Little Andrew: Vulnerable Children Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Vulnerable Children Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13398. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I take a call on the Vulnerable Children Bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the work of the Minister for Social Development and by saying that no one doubts or challenges the motives or objects that sit behind this bill. There is no question that we in New Zealand have a serious problem when it comes to the safety well-being and health of our children. Both the Minister for Social Development and the Minister of Justice have spoken on this bill and they are entitled to be supported in improving the protection and standing of children in New Zealand today. Some would say it is overdue and I agree with that sentiment.It is easy to pass off violence to children as sickness stress or some other sort of cause but the reality is that the youngest children in our country—our most vulnerable—are being beaten up killed and savaged at the hands of adults and that is never acceptable. The track record we have in New Zealand is a bad one and it is time to do something about it. So I acknowledge the work that the Minister has done and the consultation that has taken place to arrive at a set of measures that have as their intention and their objective the protection of children. Nothing less will do or is acceptable.But I want to sound a note of caution. This House is faced with a lot of legislation now that has as its purpose the restriction of others’ freedom in the name of public safety. We have this bill we have the next such bill on the Order Paper and we have legislation like the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. They are all well intended all well meaning but we are being asked to legislate for processes that limit freedom stigmatise and have the power to be seen as punishment. Even though the explanatory note of the bill says that no punishment is intended with the civil orders that the bill provides for the reality is that they do punish because they restrict access not only to children but to family events and other things as well. When we are faced with that legislation then we in this House are obliged to proceed with caution—and that is not about protecting the abusers the damagers the hitters and thesmashers. It is not about protecting the violent and sadistic. It is about protecting the innocent.We do not protect the vulnerable by convicting and shaming the innocent. There will be obvious targets of the measures in this bill—the child harm prevention orders—but as we lower the thresholds that justify the granting of these orders then others come into the frame and others have to defend themselves. As we lower those thresholds we raise the risk of injustice because the reality is that our courts are not perfect and they do get things wrong. Well-meaning but zealous social workers Government officials and the chief executives of the departments who can apply for these orders can get things wrong.There are difficult and awkward people in our communities—some would describe them as misfits—who fit a set of prejudices and stereotypes but who are not child abusers. They might be the victims of misunderstanding and misapprehension and become the target of applications such as these. When as clause 48 provides an application can be based not only on past convictions but on the applicant’s belief—that is one of the qualifying chief executives—on reasonable grounds that a respondent has committed a qualifying offence we are going into territory that might suit the civil jurisdiction but might actually be more related to what is criminal. That is when the alarm bells should go off.That is not a reason to oppose the bill—certainly at this stage—but it is a reason to be alert to the potential for getting it wrong and to ask whether the safeguards we have built up over many years to protect the innocent are being afforded their proper place in this legislation. Let the criminal justice system do its part punishing offenders and those who do wrong those who beat up and smash our children—let them be dealt with in that sort of way. Let us protect children from those with a track record of offending. Let us have meaningful measures to deal with those who may not have been convicted but about whom there is evidence that they are unsafe around children. But the obligation on this House—and I say this in light of the speech by the Minister of Justice—is to rise above the emotional outrage that is easy to bring to bear on an issue such as this the emotional outrage that is easy to bring to bear on the extreme cases that we know about normally when there is a conviction.We must keep our focus on the objects of this bill and remember our obligation to all citizens including those who might be described as misfits the awkward the personality disordered and the slightly socially maladjusted who will not be child abusers but who can easily win that allegation and that sobriquet. I simply sound that note of caution. When we come to examine this bill let us make sure that the object of the bill is to protect the most vulnerable in our community—actually I think the Minister is right; those to whom this House ought to give absolute priority when it comes to protection—but let us in this House also make sure that we do not subject innocent citizens to unnecessary shame and ridicule and the expense of a process for which there is no justification to submit them to.I want to make the point—because we sometimes find it uncomfortable to talk about social morality in this House—that we do live in a permissive society. We do have young people who are exposed to the demands of adulthood whether it is choices about alcohol drugs and sex at an early age and at an earlier age than perhaps was the case 30 40 or 50 years ago. We do have in our prisons and in our youth centres teenage boys who have committed sexual offences not because they are child abusers but because they have taken risks and made decisions usually under the influence of alcohol or drugs and committed what are sexual crimes against under-age girls or young women. They are not boys or young men who are predestined to a life of criminal offending; they have just done dumb things made wrong choices or taken silly risks. In our quest to protect as we should children and the most vulnerable we have to make sure that this bill does not consign those people to a life where they cannot have their own families and lead a family life.It is important when we consider these important issues and issues of legislation that do encroach on rights and freedoms that we proceed with our eyes open that we proceed with caution and that we proceed on the basis that we understand the limitations and the restrictions that we are imposing and placing on people. We recognise that there is that tension. We recognise what the paramount objective is. We recognise our responsibility to all citizens. On that basis there is no question that wesupport the objects of the bill and we look forward to good and effective scrutiny of those important measures when it goes before the Social Services Committee.