases of child neglect violence against children and ultimately tragedies where children are murdered. No one could stand by and feel any emotion other than total revulsion. 
We on the Opposition side of the House will not oppose the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill but I have to say it is a sad point that this bill will not stop one child being murdered. I do not say that in any grandiose or political way. This is a prescription that deals with action after the event. I am glad the Minister qualified in his speech—and I accept him at his word—that this bill is only part of the solution but it is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It is not proactive it is reactive. It is action after the event. It is not a bill filled with a vision or a plan. I note that he said and I am gratified by it that he would still be willing to work with non-governmental organisations and others who are at the coalface who go into houses everyday—with tears I suspect in their eyes—and identify what is going on. Given that statement by the Minister I would have thought it would be preferable to meet those words with actions and refer this bill to a select committee so that organisations like the Salvation Army Big Brothers Big Sisters Plunket Barnardos New Zealand and the whole host of other wonderful organisations could have input and provide their expert knowledge and experience. When we look at who was consulted about this bill we find it was Government agencies only. 
This is an exceptionally serious issue. It strikes at the heart of the most vulnerable in our community. I have to say and again I do not say it with relish that the problem with this bill is that the provisions that allegedly are ramped up here already exist in the existing legislation. In fact in the Minister’s opening he said that the bill does not change any of the specific provisions in existing legislation. In a qualified way I say that this is smoke and mirrors. I quote the words not of a politician or of somebody who is partisan in this House but of a learned expert Otago University professor Geoff Hall who as members will know specialises in sentencing in criminal law. He said that section 9(1) of the Sentencing Act already dictated that judges must take into account the age or vulnerability of the victim which covers children in no uncertain terms as an aggravating feature. He said “It’s already there. It sounds to me like it’s window dressing”—referring sadly to this legislation—“what is being proposed unless [the Minister is] suggesting that priority be given to one factor over another.” That is what Professor Hall said. I hope it is not the case but I wonder whether certain parties in this House are not being a tad cynical with such a huge issue that strikes at the heart of our community by attempting to put forward legislation—a wee bit like the Bail Amendment Bill although that issue is secondary to the gravity of this issue—to try to play a bit of a hoax on people. 
This bill as I said earlier is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It does nothing. I would have thought the way to start would be to deal with issues of resourcing in respect of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. What worries me is that I saw in the  
New Zealand 
Herald 
—I think it was on 10 December—the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett quoted as saying she would hold to account the Ministry of Social Development as National moves to cut 500 front-line staff from agencies within it like the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Of course we know that in the 1990s the National Party did exactly that. It slashed and burned. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: You cut 450 front-line staff out of the ministry last year. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: This is not an issue for silly interjections. We have had a bit of frivolity and humour in debate on other bills but this is actually a really serious issue. But I will let Mrs Collins go because she shows herself for what she is. We know that in the 1990s there was a slashing of child youth and family services. Those services work with non-governmental organisations to identify as they are happening issues like violence and neglect in the home before they translate sadly into death and murder. There is nothing in this bill to deal with resourcing or any proactive action that can identify those issues of potential child violence and neglect and can cauterize ring-fence and deal with them before they develop into a death and another little white coffin being taken by a family to a cemetery. I do not say this as a means of politicking but I feel it is appropriate to point that out. 
I said to Mr Power in the debate on the Bail Amendment Bill and I will say it now in a different way that if he wanted to have an impact immediately and to create a deterrent to make people—families and children—in these situations feel safer in and out of their homes he could have triggered the parole legislation. He could have done that without the participation of this House because Mrs King passed that legislation. He could simply activate it through the Governor-General. I believe that would have a huge impact. Again it is after the event but it would have a huge and sustainable impact around these issues. When Labour was in Government we backed organisations like the Salvation Army and Barnardos New Zealand. We worked with and partnered those expert organisations. We set up for instance the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families. We set up and actioned the It’s Not OK programme. I have to say sadly that programme was criticised during the election campaign by a number of members opposite as being PC and nanny State. When a programme has a smidgeon of potential to save a child’s life to prevent family violence or to correct behaviours within the home that could lead to tragedy I think it is worth giving it a go. It may work; it may not. During the election campaign some described the programme as nanny State and PC. Then there are organisations like the Methodist Central Mission the South Auckland Family Violence Prevention Network and parenting and family counselling organisations working all around New Zealand. These are agencies that deserve a backing. 
This bill does not acknowledge the 16000-odd cases of reported child neglect and violence that happen in the home every year. This legislation does nothing to be proactive—to move into that space with non-governmental organisations and Government agencies to try to cauterize those problems before they develop into potential tragedies. Maybe this Government can reassure us on this side of the House. Perhaps Ms Bennett could take a call to advise us whether in the drive to cap and slash so-called bureaucrats 500 staff from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and the Ministry of Social Development will be taken out of play—because they are needed. Who are these 500 people in the ministry who will be cauterized sacked or withdrawn? As I say Ms Bennett is holding her own ministry to account. 
I come back to where I started. Sadly this bill will change nothing and will not save one child’s life. The provisions in the bill mirror the provisions of existing legislation and Professor Hall an eminent expert believes—to quote his words not mine—that it is window dressing. It is also predicated on a premise that judges are not smart and do not take these aggravating factors into account. If that is the case I ask the Minister of Justice whether he can provide us with some evidence of court cases where in his or the ministry’s view these issues were not dealt with appropriately by a learned judge. I wonder whether he could provide us with that evidence and with the research that his ministry has done in the short period it has come up with these measures. As I have said consultation has been exceptionally limited. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 National is wholly committed to effective law and order policies and has clearly signalled that there will be major changes to the law and legislation that exists today. 
The situation during the Labour Government’s period in office saw a number of things that are saddening: a significant rise in crimes of violence the growing power of gangs and their involvement in criminal trafficking and the need to protect vulnerable members of the community.  
I accept of course that the enactment of this legislation does not of itself resolve lawbreaking but it does send a very clear message to the community as to activity that we abhor and are determined to confront it does send a clear signal to intending offenders and of course it sends a very clear signal to the judges to seek in the exercise of their discretion in imposing sentences a particular weighting on the issue that is the subject of the bill. 
The Sentencing Act 2002 is structured in a way that might very well contemplate this law change. Section 8 deals with the principles of sentencing. Section 9 contains a number of aggravating factors then concludes by saying that nothing in these provisions “prevents the court from taking into account any other aggravating or mitigating factor that the court thinks fit;”. 
Hon David Parker 
: Including age. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: As Mr Parker has just commented there is not sufficiently direct reference to the position of children in section 9(1)(g) which provides as an aggravating and mitigating factor “that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender:”. The section is aligned with the definition in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 of a child as a boy or girl under the age of 14 years. 
There is a sad commentary in the explanatory note which accompanies the bill. Under the heading “Status quo and problem” it reads: “Offending against children has extremely serious consequences including the long-term consequences for both its victims and society as a whole. In 2006 Child Youth and Family received over 63000 referrals as a result of child abuse violence and trauma. Reported family violence a substantial proportion of which involves violence against children is growing faster than the reported violence category as a whole.” 
Mr Cosgrove said in his comments in the House that this bill is simply a smoke and mirrors change to the law but that is not so and I am sure that intuitively members of the House know that it is not so. Why would Labour vote for this change if it were only a smoke and mirrors change? The reality is that it sends a sharp and determined signal to those entities that I have already identified. This is a law change that on any measure is appropriate timely and necessary. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 First I will comment on a couple of remarks made by Dr Worth from the other side of the House by saying that there is not a member in this House who is not absolutely appalled at the tragedy which we witness year after year in this country of child death by abuse and neglect. It is not a party political thing. Over the last two decades about nine wee children a year on average have died at the hands of their caregivers or their parents. The level of substantiated abuse in our community according to Child Youth and Family is around 16000 children. That is something that all of us as New Zealanders are deeply ashamed of. 
Every person I imagine in this Chamber is here because of the benefit they have had of growing up in a secure stable and loving family. That ought to be a child’s birthright yet it is not for a significant minority of our children. If the answer to child abuse and neglect was a simple one then it would have been implemented by Governments decades ago; we know that it is not simple. 
We will support this Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill because as my colleague David Parker has suggested it does no harm. But I have to say to the Minister nor does it make any real difference. That is not a political statement I say to Mr Power. 
There is a text that Mr Power and Dr Worth as lawyers will know about. It is  
Hall’s 
Sentencing 
 which is the foremost text on sentencing in New Zealand written by the foremost expert on sentencing. That expert is Professor Geoffrey Hall from the University of Otago. I will read out what Professor Hall says about this legislation. He stated that section 9(1)(g) of the Sentencing Act 2002 already dictates that judges must take into account the age or vulnerability of the victim which covers children in no uncertain terms as an aggravating feature. He stated: “It’s already there. It sounds to me like it’s window dressing what’s being proposed”. That statement was not made by a politician or by a person with an axe to grind; it was made by a person who is the expert on sentencing in New Zealand. 
This law does not in essence change the existing requirements that I put into the Sentencing Act 2002. I happen to have— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It strengthens them. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No no it does not. I am afraid it does not even strengthen them. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Justice Simon Power. I believe that his intentions with the bill are honourable. I believe that he is concerned about the well-being of children and I would not accuse any member in this Chamber of being motivated by anything other than what is good for protecting those of our children who are most desperately in need. 
There is nobody in this Chamber for whom the name Nia Glassie or a reference to the Kahui twins does not bring a sense of outrage that these vulnerable children could have been treated in that way. It is not a new list; tragically it is not a new list. We can think of James Whakaruru we can think of “Lillybing” we can think of Delcelia Witika—all cases that New Zealanders are familiar with and have been appalled by. 
But notwithstanding that this measure is the same as what is in the existing legislation it demonstrates that legislation is what happens after the event to punish the perpetrator of the abuse. I happen to be one who believes that somebody who abuses neglects and most particularly kills children deserves the strongest sanction that we can place on them. But even if we did have capital punishment I would not pretend for a moment in this House that any one of those wee kiddies whose names I have mentioned would have been saved by that sort of legislation. My challenge to any speaker in this debate is to say whether they believe otherwise. 
We know what we have to do to stop this sort of thing. We know what the common factor in the deaths of each of those children was: they were from dysfunctional families—families where children were born to teenaged mums and where drugs and alcohol addled the minds of the people who were there. If we consider the faces of the people who killed Nia Glassie we can reach our own conclusions about the nature of that household that family and how things operated. 
Therefore it stands to reason I say to the Minister that if we are to make a real difference and if we are to protect our children—the most vulnerable citizens of this country—then we have to address the cause of those children’s deaths. That is where this House can make a difference and that is where the challenge is: for all of us to work in a multiparty way to try to find those solutions. But please I say to the Minister do not come into the House with legislation with the message that “sending a message”—as both Mr Power and Dr Worth have said—will change that reality. We do not “send a message”; we have to act to do that. 
Although I am the architect of some of the toughest justice legislation on our law books with regard to offenders I say that legislation by itself is not enough. It is about prevention it is about early intervention and it is about putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to preserving children’s lives. 
