Ardern Jacinda: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13752. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to take the first call from Labour on the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill brought by the New Zealand First member Asenati Lole-Taylor and to say that Labour is supporting this bill to the Law and Order Committee so it can be given further consideration both by the public and by members of this House. But we do have some reservations and I want to share and outline those with the House now.We absolutely agree with the member that it is incumbent upon us to protect the most vulnerable from harm. Our argument would be: what is the best point of intervention to try to ensure that those layers of protection exist? How do we best ensure that a child is kept distant from harm? How when they are found to be in harm’s way can we best ensure that they are supported and removed from that harm? Our question is whether adding an extra bit of criteria for when an offender comes to be sentenced is the best way to do that keeping in mind that as it is most judges would probably keep in mind or factor in the presence of children when they come to sentence. But what we are relying upon for this bill to take effect is first for a criminal to be charged—for enough evidence to exist for them to be charged—second for them to be convicted and then third for the sentencing to take place.I want to use the example that the member has used around the presence of children in methamphetamine labs because it is a very good example that the member is right to raise. There are a number of vulnerable children in this country who are currently exposed to the dangers of methamphetamine manufacturing. In 2010 alone 44 children were found living in laboratories physically living in the environment in which equipment and drugs were manufactured—a potentially explosive environment not to mention the fact that they were absorbing those toxins into their skin. That was in just 1 year. It is a growing trend and that is down to police records. Police records have demonstrated the presence of almost 200 children since they started measuring that.The issue is that you would assume that the police who for instance then report to Child Youth and Family when they go into a home where there is methamphetamine—they will tell Child Youth and Family that there is a child in the home where they have done a drug raid. We would assume as fair-minded New Zealanders that any parent raising their child in that kind of risk environment would have their child removed. It is a fair assessment a fair judgment to make. That is not the case. In some cases we have parents who are being charged convicted and sentenced but their spouse is still caring for the child and they go back into the home with that child. They may sometimes even return to manufacturing methamphetamine. The police have found this to be the case.Why is that? Well it is simply because the threshold for abuse and neglect implies that you are removing the necessities of life from a child and there is at least in the minds of Child Youth and Family a threshold that is not met through drug manufacturing. There is apparently not enough evidence to demonstrate that that is the removal of the necessities of life. Well in my mind when you find toxins equivalent to that of a methamphetamine user in the hair follicles of a child that is enough. That should be enough. Simply the fact that you consider it acceptable to raise your child in that environment that should be enough.So the point that we want to make is this. If we really want to protect children should we be considering the fact that it should be a separate offence in itself rather than an aggravating factor? Should we be considering that at least our child protection agency considers it neglect and abuse for those children to be in that environment? And why do we not do that first? That is what we know we are crying out for now. Putting any child back into a home where this is occurring says to me that a hole exists and ifwe are waiting until someone is convicted that does not fix the hole. So we have got to look at some of those other issues.But as I have said we support this bill to the select committee so that we can debate some of these issues. As I say some of our reservations are about whether or not it is directed in the right place and whether or not judges already have this power but that is something we look forward to considering. I thank the member Asenati Lole-Taylor for bringing this debate to this House.