Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:672] 
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.