This is a problem that successive Governments have addressed and I am very proud to have been part of the Government that brought in programmes like Family Start and Early Start which said that we can identify those families that are dysfunctional—[ 
Interruption 
] Members can interject but I am making serious points. I am not being partisan about that and I believe those members should get off their high horse listen and contribute in the same constructive way. We have to deal with those problems by early intervention by identifying those children who are being born into and are growing up in a family where they lose their birthright of living in a safe caring and loving environment. 
We will be judging the Government on whether we are resourcing those things and we will be working constructively and positively with the Government to make sure we are resourcing them. My challenge is not simply to Mr Power or Mrs Collins; it is actually to Paula Bennett who is the Minister for Social Development and Employment. It is the dollars that we put into intervening with those dysfunctional families that will make a difference in the lives of those children and that will stop the tragedy of 16000 children in our country being subjected to abuse each year. 
I know that this bill is about the Government’s 100 days of action and about creating the impression of action. We saw that with the bail law we are seeing it with this sentencing bill and we saw it with the education bill that has just gone through. These are about perceptions but perceptions are fine if one is dealing only with politics. My plea to the Government is that it should deal with the reality of what is causing those problems. I ask Government members not to play politics with it or to come in here with things that are simply window dressing. Labour is putting an offer to the Government to work together to deal with the tragedy of child abuse neglect and killings in this country. That is a genuine offer. 
I know that the Minister is bringing this bill into the House with the best intentions in the world but the Minister knows Professor Hall knows and every member of the House knows that it will not make a difference. It will not make a difference because it is already in the law and it will not make a difference because we need the fence at the top of the cliff not just the punishment afterwards when the damage has already been done and the appalling consequences are already in place. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill and I am very proud to represent a party the Green Party that has led the debate and indeed legal change for the protection of children from violence. It has done the hard yards on these kinds of issues and has consistently promoted the elimination of violence against children women and families. I pay tribute to my colleague Sue Bradford who would otherwise be here to address the issues in this bill and who herself was the architect of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act and led the agreement of largely the whole of this House to support that legislation. 
The Green Party supports this bill because we support the recognition of the potentially vulnerable status of children around issues of violence particularly those children under 14. We all know and we have talked about this so far that violence against children in New Zealand is rife. Children are still considered largely to be the property or the chattels of adults and parents. That is an attitude that still pervades this country. We saw that attitude alive and well in the debate around the repeal of section 59. 
We agree with Labour members that section 9 of the Sentencing Act deals with this issue in a general sense so to some extent this legislation enhances if you like existing provisions. The extent to which it will make a specific difference is still a bit uncertain and because there will not be the opportunity for a select committee debate on this we will not get any information from those at the coalface of dealing with this kind of legislation whether it is the Law Commission lawyers those involved with family violence in the courts or judges who might want to have a say on this. They will not be able to give us the information we need to know the extent to which this bill would make a difference to sentencing outcomes in those cases of extreme violence and neglect against children. 
So it is very difficult at this stage I think to really understand the extent to which this bill will make a difference. We will support it in principle; we do not think that it will do any harm. But that is not a good way to make legislation—legislation should be much more considered than that. It should have a demonstrable impact; otherwise it is just a waste of taxpayers’ time and money. So we thought that a select committee process for something as important as this something as significant to New Zealand’s families as this an issue of violence and neglect like this should have been taken out to the public so that they too could have had a say about it. 
I want to refer to a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that will be tabled shortly and available to members. I have spoken to some members about it. It is to remove paragraph (a) from new section 9A(2) inserted by clause 4. This would remove the defencelessness of the victim as a factor. On the face of it it looks perfectly fine to include that in the legislation but after further consideration I am assuming that it is really about the vulnerability of the victim the child under 14 years. To that extent there is a lot of case law and law on the vulnerability of victims. But my concern and the concern of my party is that on sentencing it may lead to arguments in court that such children may not have been without opportunity to defend themselves or that they had a capacity to defend themselves whether or not they took it. 
We have had for example issues around provocation. In fact during the debate on section 59 before the section was amended many of the decisions in the court cases that allowed parents to beat their children with weapons were based on the fact that the child under the age of 14 had provoked that attack or response. It was a reasonable defence that beating a child with a weapon whether a piece of wood a piece of wire or a hosepipe was justifiable in the circumstances because the child had behaved so badly that such a beating was reasonable. Of course we have amended that legislation now so that defence is not possible any more which is a very good thing. But we do not want to see with this provision that somehow those arguments are being made again in the courts—that children might perhaps have provoked such a response or what is more likely were able to defend themselves in some way but did not take that opportunity and therefore that is a mitigating factor to be taken into account in sentencing. 
It may include issues such as the build of a child—some 14-year-olds are quite big; they are big kids sometimes—for a child’s relative age when between the age of 0 and 14 but there is also perhaps a child’s ability to tell someone. There might be some argument that a child is verbal; a verbal child beyond the age of 2 and a bit could have told somebody if that child had had an opportunity. Perhaps someone might have asked a child about the abuse or neglect but the child did not tell that person. Does that become an issue about the defencelessness of the child? 
These concerns are probably on the margins of the kinds of cases we are talking about; none the less we do not want to see this law allow for any kind of apportionment of blame to the child. In our view there should be no debate as to whether the child could have avoided that abuse or neglect by his or her own behaviour. This is the kind of argument that often happens in rape cases and sexual assault cases so it is not unknown for these debates to happen in the courts. In our view a child under 14 years old is by definition without defence—by definition. In our view there is nothing that children under the age of 14 could do ever to justify neglect and abuse—not a single thing could they ever do to justify abuse or to provide some kind of mitigating factor. So having criteria such as “the defencelessness of the victim” in the legislation may be interpreted as some kind of way of apportioning blame to the child in the courts. 
The role of Parliament is to make the best possible legislation we can for the protection of the vulnerable as we can but given the short circumstances we have in which to debate and analyse this legislation this might be a reasonable mistake to have been made. It may well not have been intended to have that consequence but with the risk that it might we say that wording should not be in this bill. I look forward to the further debate on that issue. There may be some assurance we can get that that is not what it will actually do. I am not prepared to accept an assurance that it is not intended for that to happen; that is not enough. It will not be enough for the child who has to suffer the consequences of counsel at a sentencing arguing as to whether that child itself could have done something about it or stopped the abuse or neglect. That is not acceptable. 
It would have been good as part of the process and perhaps this issue would have been raised in those circumstances to have heard from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner because I understand there was a great deal of consultation around this bill. It has been looked at by the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Police the Crown Law Office the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Te Puni Kokiri the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs the Office of Ethnic Affairs and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. They have all been consulted in the drafting of this legislation but the one parliamentary body whose responsibility it is to care for and protect the interests of children in legislation and policy making was not consulted on this legislation. The most important office—the one that has had the greatest impact on providing policy advice information and support for campaigns to protect children against violence—was excluded from the consideration of this bill. That was a very serious oversight— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Was she in the country? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Judith Collins is making smarmy remarks about the office but this legislation is about the protection of our most vulnerable children and particularly those in abusive households and environments. Judith Collins can be as smarmy as she likes but we are talking about protecting our babies from violence. I say: “Be smarmy all you want Miss but this is about protecting our children.” If she wants to play politics with this issue that is her business and the public will judge her for it. 
We should have had the proper agencies looking at this legislation to make sure that it would actually be effective. There will be no opportunity for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to look at this legislation now. It will be passed on a Saturday afternoon under urgency. So that opportunity to really assess the impacts of this legislation on the lives of children by experts in that area has been lost. That is a very poor process for legislation of such significant input as this dealing with the issue of protecting our children our babies from violence. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to add my support to the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill and also to try naive though it may be to bring everyone back to a focus on what we are doing and why and away from politicking. To that extent I agree with every speaker so far. This is probably the first time since I have come into this House that I have agreed so wholeheartedly with the Hon Clayton Cosgrove but I do agree with him when he said that this is not a bill for making frivolous interjection on. I could not agree with him more about that. I would also say it is not a bill for party politicking on at all. 
I have looked through the explanatory note of the bill carefully and the first thing that strikes me is the “Objectives” section. Who can possibly disagree or even quibble with the wording of the objectives of this bill? I was gratified to hear the Opposition’s position on the bill—at first the wording was “will not oppose” but then that changed with the Hon Phil Goff’s speech to “will support”. And now the Greens are making the same commitment as Labour. It is clearly a multiparty commitment to support a bill that the people in the gallery or those following proceedings on the radio or the television I am sure would call a no-brainer. 
The only possible source of disagreement could be on how to achieve the objectives set out in the explanatory note and we have heard a bit of quite sensible and moving frankly comment on that from the Hon Phil Goff. I will just touch for a second on his speech and also on a speech he made yesterday on the Bail Amendment Bill where he alluded to the fact that maybe we need to go into some very very difficult questions. I think he may have been alluding to the ability or the right of people like the Kahui parents and the Glassie parents to be parents at all. I think that is what he may have been referring to. 
In my speech I was going to remind the House of a few of the most horrible cases because I think they are worth remembering but the Hon Phil Goff has already done that. One of the things that moved me the most that got to me the most in the Nia Glassie case—although I have found the stuff that everyone else has found revolting quite hard to read and quite hard to listen to this ties in with something that is in this bill—was the testimony from the neighbour who said that she realised that the little girl was hungry and she thought she had been abused so she went to give her food. She said the little girl shook with fear covered her eyes with one hand took the food with the other and then ran away like a frightened dog. I hope the House will understand that that moved me as much as or more than the abuse involving the clothes line and the dryer and all the other terrible things. 
This bill simply inserts “additional aggravating factors”. To touch on Metiria Turei’s comment I think her amendment might have some validity or some purpose if it were not for the word “aggravating” in new section 9A(2) in clause 4. If it were just “the following factors” to be taken into account then yes there could be some clever legal argument of the kind that Ms Turei has referred to. But in my view and I am not an expert in the criminal law at all the fact that they are listed as “aggravating factors” removes any possibility of such a convoluted argument. 
In my opinion this measure should go through the House with whatever is the equivalent of “by acclamation”. There is no issue here of the separation of powers. The judiciary is not being ordered to do anything; judges are being told they must take these factors into account—that is all. The legislation leaves judicial discretion untouched. It does not fetter the judiciary in any way; it simply provides judges with some extra factors to be taken into account. 
The House could filibuster through some of the debate on this bill as we saw with regard to bills yesterday and I will not go any further into that. Those kinds of speeches on the meaning of commencement dates etc. I think would be an insult to the memory of James Whakaruru  whom the Hon Phil Goff mentioned and to all the names I have written down here. And those are just the ones who were killed. There are 15000 or so abused children who were not killed minus the 10 who were. It would be an insult to them if we play politics with this bill make frivolous interjections and talk about nonsense meanings of the commencement date etc. 
