Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:690] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Although I would reiterate the comments that have been made by members on this side of the House that we will work constructively and positively with the Government where viable workable and achievable solutions are put forward I just have to come back to some of the comments that were made by members opposite. 
It seems to me that in the last 5 days the National Government has put forward a number of bills that are all about to quote its members “sending a message”. National members have done a lot of message-sending in the last 5 days. Going by the Minister of Justice’s own words they are now sending another message but we ask what has actually been achieved. If we look at the analysis that David Parker who is a lawyer took us through line by line and clause by clause—and he compared the new proposal with the existing legislation—we see that he came to the same conclusion that Professor Geoff Hall came to. Professor Hall’s conclusion was that there is nothing new at all in this bill and that sadly it is window dressing. 
At this point I address a comment to Mr Borrows who said in response to our side quoting Professor Hall that he regarded the professor as having some credibility because he had said it was Parliament’s job to use legislation to communicate with judges. Well of course it is. That is what Parliament is for: to write legislation and to place it before the judiciary. It is therefore the job of the judiciary to interpret that legislation. But I gently say to Mr Borrows that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot regard Professor Hall as having a high degree of credibility and then rubbish his comment—and I think it was also rubbished by Dr Worth. 
I will quote Professor Hall again. He said with regard to the provisions that are already there “It sounds to me like it’s window dressing what is being proposed”. Mr Borrows cannot say on the one hand that Professor Hall makes good points and that legislation is about communicating with judges—well of course it is; judges rely on legislation and they are charged with interpreting it—and then say on the other hand effectively that Professor Hall does not know what he is talking about. Professor Hall agrees with David Parker me and all members on this side of the House when we note that these provisions do nothing new even though we are supporting them. 
If we come to the same conclusion as Professor Hall then I reiterate Mrs King’s point when she said that this legislation is sadly all about presenting an agenda to create a perception that there is a big gritty and weighty workload—a plan of action—during the great 100-day plan that will have a positive impact on the lives of New Zealanders. Well we have seen that the Bail Amendment Bill mirrors this Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill in terms of new words but there is a duplication of effort because the provisions of the legislation are already there. Judges of course are relatively unfettered by the factors that they can take into account. As I say one would have to conclude that for the National Government this is more about politics than it is about substance. However the people will judge that. 
Ms Collins made a point that I think needs to be addressed. She said there was no need for the bill to be referred to a select committee. Over the last 5 days—without getting into other areas—that has been a clarion call from the National Government. The Government seems to say that because it won an election which it did and it is charged with putting legislation forward which it is the public should not get a proper say and effectively we should not have select committees. 
Hon David Parker 
: They’ll want to do away with Parliament next. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not know; the member would have to ask National members. If National’s thesis is that an election victory means no public input thereafter—the public has a vote and that is it—then I suppose the public could put forward a proposition questioning why we have select committees. Why have them at all? Why allow members of the public and experts like Barnardos the Salvation Army the Children’s Commissioner and others to have a say? National won an election so according to National the people have had their say and it is all over. Maybe we should simply adjourn the House and National could put legislation through by edict. National would love that I am sure; Cabinet could just sit there and sign off on the legislation. Why do we need 100-plus members of Parliament to debate have input and engage in those sorts of things? I think Ms Collins’ point misses the mark sadly. I think it would have been instructive to have received input from experts other than the departments. 
It is interesting that Mrs King talked about the tongue-lashing that bureaucrats have received over the last month or so. Ironically they are now being exclusively relied upon for consultation in respect of all these bills. The folks who are not being relied upon are the agencies that the police work with—non-governmental organisations for instance. I am sure Mr Borrows has worked with them and knows them well. I am sure that he found in his career as a policeman and a lawyer that those organisations provided added value to his work and the work of his staff. They are not getting a look in on this legislation because so goes National’s line “We signalled this; it’s happening. We won an election. The people had their say through a vote. We’re just doing it.” If that is a precedent that will go forward then I think it is a very dangerous one. 
I do not think anybody in this House has a monopoly on all knowledge or expertise in every area and certainly I do not. I rely on external non-governmental organisations and people like Professor Hall and others to provide information so that we can stand up and make a reasonably decent contribution in the House. But that also means engaging with those communities and in this case it means engaging on the issue of child safety. However we are not talking about the prevention of death in respect of this legislation. Sadly we are talking about a measure that does not deal in a proactive way with the causes of what is happening and that does not identify the causes of abuse neglect and violence towards children within the home. We are not saying we ought to bolster those measures and put resources behind them. We are dealing with an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff which is reactive. 
I say again to the Minister for Social Development and Employment that we are concerned about the 500 staff to whom the axe will be taken over the next year or so. We have not had any commitment from any member of the Government thus far to assure us that those people will not be the front-line staff who deal with the protection of children and the identification of violence neglect and abuse against children. We have not had any assurance that those positions will be preserved and hopefully enhanced which is of concern to folks on this side of the Chamber. 
The other point I make is that the bill does not do anything to address the 16000-plus cases per year of substantiated child abuse and neglect. I think a silly comment may have been made at the end of Mr Parker’s speech about Professor Hall’s status; I hope that was not the case and that I misheard. Professor Hall has stated that there is nothing new in this legislation that it will have no effect and that it will not alter the status quo. We have already been told that the Minister of Justice in some months’ time next year will bring to the House what he terms a “robust bill” that will hopefully do something positive. The question then is what is the motivation and what are we really doing here in these last few sitting hours passing a bill whose provisions have already existed for some time? 
We all agree about the state of affairs around these sorts of awful cases. I note Mrs Katene’s point about the repetition that goes on in respect of those cases. I have some mixed feelings about that because I do share to some extent Mr Garrett’s view that we should remind ourselves of those cases that we should never forget the tragedies that have occurred and that we should learn from them. Although I respect the views of those opposite we have to ask what we are doing here if we are simply replicating what already exists. Sadly there can be only one answer: there are some politics in this measure and like the Bail Amendment Bill and the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill—the provisions of which already exist—this is about the National Government saying to the public that it has ticked all the boxes in the last 5 days. 
Sadly I do not think the public will get the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation unless the learned media go through it line by line with them and note that there is no new policy no new action and no new effect that will make people safer in respect of the bail legislation that will add to our education system in respect of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill or that will save one child’s life in respect of the legislation that will be passed today. I hope the public do get the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation because that will assist in their assessment of the performance of National’s great 100-day plan.