Clendon David: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1111. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green):I am pleased to take a call on this bill in part to have an opportunity to explain why the Greens initially did support this bill’s referral to the Law and Order Committee—and indeed I personally participated in that committee. But at this stage we are no longer able to support the bill for reasons that I will go into and indeed for reasons that are not very different from some that have been expressed by other members. We supported the bill initially in part due to the sheer enthusiasm of the member Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor who at that stage brought the bill into the House. I am grateful to Mr Paraone for pointing out that the bill has a somewhat longer history than I was aware of but Mrs Asenati Lole-Taylor brought this bill in with real passion and real concern—a genuine concern. The intention of the bill was very honest and appropriate and we certainly supported that.On the face of it it was a very straightforward bill—to make the presence of children in offending an aggravating factor at sentencing. It certainly seemed a good enough idea to merit our support through the House. It is well-known that children are often the unseen victims of crime. The bill itself notes that criminal offending often exposes minors to serious harm. That harm can be physical emotional or psychological and can cause lifelong problems for young children. As they grow it can seriously affect their development and it can effectively create the forms of post-traumatic stress sort of symptoms that children can exhibit. At the extreme end of course offending can inevitably lead to imprisonment. We know that it is extremely damaging for children to have a parent in prison. We know that children with a parent in prison are something like seven times more likely to end up in the justice system or in prison themselves. I think we have to be alert to the extreme necessity of keeping our children out of those situations.I will make a completely gratuitous and unsolicited plug for PILLARS the Christchurch-based organisation—and also with a facility in Manukau city—that engages with the children of prisoners and does extraordinarily good work to support those children and their families while they have a parent in jail.It was clear in the explanatory note to the bill that although the bill talked about offences committed in the presence of children or minors the specific focus was on children who were caught up in P labs and situations where methamphetamine was being used or even manufactured. It is an appalling neglect of responsibility be it parental or any other sort to allow any child to be in that very dangerous environment. Sadly we know that the number of homes and sites where P—where methamphetamine—is cooked or manufactured is quite frightening.Some work done by the Home Owners and Buyers Association about 2 years ago indicated that there could be something in excess of 30000 houses in New Zealand that have been or are being used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. We know that is extraordinarily dangerous because the chemicals used in the manufacture are in themselves very toxic. They get disposed of inappropriately—tipped down drains poured into gardens. Equally and even more insidiously some of the chemicals that gas out—the gases that are a result of the cooking of P—will be absorbed into just about any sort of porous material. Carpets soft furnishings and even plasterboards and unsealed concrete can absorb these gases and over time they gas out. So anybody living in those environments can be exposed to those gases and there are significant health risks associated with that. Asthma symptoms breathing difficulties skin rashes and eye irritation right through to much more serious diseases of the central nervous system—strokes and cancers—can all be directly linked to the presence of these chemicals in homes.Getting back to the bill its intention is to try to ensure that children are not exposed to these very very dangerous substances and of course one would always wish that children were not put into those dangerous situations. Most of us would go to extraordinary lengths and do to make our homes safe and hazard-free for children. I recently had the pleasure of having my toddler granddaughters at home for a few days. You discover very quickly that just a normal family home is abundant with hazards for children and very active kids of that age be it sharp edges electrical items heat sources fragile ornaments—you name it; kids will find it. Most of us do endeavour to make our homes and environments child-friendly and child-safe. It is very sad that there are people in our community who lack that empathy that common sense and that concern and who are reckless enough to expose children to these extraordinarily dangerous situations as in a P house or somewhere where these dreadful chemicals are being used carelessly and without thought for the well-being of those kids.Having said that we regret that we cannot support this bill because it was well-intentioned. It did reveal a very real risk and an important problem. Primarily the reason that we are not supporting this bill further is that we have been persuaded by the select committee process by the advice of officials and by evidence that the legislation simply is not necessary. We were shown quotes and extracts from judgments where it was clear that judges did consider the presence of children where offending was taking place as an aggravating factor and that it did influence their thinking when it came to sentencing. We were persuaded that the legislation for that reason was unnecessary.There were also issues about the wording of the bill and the definitions—particularly the phrase “in the presence of” which seems sensible and straightforward—and it was revealed to us by officials and others that it was not clear what the boundaries are in saying that an offence is in the presence of a minor. Common sense is that you would say that it means that children were in that house building or whatever it might be but legally it could mean that if there were children even in a nearby building or in a street or in a mall or anywhere in a public place it could still be captured by this legislation which is outside its intention clearly. It seemed that there was no clean or effective way to tighten up that definition sufficiently so that the intention of the bill would be made clearer. The notion of proximity is one that legally has issues.There was also concern about putting these provisions into the primary legislation—the amendments to endeavour to capture the notion that where offending was happening in the presence of children sentencing should acknowledge that. There were issues around judicial discretion and the fact that you actually might be locking judges into outcomes or into making judgments that are less than optimal. There could be situations where you would not necessarily want to have that level of direct influence and to impose those conditions or restrictions on judges.So although clearly we have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who would offend in the presence of children who would put children at risk or minors at risk we would particularly have no time for people who are engaging in cooking meth obviously driven only by a profit motive.I think just as an aside to that it is interesting that some gangs will not allow even their own members to use this drug because it is just such a volatile dangerous substance to absorb albeit unfortunately some of those same gangs might be involved in the business around it. We cannot and would not ever condone any form of endangerment of children by putting them into a situation where offending is taking place. But for all the bill’s good intentions and its apparent simplicity we have been persuaded through the select committee process that it is not necessary and that there is existing law in place. Jacinda Ardern made some very interesting points about the fact that there actually is not a criminal offence that captures the notion of people actually committing these acts particularly cooking drugs in the presence of children. Maybe that is an avenue that might be worth exploring at a later time.As I say although we do acknowledge and respect the intention of the legislation the Greens will not be supporting it further.