This bill should pass as quickly as possible. It may not do much but members on the other side of the Chamber have conceded it does no harm. In my view it does do something and I am coming back now to the Nia Glassie example that I used. New section 9A(2)(b) states: “in relation to any harm resulting from the offence any serious or long-term physical or psychological effect …”. I would like to think that in some case in the future—one like the Nia Glassie case—that did not please God result in death if evidence was called of a little girl shaking like a frightened dog and covering her face then that subsection could be taken into account in order to lock up a piece of vermin for as long as possible. I commend this bill to the House. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 When I was a child I knew the meaning of the words “he aroha whaereere he potiki pirihi poho”—“a mother’s love a child clinging to her breast”. When we refer to a mother’s love for her child we mean our nannies our koros our aunties our uncles. We mean whanau. Growing up in Whakatu we knew that our whanau treasured us their children more than anything else in the world. We were their hearts growing outside of their bodies. They would all gladly suffer themselves rather than see any child in any form of misfortune. This is the model that I have drawn on to raise our children and our children are now replicating this same learning with our mokopuna. And that is how it goes generation after generation reminding us that children have a right to our protection they deserve to be heard and they are entitled to be loved. 
We know through the writings of early missionaries and their observations of Maori that this is how it has always been. The diary notes of the Rev. Samuel Marsden back in 1814 encapsulate these views: “I saw no quarrelling while I was there. They are kind to their women and children. I never observed either a mark of violence upon them nor did I ever see a child struck.” I often return to my childhood memories for strength when day after day we are fed tales of horrific abuse and through the eager eye of the camera we witness blow-by-blow accounts of sickening violence against children. 
I have no desire to replicate the horror stories of violence and neglect against children. We must move away from the obsessive-compulsive fascination with retelling tales of torture—the endless roll-call of names and the courtroom evidence that is trumpeted broadcast repeated and replicated through viral networks. Every time a member brings the name of a child into this House that member brings with it the overwhelming shame of the extended family of all who identify with that same name. As a new member I know that every time I rise I bring with me not only the name of my husband and children but the breadth and depth of the Hippolite and Gray whanau throughout Aotearoa and indeed the world. It is an awesome responsibility to live up to our family name in all my actions and utterances. So I ask whether it is right or fair that members recklessly punctuate speeches with the names of innocent children—names that will be for ever associated with criminal violence. We must be able to talk about the vile behaviours and actions that have led to child assault without forever vilifying the family names of the victims. We must start raising our sights above the sordid and the sensational and agree to some common ideals; ideals like children having a right to feel safe to feel good about themselves to be appreciated and to be encouraged. Ka tipu huna ana te tukinotanga. Violence grows in silence. 
This bill then sets a benchmark for our future a future where there is no excuse for child abuse and no place for violence. What this law does is to create a new and specific section in the Sentencing Act that replaces the court’s existing discretion with additional instructions when judges are sentencing offenders convicted of violence against or neglect of a child under 14 years. We have to ask: why settle for 14 years of age? 
We were also somewhat surprised that the Children’s Commissioner had not been approached about this bill so we contacted Dr Cindy Kiro. We were advised that she was supportive of the idea about clarifying the law and providing specificity direction and prescription for judges when considering cases of child abuse. But she also introduced a question around the age-limit in this bill that we in the Maori Party believe is a very interesting idea. Dr Kiro poses the question to the House of what the appropriate legal age for children and young people should be. Within current law section 10B of the Summary Offences Act 1981 makes it an offence for a parent to leave a child under the age of 14 without reasonable care and supervision. Fourteen is also the minimum age for a babysitter. At 15 one can earn a restricted driver’s licence. Young people can be sent to the youth wing of a jail at 16. At 16 one can leave school or leave home without parental consent have sex get a tattoo start full-time work and get married but one still requires parental consent for medical or dental treatment. At 17 one can join the navy the army or the air force. At 18 one can buy firecrackers get a firearms licence join the police force borrow money open a cheque account buy cigarettes drink alcohol and vote. Those are just a few of the diverse definitions of age-limits that complicate our current legislative framework. 
The question that confronts us in respect of this bill is what threshold we are prepared to accept. When can we say that the age of the child makes him or her particularly vulnerable? The crux of the issue of course is that we are actually entitled to protection from violence at any age. This change addresses society’s abhorrence of a fundamental breach of trust. This issue extends outside the scope of this bill but it is an issue that we may need to consider further in other debates. It appears that the younger the age the greater the outrage. But I want us to consider that although the defencelessness of the child is of course a major issue the serious long-term physical or psychological effect on the child as a result of the offence is severe no matter what the age. 
There was never any question that we would do anything but vote in support of this bill. We believe that it is vital that we do everything we can to demonstrate society’s condemnation of all forms of violence and this bill is another step to doing that. But it will not cause violence against children to stop overnight. That is a crisis we must all attend to. It is a crisis we must attend to in our own behaviours our own families and our own workplaces and I include this workplace in that view. We must all be responsible for marking a line in the sand and ensuring we promote peaceful non-violent communication. We must be consistent in our deeds and our words. All of us have the responsibility to demonstrate leadership in this regard. It is inappropriate for anyone in this House to point the finger at others and name and shame the perpetrators of violence if we do not also display our own commitment to model behaviour that is inspirational. All of us—and of course I include the Maori Party in my vision—must work hard at exhibiting conduct that displays respect for one another and that is truly mana-enhancing. 
Offences against children are intolerable. They are not part of anyone’s vision for the future of Aotearoa. We know too that many complex issues underpin the breakdown of families: the devastating effects of poverty; the mind-altering dysfunction created by alcohol and drugs; the pervasive impact of mental health issues including post-natal depression; and the narrow range of options that some families and individuals become trapped in. And we must acknowledge the enormous harm created by generations of violence sexual abuse physical damage and emotional offences which if not attended to will continue to restrict the opportunities for generations to come. 
The Maori Party is proud to support this bill as the first indicator that the forty-ninth Parliament is prepared to stand up and make clear our concerted efforts to eliminate violence from our world. We are proud to support this bill just as we were proud to support the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act which was initiated by our colleagues in the Greens. And there is nothing in my mind more worthy of urgency than the goal of eliminating violence from our society. Kia ora. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The honourable member who has just resumed her seat Rahui Katene has made a very good point I believe in relation to the constant naming of children in this area. Certainly I quite often think about how hard it must be for the extended family of children who have been harmed and for those people who are quite innocent of any wrongdoing themselves to constantly have their family names used in the media and in this Parliament. 
I will take just a couple of minutes to deal with some of the issues raised by the Labour-Green Opposition. There has been some talk today about the need for a select committee to look at this bill. I disagree. This bill is actually not about what causes an adult to hurt or kill a child; it is about the sentencing of people in relation to this area. It is not about what we can do to stop people doing this; it is about what we will do with them when they do. So really we do not need a select committee process in order to send a signal to the judiciary and to the public that we have heard the message of the public. We campaigned on this particular area during the last election and the public has said that they want some action in terms of sentencing. That is the reason we are bringing this bill in under urgency before Christmas—to legislate for that as fast as possible. That is what the public of New Zealand has asked us to do. 
When we look at some of the areas around how or why people offend in this way we can look at some of the things that have been shown to make a positive difference. Family Start and the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters were all started under a National Government in the 1990s. In addition Social Workers in Schools is another initiative of the National Government of the 1990s which the former Government—which is now in Opposition—took up as well and supported. But so often when children are killed there are so many people who know about what is going on including people in the health sector the education sector neighbours—as we have heard—family members and others. So often I think we tend to dwell on what they could have done differently. That is a good thing for us to consider. But this bill is not about that. 
This bill is about those who commit the crime. It is about time I think that we also stopped and said: “Actually no matter what else the rest of us can do to alert the authorities or to take action at the end of the day these children are killed because an adult or some adults decided to do that.” It is about time they have to face up to the consequences of their actions. This bill will not as has been said stop children from being killed. It does however go some way to valuing our children a little more than we have in the past. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I first of all commend the House for the quality of the debate on the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. I think there is nothing like a bill where children or vulnerable people are being discussed to bring the House together. It is true that across all parties we care for our families we care for our children and we care for our community. At times we like to have the political debates and the rumble of Parliament but when it gets down to tintacks we really do believe I think in the common good of our fellow human beings. I commend the House for this debate. 
I say to the Minister of Justice that Labour members will support this bill. We will vote for it. In fact the whole of Parliament will vote for it. But as has been said that is not because it will prevent a single child from being abused maltreated assaulted or killed. We know that this bill is about what happens after the event. It is about what we do about the event. As Judith Collins said it is not tackling the causes; it tackles what we do to the people who have committed the crime. So of course we will support the bill. The National Party manifesto states that National wants to send a message that violence against children is abhorrent and is not to be tolerated. There would not be a member in this House who does not support that message. During the debate on the Bail Amendment Bill yesterday all sorts of claims were made about what it will do; we all know that this bill will not stop the abuser from abusing. 
We all know as well that the reasons why people abuse and perpetrate violence against others are very very complicated indeed. It is a complex issue. As Phil Goff said if there was an easy answer every party in this Parliament that had been in Government would have put that solution in place. It is a complex issue. Abusers will not stop their behaviour just because today a Saturday at 3.15 in the afternoon and under urgency we amend an Act of Parliament and put in place some window-dressing changes. It will not change the action of the abusers. They do not believe they will get caught anyway. The behaviour of many of them is long term. For many years they abuse young people often throughout their young lives and they use their position of power to suppress and frighten their victims into silence. Their whole aim is to ensure that nobody knows what they are doing. They are certainly not thinking about what the aggravating factors will be. 
As we have heard today this bill does not make a great deal of difference in terms of the existing legislation. David Garrett said it may not do much but it does not do any harm. I agree with him. But I wonder why the Minister of Justice did not broaden his consultation even though he was not going to refer the bill to a select committee and allow the public to have a say. Why did the Minister in his consultation on and putting together of this legislation not go outside Government departments and seek advice from somebody like Professor Geoff Hall? Why not approach people like him? Why not go to some of our extremely good non-governmental organisations in New Zealand that deal with children every day? Why not go to the Children’s Commissioner? Why not go to people who have great knowledge of what is happening to our children or who work on the front line in terms of providing support and programmes? I am very disappointed that the Minister saw fit to ask only Government departments—the same Government departments that many of the members of his party have called useless Wellington bureaucrats. Why not go further in terms of his consultation to find out what others thought? 
I think it is a shame that the Minister if I heard him correctly intends to bring another bill into Parliament next year to deal with sentencing for crimes against children. The Minister is nodding. We have to ask why we are here today under urgency passing this legislation that people know will make very little difference—and that no one is not going to support—when a larger piece of work by the Minister will be introduced next year and hopefully sent to a select committee. The Minister is affirming that. Why could they not be done together? I can think of only one answer and unfortunately I do not really like it. It is because this bill is a political manoeuvre part of the Government’s promise of 100 days of action. That can be the only answer. The Minister knows that this bill will not stop an abuser today tomorrow or next week from abusing a child. So why not do the proper thing? Why not bring in the bills together? Let us across this House work on child abuse in New Zealand. Would it not have been a great start to the forty-ninth Parliament for us to genuinely take a cross-party approach to child abuse? 
The Ombudsman in his report of December last year said that one of the problems we have in terms of crime and criminal justice is that it has become highly politicised and the subject of a lot of uninformed comment. He said further that we have two opposing philosophies driving policy matters in New Zealand at the moment: one called “penal populism” and one called “soft liberalism”. What we really want and what he called for is a rational debate on criminal justice. But he very much doubts that that is possible. Well I believe that it is possible with goodwill but it does mean that on a bill like this and on other bills that the Minister will bring in next year he should open the door to other parties being able to debate the issue; he should genuinely extend an hand across the House and say: “We want to find the best solution to these incredibly complex issues.” 
