Dowie Sarah: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDowie Sarah: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1125. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):Every time I rise it seems to be you in the Chair Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard so I am very very lucky. But thank you very much for allowing me to take this call on this Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. Although I was not present for the select committee process in respect of this bill I have read the papers. The implications of it are important and of course they should be debated.This Government supported the bill in its first reading to explore the proposal and the ramifications but unfortunately it has fallen short. No one can deny—and we have heard from many members in this House—that the intent of this bill is admirable in that it specifically seeks to make sentencing the consideration if an offence has occurred in front of a child. So that means it is viewed that the safety of children is paramount.But the devil is in the detail in that the definition of “in the presence of a minor” is too broad. If we look at that it says in section 4(1) inserted by clause 4: “(a) in a place or building where a minor is present or could reasonably be expected to be present; or (b) in close proximity to a place or building where a minor is present or could reasonably be expected to be present”. As I said before it is extremely broad and as the member previously alluded to it would apply to roads shopping malls and many public places. So the challenge would be to apply it in practice. It baffles me how this would be done objectively.From our perspective it is about striking a balance between being tough on crime and not over-legislating. Section 9 of the Sentencing Act allows judges to use their discretion as to the gravity of an offence. They are already doing this. Case law suggests that and it is being done.But if we go back to the general policy statement it states that “Criminal offending by adults often exposes minors to serious harm.” an example of that offending is “the production of drugs particularly methamphetamine. Production of these substances is regularly conducted in residential buildings putting the lives and health of resident children at risk of poisoning and burns resulting from the highly dangerous and unstable chemicals used in such production. Minors are often innocent parties to criminal offending by adults and deserve protection from adult offending that puts them at risk of harm.” Well absolutely.It is commonly reported by researchers and experts that children who witness this or who are raised in households where offending is prevalent are more likely to offend themselves. Exposing children to the manufacturing of P to the toxic substances and solvents used to make it—well I mean you do not need to have a PhD to understand the ramifications of that.This bill however is about sentencing and it does not actually go towards reducing crime or the effects of it on children. Despite what the member opposite has just said this Government is looking at reducing crime and it is a fact that crime is at a 35-year low.As the member Mr Bishop said this Government is revolutionary in its thinking. One of the things that I particularly like is that we are breaking down the silos of Government and unashamedly enabling agencies such as Child Youth and Family Services education providers and district health boards to talk to one another to identify those children at risk.I also want to talk about one more initiative in respect of assisting children and bringing them out of the jaws of crime and that is the Social Workers in Schools programme. That has expanded obviously to decile 1 to decile 3 schools—to put front-line experts face to face with those children at risk to deal with very complex issues.The other thing—and this is not directly involved with sentencing—is enabling the police to reduce crime by giving them practical measures. This bill does not go to enabling that to reduce crime. Realistically it goes to only one example which is the manufacturing of methamphetamine. I really do not think you can legislate for this type of thing and then legislate for every other circumstance that could appear. So you need to allow judges to use their discretion and—my apologies Mr Assistant Speaker. So judges need to use their discretion. We need to allow that to happen.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I always use my discretion.SARAH DOWIE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate your discretion. For that reason even though the intent of the bill is admirable this Government simply cannot support it. Thank you.