Garrett David: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Garrett David: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:679] 
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.