You see it is not only New Zealand that faces the problem of child abuse. Professor David Fergusson who is the director of the Christchurch Health and Development Study has followed around 1200 children who were born in Christchurch in 1977 for all the years since. He has also been part of a special report based on 8 years of studies in New Zealand Australia Britain the United States and Canada. Those studies show a similar pattern in all the countries we like to relate ourselves to—that 4 to 16 percent of children are physically abused that one in 10 suffers neglect or psychological abuse and that it happens every year year in year out. So it is not just a New Zealand issue; it is an international issue. 
But I believe we are better placed than most countries to deal with this issue. The reason is that we are small. We are a small country we have many nationwide services and we are relatively well connected. I think we have many good policies and programmes in place. I do not care whether the National Party started some of them in 1953 or whether the Labour Party started them in 2000; we have some good programmes in place we can build on those programmes and we can take the best of them and make them work. 
But that does mean having a commitment. It means having a commitment to dealing first with the most vulnerable in our society. We know that over the last 8 or 9 years the number of children who live in poverty in this country has been halved. We are left with about 150000 vulnerable children living in families. They are the hard core the children who are likely to appear in crime statistics in the future. That is where we need to start now. That is where we need to continue the work that is being done and we need to commit to that work. I was pleased to see Paula Bennett identify those children. I will be interested in her putting out her programme and her plan to tackle them because there is so much good work being done. I hope she does not treat that work in a political way—does not disregard a programme because it was Labour’s work or work that was done in the past—but picks it up and runs with it. 
My only question of Paula Bennett would be to ask her to assure me that despite her commitment to reduce the staff of the Ministry of Social Development—500 staff over the next 4 years 80 percent of whom are frontline workers—not one of the people who deal with vulnerable children will lose his or her job. It will not be easy getting rid of 500 staff without those people being affected. I would like that commitment because we can deal with this issue if we deal with it across this House and work with our communities. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to address two or three issues that have been raised by speakers on the other side of the House. Firstly I reconfirm what this legislation does. It is a way of communicating with the court—with the judges and the lawyers. It is not intended to send a message to offenders because offenders will never read it. Mr Goff’s good friend Professor Hall who wrote a book on sentencing agrees that this is how Parliament communicates to the courts. Putting this legislation through under urgency does a particular thing that is very significant. This measure has been scoffed at by the other side but it is important to note that although this is just one small step that is taken in urgency it has achieved some profile because it has become part of what is known as the 100-day plan. It draws the attention of those people to whom it is directed. [ 
Interruption 
] Would Mr Goff agree with me that the offender who is arrested tomorrow morning for an offence he commits against a small child tonight and who pleads guilty and is sentenced before the court next month will receive a greater sentence because of the notoriety of this— 
Hon Annette King 
: It wouldn’t stop him doing it. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: We agree but it is not directed at stopping anybody from doing anything. It is particularly directed towards the sentence that is imposed on an offender who appears before the court. 
Maybe if the Leader of the Opposition had appeared in court in the past he would have heard judges talk about recent statements from Parliament and the abhorrence shown by members of Parliament which is a direction to judges who pass sentences on those convicted of crimes to sentence accordingly. The statements made in Parliament are then enforced on those offenders and in this case the abhorrence of Parliament towards child abuse child neglect etc. will be reflected in a sentence that will probably be more severe than it would have been. 
It is true too to say that a number of measures are directed towards a particular evil in this society. Yes we need to direct a number of portfolio areas and the legislation associated with those portfolios towards child abuse. Some of it will be about education and health. This particular bill is about law and order and the justice system. It does not seek to be a silver bullet. It does not seek to solve all problems. It seeks to underline society’s abhorrence of these crimes and the fact that they are a regular occurrence. 
About one child is murdered each month in this country by the people who care for that child. For some particular reason we seem to murder people at about twice the rate that they do in the UK. We need to address the fact that we do live in a comparatively very violent society for a Western World country. I am pleased to be part of a Government that is prepared to do this. It is a small step at this stage growing incrementally with legislation that will come in during the next 12 months to address more serious issues. 
I finish by mentioning the comments made that this small piece of legislation has not gone before a select committee and has not had the opportunity to be discussed by those for example in the non-governmental organisations. If we did that they would say: “Just get on with it.” because we would not find a single non-governmental organisation that would not agree with society’s underlying abhorrence for these crimes and would not agree that saying through legislation that the age of a child a child’s vulnerability and the fact that the crime is a breach of trust should be added to the list of aggravating features under the Sentencing Act. It is bit like asking children whether they like ice cream. We know what the answer will be. So those organisations would say to us: “Look we pay you to be there so get off your bums and do it!” Thankfully we are and I am pleased to see that the Labour Opposition is prepared to support that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 We all abhor child abuse and neglect. I do not need to say that again; it has been well canvassed by others. We acknowledge that New Zealand does have a serious problem with child abuse and neglect. Some countries that we would like to compare ourselves with are as bad as us but others that we would also like to compare ourselves with do better than us. Whether or not they do we certainly aspire to do better than we are doing in New Zealand. 
As has been said we will not oppose the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill but it is important to put on the record for the benefit of the courts just how much of this bill is window dressing and why it is being put through. National raised expectations during the election campaign that it would find quick solutions to these somewhat intractable problems so National thought it necessary to introduce this face-saving legislation into this urgency motion and put it through under urgency. The Hon Simon Power is a person who honours more than most National members the traditions of Parliament and puts significant legislation through to select committees particularly where it affects the rights of people. Of course criminal justice legislation does that. The very fact that this bill is not going to a select committee shows that it is not of very much significance. So does the explanatory note of the bill which as much as admits that all the factors set out in the bill are already taken into account in sentencing. 
The only thing I would disagree with is on page 5 of the explanatory note which states: “However as the factors that the court will be required to take into account are already usually taken into account under the current regime we do not believe that this impact will lead to any substantive delay in courts.” because it will not change much. The explanatory note says these factors are “already usually taken into account”. That is wrong. They are always taken into account now because the law says that they “must be” not that they “may be”. I think it is important to put on the record how new section 9A inserted by clause 4 of this bill compares with section 9 of the current Sentencing Act. Those aggravating factors must be taken into account under the existing legislation as is made clear in section 9(1) which states: “In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:”. There is no discretion; the courts must take aggravating factors into account. 
If we look at the first of the so-called new aggravating factors that are provided for in new section 9A(2)(a) in clause 4 of the bill we see the courts must take into account “the defencelessness of the victim”. The comparable section in the existing Act is 9(1)(g) and it reads that an aggravating factor that must be taken account is “that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender:”. Clearly that matter is already covered by section 9(1)(g) of the Act and the new provision does not add anything to it. New subsection 9A(2)(b) in the bill says “in relation to any harm resulting from the offence any serious or long-term physical or psychological effect on the victim:”. Section 9(1)(d) of the existing Act already says the court must take into account as an aggravating factor “the extent of any loss damage or harm resulting from the offence:”. That is very broad and it clearly already covers serious or long-term physical or psychological effect. 
Section 9(1)(e) of the current Act also requires that the courts take into account as an aggravating factor any “particular cruelty in the commission of the offence:” so nothing new is introduced by new section 9A(2)(b) in clause 4 of the bill. New section 9A(2)(c) purports to say that “the magnitude of the breach of any relationship of trust between the victim and the offender” must be taken into account. Of course that is already covered by section 9(1)(f) of the current Act. It states that an aggravating factor that must be taken into account by the court is “that the offender was abusing a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim:”. Nothing is added by the new subsection. New section 9A(2)(d) covers “threats by the offender to prevent the victim reporting the offending”. That is clearly covered by the existing provision in section 9(1)(a) of the Act which requires the court to take into account “actual or threatened violence or the actual or threatened use of a weapon:”. That is clearly covered there. The last aggravating factor in the new legislation in new section 9(A)(2)(e) is the “deliberate concealment of the offending from authorities.” Again that is covered by section 9(1)(i) of the existing Act which talks about premeditation etc. 
Judges will be scratching their heads about this legislation for two reasons. The first is the idea that without any legislation judges would fail to find offending against children to be worse than offending against people who are not defenceless. That is nonsense. Judges are humane people they are wiser than most of us and they see the full ambit of crime. They already know what constitutes a more serious offence than other offending. I am confident that even without any legislation the interests of children would be taken into account by judges when sentencing offenders. As if that were not enough we already have law that makes that absolutely clear because this is an area where it is important to make sure there are clear signals to the judiciary. That is why the legislation that was promulgated by the Hon Phil Goff and passed by this Parliament in 2002 already covers every one of the factors that are the subject of this bill. That is why I take issue with members on the other side of the House who are pretending that this bill somehow advances the protection of children when it clearly does not. 
I think if any further advice is needed on that it is provided by Professor Geoff Hall through the newspapers because he has not had the opportunity to do so through a select committee hearing. Once again I repeat that he said this legislation although harmless is also worthless and that it adds nothing to the current law. For the record Professor Geoff Hall is if not the leading academic then one of the two or three leading academics in this area of the law. He has experience that spans 4 decades. He is the author of the leading text in this area  
Hall’s Sentencing 
 and he has looked at this legislation and said unambiguously that it adds nothing to the law. 
Having said that I say this bill is harmless and we will not be opposing it on this side of the House. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak on the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill—as someone who has had the humbling and gut-wrenching task of prosecuting and sentencing many for child abuse in its variety of forms. One point that is perhaps less thought of which occurs to me is a potential application in relation to this amendment bill and focuses on the central point that the abuse of children comes in a variety of forms. This legislation may well enable courts—and I emphasis that it absolutely will be for the courts; and I agree with the Hon David Parker that judges are wiser than most of us—to deal with the increasing problem of the so-called “P babies” whom courts deal with directly and indirectly. This problem occurs when defenceless babies through no fault of their own are subjected night after night to P cook-ups in the same houses that they sleep in. It seems to me that those babies will be suffering under subclause 9A(2)(b) “serious or long-term physical or psychological effect” and in terms of 9A(1) they will certainly be neglected. That potential application is far more than window dressing and it will enable courts to deal with that issue. This could make a difference in sentencing and it would indeed be very positive. There may well be other types of cases where this law can be used by the courts for the protection of children and I am sure that no one in this House would disagree with that application and would not vote for it. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was the subject of some very worthwhile debate at its first reading and that debate usefully crystallised some of the issues for the House. I thank the House for its unanimous support of this legislation. I think it was the Hon Annette King who made the statement that from time to time Parliament and politicians get it right when issues that matter come before us. I note the bipartisan offer from the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Labour Party to work on issues of child abuse and crimes against children. I know that the offer was genuine and I will certainly take that into consideration. I thank both the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Labour Party for that. I also thank all members for the genuine way that they have approached the legislation. That is not to say I have agreed with everything they have said but I believe that everybody has approached the issue in a way that has lent some weight to the discussions. 
Offending against children that involves violence or neglect is far too common in our society and the root causes of such offending are much more diverse and fundamental than can be targeted by sentencing in the criminal courts alone. No one today is suggesting otherwise. However sentencing for such offending must as I said earlier reflect society’s abhorrence of child abuse and the far-reaching impacts it can have. 
The Sentencing Act already lists some aggravating factors to be taken into account at sentencing that apply to offending against children. But this bill takes that further. The new factors will be considered alongside the existing factors and can be distinguished from them albeit subtly. I raise this issue because of the point that the Green member Metiria Turei made during the course of her contribution. Defencelessness can be distinguished from vulnerability by for example focusing on the degree to which the victim could find protection from an offender rather than the fact that a particular child is more easily harmed or is somehow to blame in a situation of conflict such as in the circumstances raised by the member. More important the inclusion of the extra factors provides a clear signal to the courts that Parliament intends to take offending against children very seriously. Obviously how the independent judiciary chooses to respond to that signal is of course entirely in its own hands. But I think the unanimous support in the House for this legislation today makes it clear what the representatives of the New Zealand public think about that issue. 
If the House passes this bill the new law will come into effect in a matter of days. The court will take the new factors into account when sentencing all those who offend against children from day one. The reason the new provision could I guess be applied in that sense is that it does not amount to a penal enactment. Section 5 of the Sentencing Act provides that the Act will apply to offences committed before and after the commencement of the Act with certain exceptions. 
The bill is a first step and I accept the contributions from others who stated that there is much more to be done. Early next year I will be introducing a bill that deals with offences and maximum penalties available when children are the victims of offending. Other Government initiatives in the criminal justice area such as denial of parole for the worst repeat violent offenders will also have an impact on those who offend against children. However we are dealing with sentencing today and I will now turn to the policies behind the bill. Section 7 of the Sentencing Act provides that sentencing has several purposes. One is to hold the offender accountable for the harm his or her actions have done to the victim. Another is to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility for or acknowledgment of the harm he or she has caused. A third is to denounce the conduct in which the offender was involved. There are several other sentencing purposes listed but I see this bill as furthering those three in particular. 
When a child is a victim of violence or neglect the offender has a lot to be held accountable for. Studies have shown that by the age of 18 physically abused or neglected children may have impaired interpersonal skills problems with academic performance aggressive and violent behaviour an increased risk of youth offending and suicide and potentially a range of psychiatric disorders. Offending against a child can blight the victim’s entire life and can have disastrous consequences for those who interact with him or her for years to come. That is why the bill expressly provides that the court must take into account the harm caused to the victim by the offending including any serious or long-term physical or psychological harm. Offenders need to have it brought home to them what damage they have done and the time for this to happen in any real and tangible way is at sentencing. 
Another factor to which the bill draws the court’s attention is the magnitude of the breach of the special relationship of trust that should exist between a child and an adult. A caregiver has responsibilities towards a child and a child has legitimate expectations of a caregiver. Sentencing should reflect the degree to which the caregiver has abandoned his or her responsibilities and the sentencing process should work to force the offender to confront the level of harm that the offending has caused. As we have seen in recent cases some offenders seem to consider violence against children as a normal part of being a caregiver. The sentencing process provides an opportunity to challenge that attitude. Finally another purpose of sentencing is the denunciation by society of certain conduct. The level of penalty imposed by the court is a reflection of society’s condemnation of particular conduct. A harsh penalty indicates that certain behaviour is unacceptable and demonstrates that it will not be condoned. 
Few crimes are more unacceptable to a civilised society than attacks on its most defenceless and vulnerable members which children undoubtedly are. This is aggravated when the offender has actual responsibility for the defenceless victim. Such conduct is unacceptable not only because of the harm it causes to the victim and in the longer term the community but also because such conduct is worthy of condemnation in its own right—it is just wrong. Society needs to constantly reaffirm its repudiation of violence against children because that repudiation is a mark of a sane healthy society. We do that most concretely through sentencing for offending against children and this bill strengthens that commitment. 
As a father I want New Zealand to be a great place for kids to grow up in where they are all safe and well cared for as I am sure all members in this House do. As Minister of Justice I want to be sure that people who place that safety in jeopardy are held accountable. As a Government we want to ensure that families are stable functional units contributing positively to society and as parliamentarians we all have the opportunity to denounce the mistreatment and abuse of children by supporting this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Although I would reiterate the comments that have been made by members on this side of the House that we will work constructively and positively with the Government where viable workable and achievable solutions are put forward I just have to come back to some of the comments that were made by members opposite. 
It seems to me that in the last 5 days the National Government has put forward a number of bills that are all about to quote its members “sending a message”. National members have done a lot of message-sending in the last 5 days. Going by the Minister of Justice’s own words they are now sending another message but we ask what has actually been achieved. If we look at the analysis that David Parker who is a lawyer took us through line by line and clause by clause—and he compared the new proposal with the existing legislation—we see that he came to the same conclusion that Professor Geoff Hall came to. Professor Hall’s conclusion was that there is nothing new at all in this bill and that sadly it is window dressing. 
At this point I address a comment to Mr Borrows who said in response to our side quoting Professor Hall that he regarded the professor as having some credibility because he had said it was Parliament’s job to use legislation to communicate with judges. Well of course it is. That is what Parliament is for: to write legislation and to place it before the judiciary. It is therefore the job of the judiciary to interpret that legislation. But I gently say to Mr Borrows that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot regard Professor Hall as having a high degree of credibility and then rubbish his comment—and I think it was also rubbished by Dr Worth. 
I will quote Professor Hall again. He said with regard to the provisions that are already there “It sounds to me like it’s window dressing what is being proposed”. Mr Borrows cannot say on the one hand that Professor Hall makes good points and that legislation is about communicating with judges—well of course it is; judges rely on legislation and they are charged with interpreting it—and then say on the other hand effectively that Professor Hall does not know what he is talking about. Professor Hall agrees with David Parker me and all members on this side of the House when we note that these provisions do nothing new even though we are supporting them. 
If we come to the same conclusion as Professor Hall then I reiterate Mrs King’s point when she said that this legislation is sadly all about presenting an agenda to create a perception that there is a big gritty and weighty workload—a plan of action—during the great 100-day plan that will have a positive impact on the lives of New Zealanders. Well we have seen that the Bail Amendment Bill mirrors this Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill in terms of new words but there is a duplication of effort because the provisions of the legislation are already there. Judges of course are relatively unfettered by the factors that they can take into account. As I say one would have to conclude that for the National Government this is more about politics than it is about substance. However the people will judge that. 
Ms Collins made a point that I think needs to be addressed. She said there was no need for the bill to be referred to a select committee. Over the last 5 days—without getting into other areas—that has been a clarion call from the National Government. The Government seems to say that because it won an election which it did and it is charged with putting legislation forward which it is the public should not get a proper say and effectively we should not have select committees. 
Hon David Parker 
: They’ll want to do away with Parliament next. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not know; the member would have to ask National members. If National’s thesis is that an election victory means no public input thereafter—the public has a vote and that is it—then I suppose the public could put forward a proposition questioning why we have select committees. Why have them at all? Why allow members of the public and experts like Barnardos the Salvation Army the Children’s Commissioner and others to have a say? National won an election so according to National the people have had their say and it is all over. Maybe we should simply adjourn the House and National could put legislation through by edict. National would love that I am sure; Cabinet could just sit there and sign off on the legislation. Why do we need 100-plus members of Parliament to debate have input and engage in those sorts of things? I think Ms Collins’ point misses the mark sadly. I think it would have been instructive to have received input from experts other than the departments. 
It is interesting that Mrs King talked about the tongue-lashing that bureaucrats have received over the last month or so. Ironically they are now being exclusively relied upon for consultation in respect of all these bills. The folks who are not being relied upon are the agencies that the police work with—non-governmental organisations for instance. I am sure Mr Borrows has worked with them and knows them well. I am sure that he found in his career as a policeman and a lawyer that those organisations provided added value to his work and the work of his staff. They are not getting a look in on this legislation because so goes National’s line “We signalled this; it’s happening. We won an election. The people had their say through a vote. We’re just doing it.” If that is a precedent that will go forward then I think it is a very dangerous one. 
I do not think anybody in this House has a monopoly on all knowledge or expertise in every area and certainly I do not. I rely on external non-governmental organisations and people like Professor Hall and others to provide information so that we can stand up and make a reasonably decent contribution in the House. But that also means engaging with those communities and in this case it means engaging on the issue of child safety. However we are not talking about the prevention of death in respect of this legislation. Sadly we are talking about a measure that does not deal in a proactive way with the causes of what is happening and that does not identify the causes of abuse neglect and violence towards children within the home. We are not saying we ought to bolster those measures and put resources behind them. We are dealing with an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff which is reactive. 
I say again to the Minister for Social Development and Employment that we are concerned about the 500 staff to whom the axe will be taken over the next year or so. We have not had any commitment from any member of the Government thus far to assure us that those people will not be the front-line staff who deal with the protection of children and the identification of violence neglect and abuse against children. We have not had any assurance that those positions will be preserved and hopefully enhanced which is of concern to folks on this side of the Chamber. 
The other point I make is that the bill does not do anything to address the 16000-plus cases per year of substantiated child abuse and neglect. I think a silly comment may have been made at the end of Mr Parker’s speech about Professor Hall’s status; I hope that was not the case and that I misheard. Professor Hall has stated that there is nothing new in this legislation that it will have no effect and that it will not alter the status quo. We have already been told that the Minister of Justice in some months’ time next year will bring to the House what he terms a “robust bill” that will hopefully do something positive. The question then is what is the motivation and what are we really doing here in these last few sitting hours passing a bill whose provisions have already existed for some time? 
We all agree about the state of affairs around these sorts of awful cases. I note Mrs Katene’s point about the repetition that goes on in respect of those cases. I have some mixed feelings about that because I do share to some extent Mr Garrett’s view that we should remind ourselves of those cases that we should never forget the tragedies that have occurred and that we should learn from them. Although I respect the views of those opposite we have to ask what we are doing here if we are simply replicating what already exists. Sadly there can be only one answer: there are some politics in this measure and like the Bail Amendment Bill and the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill—the provisions of which already exist—this is about the National Government saying to the public that it has ticked all the boxes in the last 5 days. 
Sadly I do not think the public will get the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation unless the learned media go through it line by line with them and note that there is no new policy no new action and no new effect that will make people safer in respect of the bail legislation that will add to our education system in respect of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill or that will save one child’s life in respect of the legislation that will be passed today. I hope the public do get the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation because that will assist in their assessment of the performance of National’s great 100-day plan. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in respect of the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill just to restate a couple of points. As has been conceded the way in which Parliament speaks to judges and the courts and indicates to them that it wants a certain line to be taken on sentencing is to do that through legislation—we all know that. The fact is that this bill underlines society’s abhorrence at the state of affairs in our country that sees us offend horribly against young children and at the way that that offending is exploited maybe through the media and also by those who want to gain points. So although there has been a lot of talk about this sort of offending over the campaign period it is important when the campaign finishes and we come before the House to restate quite clinically and quite unemotionally that we want something to be done about this matter. 
The fact is that in this country we have a terrible tragedy whereby a significant number of our young people—not necessarily a lot of them comparatively—are set up to fail. We know they are set up to fail and there are a number of strategies we can take to be able to address that. This measure is but one of them. When people offend against children we not only have the abhorrence of child abuse and the victimisation of those children but we also have the creation of offenders further down the track. It is estimated that about 70 percent of the people who sexually abuse children were sexually abused themselves as children and those of us who have worked in the field would estimate that the percentages are much higher than that. The same thing of course relates to child physical abuse. 
Although we mourn the names that have been used in the House this morning where on the continuum of child abuse do we stop calling young people victims and start calling them offenders? When young offenders start to offend in this way—and we have seen this in respect of the Nia Glassie case—we have to accept and understand that they too were offended against. I believe that it is incumbent on every member of this House to take whatever step he or she can to rail against that bit by bit through small and large pieces of legislation. 
The Hon Clayton Cosgrove made a significant point and that is that we had consulted with the police and a number of other organisations in respect of this issue in preparing this bill. The fact is that when we are dealing with all those agencies through a day-to-day and day-by-day process those agencies expect us to do some stuff when we come to this House. They expect us to know and to take on board the information that we have been discussing over the months and years—and in some cases over the decades—so that when we finally get into a position where we can have some influence on legislation that is intended to make things better we do it. We should not muck around and come back with some fairly small and narrow pieces of legislation; we should just use the initiative and expertise we have and the confidence that is placed in us to just do it. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 As a member of this House I also want to record a number of points in the second reading of the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. One is our abhorrence of violence of any kind and certainly our abhorrence of family violence. As the Chief Commissioner of the Families Commission for the past 4 years I can say that a huge amount of time has been spent on examining violence generally and family violence in particular from a number of quarters. So after that one cannot come to the House and do anything other than join with everyone in this House—not just as members but also as fathers husbands and family members—in abhorring that violence. We are all committed to doing something significant about this problem and to working with the Government to improve whatever proposals are put before us. We come to the House after a political campaign where this particular issue was an important one. But before I reflect on that I want to say that I accept what the Hon Phil Goff said about the sincerity of the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power on this issue and the importance of it. Indeed if we could work collaboratively on this matter over the next period then perhaps our collective experiences—not just from our present roles but from our communities and from the areas in which we have worked—might be useful. 
The point I want to make is that we should be looking forward to where the whole notion of doing something about family violence in this country might go. In the campaign we have just completed law and order was a major issue. Certainly Government members campaigned hard on it and—one should be generous—won on it. They promised however that in quick time the problem would be fixed and said that they had great ideas and would guarantee the outcome of family violence being eliminated. On our side we campaigned on our message that a great deal of what was expected of what was required for doing something about family violence had indeed been done and that many many measures and a lot of resources had been put into this area. However the perception endures in the community and every now and again those cases that churn our insides that get us to a stage where we do not want to look at television programmes about particular cases any more bother us. So Opposition members are committed to working with the Government to eliminate this particular area of concern. 
How we proceed to the next stage is really important. There is a huge number of people in New Zealand society—and indeed of those with experience around the world—who can guide us on this. I do not think we have in this House all of the expertise that is needed. What made our 4 years working in the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families successful was that we committed ourselves to bringing together all of the intelligence from across Government departments non-governmental groups Maori and Pacific people in order to focus on the problem. The success in terms of the campaign and the work we started was that we thought about it on the basis of bringing all the knowledge and best ideas together finding the resources then starting a long campaign to change New Zealand’s performance both in respect of family violence and of child abuse. I think that is the kind of approach that is required here as well. 
Consequently I am concerned like other members on this side of the House that we are bringing one matter to Parliament to address when there are so many other pieces to address. Would it not be something to behold if a collective process could be identified so as to add to each other’s thinking develop a programme that needs to be put together bring that to the House and then take it further? But I also remind the Government now of the views it took when it was in Opposition. Indeed it was very hard for the Opposition because its spokesperson on social development was not able to participate in the multi-party family violence group. That was a shame because several years of good experience is now lost and needs to be put back in. So I hope that in the next period there will be a different approach where members on this side of the House will be provided with opportunities to bring their experience to the table and where their input can help to address the problems we face. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to address a couple of matters that have been raised since I spoke in the first reading debate. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister of Justice is taking seriously my concerns about section 9A(2)(a) inserted by clause 4 and is looking at the application of that provision in practice. If I am right—and the Minister might want to correct me—when he spoke in the second reading he said that the provision was not designed or expected to include looking at fault of the child or blaming the child but rather at whether the child could find protection. I ask the Minister whether that is right. 
Hon Simon Power 
: What was that? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That the issue is the extent to which the child could find protection. If that is the wording I heard from the Minister in his second reading speech it concerns me somewhat because I am not sure how one would factor into the sentencing of the offender the availability of protection for the child. The protection presumably would refer to factors external to the child and external to the offender actually—other opportunities that might be available to that child or alternatives to the situation that was going on. But in the court process there are only two parties: the offender and the victim. Any factor has to be related directly to either the offender or the victim. 
The alternative way of looking at the issue of whether there was the possibility of protection for the victim would be to suggest that protection was available but the child did not avail himself or herself of it. Again it comes back to the need to have a factor that is relevant to either the victim or the offender. Any factor that somehow in any way imports any kind of responsibility on to the victim in the circumstances of this legislation simply is not acceptable. 
We will continue to have this discussion no doubt in the Committee stage. We might even hear more from Mr Garrett about why he considers that my amendment is not necessary because it is about aggravating factors in sentencing. I am not quite sure of his reasoning but I would be very willing to hear his argument. 
I have two responses to Mr Borrows’ contributions. One is to afford him significant respect for his comment this afternoon that very many offenders are themselves victims and there is a very line at which point one becomes one or the other—that those two states if you like are not mutually exclusive. This is one of the reasons why the Green Party has campaigned very strongly against a legal system that is focused on punishment and retribution as opposed to rehabilitation reintegration and the elimination of reoffending. There is a very fine line between being an offender and being a victim in many of the cases we see go to the courts. If retribution is the No. 1 priority of the legal system then we simply will not stop the reoffending that goes on. I have talked about that in discussions on other legislation particularly the Bail Amendment Bill which was recently before the House. 
There was another comment that Mr Borrows made that I do not agree with at all and would like to refer to. Part of it is the discussion on the merit of including the provision about the defencelessness of a child. If the bill had gone to a select committee the consideration that both the Minister and I are giving to those words in the legislation would have happened in the select committee process. In the second reading debate which we are having right now we would have been talking about the discussions that had happened in the select committee the officials’ report that dealt with the definition of those words and the views of the submitters who had come to talk to us about the application of those words in practice in the courts. We are unable to have that discussion or get that input because there has not been a select committee process where we could have had exactly that discussion. That makes for very poor lawmaking. I do not agree with Mr Borrows. He might think he knows everything in the world; I do not assume that for myself. I certainly would not claim as he did to know what the answer would have been from every person who might have wanted to make a submission to the select committee. I am sure he really did not mean that. I hope he did not. 
That is why the select committee process is so important particularly when we are dealing with such significant legislation and especially when we are dealing with legislation that is about criminal law actually. The greatest power that the State has is the coercive power of the police the armed forces and the judicial system. It is the main area of the exercise of extreme State power in relation to our community as a whole so it must be subject to the highest possible level of scrutiny by the members of the public themselves. They must know what the change in the relationship between them and the State will be. Also we must make sure that the machinery of the State in respect of criminal law has the best and most correct mechanisms for dealing with the issue that needs to be dealt with. We must make sure that there are no erroneous powers given to the State there are no holes in the powers that are given to the State and the balance between the rights of the community and the State is properly met. That is why the select committee process which includes public discussion is very important when it comes to criminal law. We are missing out on that process on very important critical legislation that deals with one of the most important issues that this country ever deals with which is violence against and neglect of our most vulnerable citizens. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will take a very short call just to address that one point which seems to be the only one that is still causing any debate at all and that is the role of select committees. I am not experienced of course with the mechanics of select committees and I find that the select committee process is extremely important. But I think members have lost sight of the fact that this is a sentencing bill. It is to use the left’s terminology a bottom of the cliff measure. Members from all sides of the House have agreed that it is not going to prevent these things happening sadly and that it is a reactive not a proactive measure—that is all correct. Although the select committee process is an extremely positive thing where there is any kind of debate about causes all that could have been achieved by sending this bill to a select committee in my view was delay. All that could possibly have come out of it were five factors for judges to take into account none of them silly or unreasonable. So all that could possibly have come out of a select committee after potentially a great deal of time were another five or 10 factors. What would that have added to the legislation? In my view it would have added nothing aside from delay. 
The Government says that it has introduced the legislation at this time to get it in place prior to the holiday period which sadly for many people is not just a time of rejoicing. We all know that the rate of family violence goes up during the supposed festive season so this is a case where sending this bill to a select committee would have been a retrograde step and an occasion for more wastage of trees and wastage of time. 
In my view this is an example where not referring a bill to select committee is not in any way taking away from the democratic process; in fact it is enhancing it in that something is getting done that does not require public input. Factors for judges do not require public input really in this kind of situation and select committee referral would have resulted in the bill perhaps not being reported back until the middle of next year. So in this case and in this kind of situation I think that the select committee process can be seen as non-enhancing. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee for the four clauses to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Clauses 1 to 4 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Bearing in mind the nature of the debate that has occurred we are not going to labour the point but I just want to raise a couple of very short points with the Minister. The first is whether he could briefly go into a little more detail in respect of Ms Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper. I have talked to the cross benches about the ramifications of the points that she made which I think are very valuable points. The second point I wanted to touch on and again I mean this in a genuine way is whether the Minister could perhaps provide some of the rationale if he will behind the new points and the new factors that are raised here because we do still make the point to him that there is duplication. I would be interested from his officials’ point of view in a little more detail to address the points that Mr Parker raised as he went through and did some legal analysis because Mr Parker’s thesis was that there is no difference here. As a third point I would make the plea—I suspect I will not get a response today but being an eternal Irish optimist— 
Hon Simon Power 
: As am I. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed. I would just ask him whether he is prepared to speak again briefly about the parole legislation and whether he will give us some sort of time frame if he is not prepared to trigger it as we have invited him to do whether he would be prepared to offer some brief explanation as to what he proposes to do around that parole issue; whether he is going to bring some new ideas or new legislation to the Parliament—if so when and what that would be—or whether he is prepared again to acquiesce to our request to trigger it. Because I say in conclusion that that will have a real and significant impact on the safety of New Zealanders unlike the two pieces of law and order legislation that we have dealt with in the last 48 hours. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the member Clayton Cosgrove for the series of reasonable and rational questions he put to me in the chair today. I will address two of those matters but the first matter I want to address is the matter raised by the Green Party although that was the third matter that Mr Cosgrove brought to the Committee. 
I noted that the Green Party member said she was not interested in what the law intended and what she was interested in was what was actually going to happen. I can talk a bit about both those things if I may. The issue of defencelessness is not in any way intended to align or design a behaviour on a scale of circumstances that might excuse behaviour because of a particular set of circumstances peculiar to an individual child whether his or her age be 14 years or for that matter less than 1 year for example. In no way is it designed to allow for the apportionment of blame to a child nor is it about shifting the blame for a child’s behaviour size or capacity in the sense that the member raised earlier. 
As I said in my second reading speech—and I accept there is a very subtle difference between defencelessness and vulnerability—it is my view and the Government’s view that defencelessness can be distinguished from vulnerability by focusing on the degree to which the victim could find protection from the offender rather than on the fact that children in themselves are more easily harmed or are somehow more to blame than adults would be in those circumstances. I accept the point the member has made and I think it is a particularly valuable contribution to the debate. It is quite a subtle technical point but I can assure her there is absolutely no intention to allow the types of circumstances that she describes to occur within the bounds of the legislation as it is designed. 
Before I address the other two points made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove I say to the Maori Party members that I think the contribution made in seeking advice from the Children’s Commissioner brought another dimension to the consultation which given the time frames we are operating in was a valuable contribution to the debate. The reason for the age as members from the Maori Party will appreciate is to align it directly with the Child Youth and Family legislation. The debate about the age of a child in the more general sense is one that will continue as domestic and international obligations in that regard do not always align. I can think of a couple of situations off the top of my head that eventually we will have a discussion about in this Parliament. 
On the matters raised by the Hon David Parker I thought that what he said was a particularly good contribution because it was technical around some of the issues. But I do not share his view I say to Mr Cosgrove that these clauses do not add anything to the discussion. The specificity that they bring to the matters to which a sentencing judge must turn his or her mind is quite poignant and pointed. The law of statutory interpretation—if I can reach back into my first-year law days—is clear that specific sections or clauses take priority over those of a more general and wider application. In the event that we are able to set up a specific section relating to children the sentencing judge would give his or her attention to that matter first I say to Mr Cosgrove prior to the more general provisions. That is why that is important and that is why specificity is important. 
In respect of matters surrounding parole I just say two things: all in good time and members should watch this space. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
:  
I appreciate the comments made by the Minister of Justice Simon Power and the seriousness with which he has taken my concerns. I still think there may be some room for misinterpretation of that provision in practice but assuming that if there was such a misinterpretation at some point in the future it could be dealt with in other ways I think it will be worthwhile to withdraw Supplementary Order Paper 2 in my name at this stage in the spirit of the whole of the Parliament supporting the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. I think there is no need for anyone to take any divisions or votes because we all agree on the importance of the legislation and because the issue is taken seriously. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Supplementary Order Paper 2 in the name of Metiria Turei has been withdrawn. 
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank all political parties in this House this afternoon for the way in which they have approached this legislation. I appreciate that this is often an environment where under urgency and with these long hours things can spark up a fraction but I do appreciate the way parties have approached the legislation. Issues raised by all members on all sides of the House have brought in quite a considerable quality of debate. I include the Labour Opposition members in that as well particularly David Parker who brought quite a technical discussion to the fore. I single out Metiria Turei for two things. Firstly her discussion around the issue of defencelessness was a genuine one and I am humbled by the fact that she withdrew her amendment in order to show that the whole House was supportive of this legislation. I give her an undertaking that if there are any difficulties with that particular clause and I am still the Minister of Justice it will be dealt with. 
The bill encourages tougher sentences for offences against children that involve violence or neglect. It denounces such conduct as does this Government and I am proud to say as does this entire Parliament. This is our first step in dealing with child abuse. Other criminal justice legislation and initiatives in other portfolios will further address the mistreatment of children and the dysfunction of families but this is a timely step as the Christmas break approaches and children are especially at risk in stressful environments of mistreatment. 
We cannot know the true extent of offending against children. Family violence is notoriously under-reported with recent research published in the reputed UK medical journal  
The Lancet 
 
indicating that as few as one in 10 cases are reported to social service agencies in countries such as Canada Australia and the UK. In New Zealand data on criminal convictions is not stored according to the age of the victim making it impossible to identify the scale of the problem at that basic level. But we do know that Child Youth and Family investigates more than 16000 cases of child abuse each year. Violence or neglect is a regular part of the lives of far too many of our children; one instance is one too many. We all have a responsibility to confront this issue and I encourage all New Zealanders to report instances of offending against children regardless of those persons’ relationship to the offender. 
The bill has moved through the House very quickly and I make no apologies for that. The policy was clearly announced and campaigned on; voters provided a mandate for it and so has this Parliament. It would be hard to find a rational person who did not agree that offending against children merits our denunciation. 
As I said this is just the first step. This new legislation will see the perpetrators of abuse appropriately punished and will go some way to protecting our children but we can and must do more. Many of us have followed the recent series of articles in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on child abuse and the organisations that have been set up to work with victims and families. Because we are confronted daily with reports of appalling offending against children it is easy to slip into a mindset that sees such offending as being inevitable and unavoidable. As Parliamentarians we must all resist that conclusion and do everything we can to develop effective law in this area. As Minister of Justice my responsibility lies with the sentencing for offences against children but I can assure the public of New Zealand that my Cabinet colleagues with social policy portfolios are also looking at this issue from other angles. As a Government we are determined to safeguard the lives of our nation’s children who are of course the future of this country. But it is not solely the Government’s responsibility or Parliament’s responsibility to address child abuse. As a nation we all have a responsibility to confront this issue. From the social service agencies the  
New Zealand Herald  
is featuring to families and whanau and to neighbours and friends we all have a duty to protect and nurture the lives of our children. 
We are now just less than 2 weeks from Christmas traditionally known as the season of peace and goodwill. For too many children in the past years the opposite has been true. I hope this Christmas is different. I hope that our children can enjoy a summer and a holiday; it is their right and this bill reinforces that right. Next year members will be seeing more reform to the criminal justice system but we have started today with reform for children. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to make just a short contribution to this debate. Firstly I commend the Minister for his management and conduct of this issue. I think he has a reputation both as a member of the Opposition and now as a member of the Government as a person who deals with issues very honourably. That stands in stark contrast to what we have seen from one or two of his colleagues in the last 5 days. But that being the case let us continue on with the season to be jolly. 
This is a serious issue and I just reiterate as all members have done that we share the same emotion in terms of the revulsion we feel for the conduct perpetrated by some people against children. But I make the point that the Government has not outlined one factual example of aggravating conduct under this legislation that is not already catered for as aggravating conduct under existing legislation. Given that that is the case one wonders what the purpose of this legislation is. 
I hope the Government will place as much emphasis as possible on examining resourcing and dealing with the causes of this behaviour against children because I believe—and I think we all believe—that in doing so we can prevent these tragedies from occurring prevent injury and ultimately prevent the loss of life. This legislation alone by the Minister’s own admission and those of others will not alter what has occurred. I want to reiterate Professor Hall’s comments and I think it would be valuable for the Minister to perhaps have a conversation with Professor Hall who is probably New Zealand’s foremost authority on sentencing. He has made the point that this legislation is window dressing. 
I close by reiterating the comments of my leader Phil Goff who said that we stand ready as an Opposition to work cooperatively constructively and positively with the Government where appropriate viable and workable solutions are put up by it. That does not mean we will agree on every particular detail of those solutions but we acknowledge that this is an issue of moment and that this is an issue that is far too important to play politics with. I thank the Minister for his conduct and I hope some of his colleagues will mirror his example. We commend the bill to the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is good to be able to come to the end of the transition of the proposed Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill into enactment and to know that there is the widest of support for it across the House. It is important to bring in pieces of legislation that are precise that address narrowly certain issues and that add to a collective of legislation that actually deals with the problem—if not in a strictly preventive sense at least by addressing the problem as it is within society. 
It is interesting to be here on a Saturday under urgency dealing with this bill. Many investigators around the country are dealing with exactly this kind of tragic circumstance whether it is child homicide or child beating or some other form of neglect. They are working very hard on these things. There is nothing worse than to go through the legal process then not obtain a result; to see a 4 5 6 or 7-year-old muster up the courage to give evidence against an abuser only to find that a conviction is not obtained. It is important to give the judiciary the tools to be able to deal adequately with these offences when a conviction is obtained and to deal with them in a way that is more in keeping with society’s reflection on them. 
In closing I would like to say that I look forward to seeing over the next little while a bipartisan approach to what we all know and that is the fact that in this country we can identify the at-risk foetus. We know that the child who grows up to fail in the areas of health welfare education and law and order is born to a woman who has children at a very young age and may have up to three pregnancies before she is 20; we know she left school with very few qualifications if any; we know she works in a low-wage occupation or is on a benefit; we know there is very little engagement whatsoever with any positive role models in her life; we know she smokes tobacco; we know she is dependent on alcohol and some other substance; and we know that if we can identify the father he comes from the same demographic. When we have all this knowledge when we live in an age when we can put spacecraft on Mars we must address this issue. The willingness of members of Parliament to vote together on this small piece of legislation and to pledge to work together on the much broader problem before us is very comforting and should be comforting to those listening and those who will reflect on the passing of this bill today. Thank you. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I do not intend to delay this House for long at all. I do not think there is any need to draw out this debate as I think everything has been said. Today we have seen the House at its best because we have come to an agreement across the Chamber around the broad issue of addressing child abuse in New Zealand. I think the most positive thing to come out of this debate is the hand that has now been stretched out by the Minister Simon Power in saying that he too would like to work across party lines on child abuse. We will have to see how that manifests itself. 
I say to the Minister that I look forward to addressing the other legislation that he intends to introduce next year. Labour may not agree with that legislation but we look forward to his introducing it and giving this House the opportunity to debate it and send it to a select committee where the public can have a say on it. I believe that the only way we will solve an issue as complicated as child abuse—and for that matter I say to the Minister family violence—is to have a bigger conversation with New Zealanders. As much as we would like to fix the problem as politicians and as much as we can put ambulances at the bottom of the cliff—and we can have our legislation our education and our prevention programmes—unless we have buy-in from the community and a belief that we can do something about it we will be beating our gums for years to come. 
So it is important in terms of any moves we make that we bring the wider community alongside us. That community is not just the community of people who are poor or sole parents. Child abuse and family violence can happen in the home on the hill with the flashest car in the driveway. We know that these issues exist right throughout the community. We also know that some families have risk factors associated with them. In those cases if we intervene early enough and have the right programmes in place we could make a huge difference to preventing some of the tragic cases that we are all so familiar with. 
I say to the Minister that this bill will pass its third reading shortly and receive its Royal assent on Monday—along with the other one no doubt. We acknowledge that this measure will not stop these cases but it will do no harm. At least it has started a debate on this issue. There is much more to do. I hope that this is not the end of the debate on this issue and that we will take it further for the good of the children in this country. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. I think it is really important in these debates that we remember what we are after. I think that in a lot of the debate about being tough on crime and all the rest of it we lose track of the final objective. We want to live in a safer society and we want to live in a society where people are free from violence. It is important to remember that that is where we are trying to get to. We often get caught up in all the punitive stuff and get caught up in dealing with all the people we do not like who have done really bad things. That is totally understandable but we need to keep focused on our objective which is that we want to live in a safe society and we want to live free from violence. 
The Green Party has been an opponent of violence. It is part of our charter. One of our fundamental principles is to oppose violence and we have a deep hatred of violence. But we accept that there is widespread violence in our society and anything we can do to reduce violence should be supported. 
We are supporting this bill but we are pretty sceptical about what it can do. The reason we are sceptical is that it does not appear to add a lot to existing law. There has been quite a bit of discussion today about that. Looking at section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002 “Aggravating and Mitigating Factors” I see that a lot of what is in this bill already appears to be law. It is hard to see that the bill adds much to existing law. We will support it because it does not seem to do any harm but we are not convinced that it adds a lot to what is already there. 
We would really like to see a lot more emphasis on avoiding reoffending. It would be great if as much energy went into preventing offending in the first place as goes into putting in place punishments and talking about what we will do about crime once it has happened. The Green Party would like to see most of our energy directed to preventing violence in the first place. 
I take note of comments made earlier. I think it was Chester Borrows who said that offenders have often been victims themselves in the past and I think it is important that we question what resources time and energy we could put in to stop that cycle of violence. That seems to me to be one of the key things. What support will we put into prisons so that prisoners can get drug rehabilitation access to literacy skills and education and access to the kinds of skills they need to get a job when they get out? Are we willing to spend the millions and millions of dollars that it would take to do rehabilitation properly? It is all very well to say that we will lock people up for longer and all of that but if we are really serious about breaking the cycle of offending then we need to stump up with a whole bunch of money for rehabilitation. It is not cheap; it is really expensive. It is actually not a cheap thing to do. We cannot just pass a law and we cannot just lock people up; if we are serious about avoiding violence in the long term we also need to ask what we are doing at the top of the cliff. What fences are we building at the top of the cliff? How are we supporting people when they come out of prison? Are we providing them with the support and the skills they need so that they can get a job and so that they do not get back into more offending and a cycle of violence? That is where we would like to put our energy. That is where we think the energy of this Parliament and this Government should go. 
That ties into one of the key things in all of this: dysfunctional families. The Greens think we should be providing more support to families. We think that increased fines for truancy which we have been talking about today will not help families. How will it help families that are already in trouble? So many families are already in trouble and how do we help them by giving them a $3000 fine? How does the 90-day trial period bill help them? It means that parents are less likely to have a secure job. If we are serious about avoiding violence against children which we all say we are then we have to ask what we are doing to support families that are under pressure and in trouble. That should be the first thing we do. That should be where we put most of our money and that should be where we put most of our energy rather than putting all our time and energy into rhetoric about the prison at the bottom of the cliff. What about increasing the minimum wage? All of those are issues that could take pressure off families. We need to support families so that the parents have more time and can do their job properly. 
The Green Party took a lead in terms of violence in changing section 59 of the Crimes Act. It was very reassuring to us that the latest UMR Research survey found that there had been a change in attitude to physical punishment of children. In 1993 87 percent of those polled thought that there were times when it was OK to use corporal discipline; this has now come down to 58 percent—from 87 percent to 58 percent according to a UMR Research survey released by the Children’s Commissioner. We think that is progress. It is about a culture shift in our society in relation to the way we treat children. The Green Party was very proud to lead the campaign to amend section 59. Once again we accept that it was not the whole solution; it was only one small part of the jigsaw puzzle but it was really important. 
I will reiterate and reflect on the comments about making sure that the Ministry of Social Development—in particular Child Youth and Family—has the money it needs to do the job properly. Let us make sure it has the money it needs. That should be a priority. It is all very well to talk about increasing sentencing and all of that but what are we doing to make sure that the agencies that actually have to intervene in troubled families and families under pressure have the resources they need? 
Finally I hope there is more consultation with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner because I think this kind of legislation would benefit from that kind of input. Obviously it would have been much better had the bill gone to a select committee so that we could have had the benefit of that whole process and I would certainly encourage the Minister of Justice in future to maintain an open dialogue with the Children’s Commissioner. 
The Greens will be supporting this bill even though we think that it does not make any substantial progress. We do not think that it does any harm. We also thank the Minister for his reassurances about the “defencelessness” provision and we hope that he will keep an eye on those cases as they work their way through to see whether there are any problems with it. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 My first contribution to this debate on the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill was a hope that in this kind of situation there could be a multi-partisan approach to pass this bill and that is indeed what has happened. I think there has been some very useful comment from all sides. ACT began in the first reading by supporting this bill along with all the other parties and we end by doing exactly the same thing. We disagree somewhat with the previous speaker Dr Russel Norman that it may be of no account at all. No one thinks that it is the whole solution but if only one potential child basher is given some pause for thought over this coming festive season then we will have done something good today. We support it. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 On television last night a young mum was asked about her son. Her instantaneous joy at thinking about her child was obvious as her face lit up and she said: “From the day he was born you couldn’t take the smile off of all of our faces. He made us glow every day.” This Christmas that glow has been replaced by the dull gnawing pain of a family trying to learn to live without their boy—a boy who was described as his dad’s hands and legs in reference to the support he provided to his father who is a tetraplegic. At the beginning of this year that young boy was stabbed to death by a 50-year-old businessman who took the law into his own hands and now a jury of his peers has handed down a sentence not of murder but of manslaughter. 
I take the time to refer to that case because it is entirely relevant to what we are trying to do today in this Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill: to send the signal that violence against children is not OK at any time or in any place. The crime that cost that boy his life was that he was allegedly about to tag a fence. Tagging of course was the hot topic for the last Parliament and I recall when listening to proceedings from the outside being amazed at the extravagant language and dramatic rhetoric that accompanied the debate in the House. Politicians from all parties except the Maori Party the Greens and ACT voted venomously to outlaw graffiti creating the perception that the violence of vandalism was the issue of fundamental and paramount importance on our horizons as a nation. 
Without relitigating that debate I want to place it on the record that I am absolutely opposed to tagging and that I accept that it is appropriate to consider any instances of tagging within the context of property law. But I would question the way in which politicians have demonised taggers and the exaggerated hyperbole that has embellished the debate. I cannot reconcile the dramatic overreaction to tagging with the seeming understatement about the loss of the life of another child. Have we become so desensitised to the horror of murder that the extreme vigilante action of that case is tolerated because after all a fence was allegedly about to be tagged? Is it acceptable for a citizen to chase a boy with a knife and to kill him with that same knife? Was the crime of tagging property deserving of a death sentence for that teenager? Is it acceptable that the crime of the adult was excused as arising from frustration and an intention not to kill yet a youngster was killed? That was apparently so for a Christchurch city councillor who infamously said of the accused: “If I was on the jury I’d let him get away with it.” 
Any violent crime is intolerable but that is particularly the case when it is directed against children. This week the Unicef survey of how well 25 OECD countries treated their young people placed New Zealand at 19th out of 25 countries on the measure of infant mortality. The horrendous incidents of violence against children which we read about every day have shamed us internationally to the extent that we as a nation are found to have neglected the responsibility we must take up to set in place basic minimum standards for the care and protection of children. Strong high-level leadership and coordination must be shown if we are to achieve the protection of children from violence. 
I congratulate the  
New Zealand Herald  
on its action this week in running a series of articles on child abuse and promoting the agencies and strategies that are available to keep our children safe. We need the conversation that condemns violence and neglect against children to be a priority at every level of society. The  
New Zealand Herald  
is running the “Our Lost Children” series and one of the articles featured Soala Wilson who in 1999 was awarded the title “Pacific Island businessperson of the year”. The Grey Lynn businesswoman has taken the brave step of speaking out about the horrific physical abuse she has experienced after having been beaten as a child with the belt the chair or whatever else was around. She made this proud declaration to the  
New Zealand Herald: 
 “I will never stop talking about it until society—families churches stop telling me to keep a lid on abuse. I won’t—I will not stop until society and families start speaking up and stop living in fear.” 
This bill is another approach for Parliament to start speaking up and stop living in fear. It builds on the excellent work established by Sue Bradford in repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act which ensured that assaults on children in the name of “discipline” were outlawed. It builds on the strong foundation of an incredible network of agencies and advocates who do so much in caring for our children: groups like Te Kahui Mana Ririki Te Korowai Aroha Unicef Plunket Save the Children Barnardos CCS Disability Action Tipu Ora the Maori Women’s Welfare League and many more. It builds on the precedent established by our whanau hapu and iwi our nannies and koros and our aunties and uncles—those who strive to place loving arms around all of our children to keep them from harm. It builds on the work of the dedicated social workers teachers childcare workers nurses police officers hauora providers and kohanga reo kaiawhina who every day watch over our children. It builds on the leadership of all New Zealanders who are prepared to stand up for children and to become superheroes who insist that our children must be treasured. 
The Maori Party is passionate about the campaign to eliminate violence from our lives. We salute all of those cause champions who have challenged society to speak up for our children. We celebrate the tribal leaders who are encouraging an environment upon our marae in which those who have perpetrated violence are forbidden from the privilege of speaking on the paepae. We want to see every school every institution and every residence practise strategies that prevent violence and promote safety. 
The briefing to the incoming Minister from the Children’s Commissioner recommended that “long-term investment in the restoration and rejuvenation of Maori whanau hapu iwi and communities is required for the overall future wellbeing of many Maori children and young people.” It is advice that we wholeheartedly endorse. We cannot focus just on the sentencing of an offender without at the same time investing in healthy outcomes for those who have been offended against. We want to see all families wear the glow of their children and to make all parents beam with the smile of pride and love for their sons and daughters. We must make the effort to publicly express the value of children and child rearing to promote respect for our children and to aspire towards a violence-free culture. 
As we approach the Christmas season perhaps that is the one gift that we in Parliament can encourage every family to invest in: the gift of unconditional love for the precious hope of our future. Kia ora. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise today to take a call in support of the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill—a bill that stands up for the most defenceless members of our society. Society is sickened by the abuse of our children and it has been heartening to sit here this afternoon and listen to the debate in this House and hear the unanimity with which this House has condemned those sorts of actions. Abuse of our children is abhorrent and it will not be tolerated. In fact the only real dissension or points of difference that I have heard in this debate this afternoon have focused on two small points. One is the criticism that the bill will not stop abuse and the second is the question of whether it is needed under existing law. I want to speak to those two matters today. 
I comment that in law and order we have of course two things to do. We first have to work to prevent harm—and that is the most important goal—but equally we must also ensure that those who commit crime are properly punished. That is the part that this bill seeks to achieve; its primary focus is not in the category of working to deter harm. Having said that I do not accept that it is entirely outside of that category because all sentencing does have some deterrent effect—but that is not the primary purpose of the bill. The bill will though help deliver tougher sentences and that is why it is important. Even though New Zealand has such a high degree of offending against children the current Sentencing Act does not have any express guidance for the courts to deal with violence against or abuse of children under 14. That is why this bill is important and that is why it will make a difference to the sentences that are handed down to child offenders. 
We accept that the bill is not a silver bullet. This will not magically cure the problems of society but it is—as members have heard already today—the first part of our plan to deal with these issues. I think it is an important part of that plan. I was fortunate during my legal training to have the opportunity to work as junior counsel for children. I think we would all agree that these cases are some of the most difficult emotionally and legally to deal with in the courts. It is a matter that we take incredibly seriously. But the first step in that is making sure that we have appropriate responses to violent offences against children and by having specific aggravating factors built into the Sentencing Act we will see that flowing through into the sentences that are handed down in these cases. It obliges the court to take account of these matters in its sentencing and in that respect it is an absolutely necessary part of the legal system. I just wanted to take a short call today to make those points. I join with the other members of this House in commending this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.