Power Simon: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Power Simon: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21324] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) contains the substance of the policy and it is the part to which Parliament needs to address its special attention. This Government came into office with the specific intention of developing an appropriate response to violence against children. We are well aware of the incidents that have resulted in the horrific deaths and injuries of young and vulnerable children. Far too often the perpetrators or the parents and caregivers of these children are able to evade their responsibilities. An effective response is required. Part 1 provides a significant step towards making New Zealand a safer place for our children and for vulnerable adults by holding those responsible for the care and welfare of the vulnerable as well as the perpetrators to account. 
This bill represents a small but significant step in responding to incidents of abuse of the most vulnerable in New Zealand society. Other measures such as those outlined in the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children as well as a greater willingness by communities to prevent these incidents are required if we are to seriously address the scourge of child abuse. 
The bill itself spends a small amount of time looking specifically at the ill-treatment or neglect of a child or vulnerable adult. In particular in new section 151 substituted in clause 6 the bill deals with the fact that “Every one who has actual care or charge of a person who is a vulnerable adult and who is unable to provide himself or herself with necessaries is under a legal duty—”. In new section 152 also substituted in clause 6 the bill deals with the “Duty of parent or guardian to provide necessaries and protect from injury”. 
In particular new section 195 substituted by clause 7 deals with “Ill-treatment or neglect of child or vulnerable adult” and states that “(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who … intentionally engages in conduct that or omits to discharge or perform any legal duty the omission of which”—and the significance of the inclusion of matters that are omissions will no doubt be the topic of some discussion following the putting forward of the amendment by the ACT Party in respect of its concerns as to how those offences should be treated. That is where no doubt I will be looking to take another call to describe the subtle differences between omission and commission and duty-bound statute and offences as opposed to those who may be involved in the actual commission of a serious or violent offence which would attract strike provisions under the sentencing legislation. What section 195(1) does is to make sure that those who have oversight of a child or vulnerable adult those persons “described in subsection (2)” who are “likely to cause suffering injury adverse effects to health or any mental disorder or disability to a child or vulnerable adult”—known as the victim in this part of the legislation—“if the conduct engaged in or the omission to perform the legal duty is a major departure from the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable person.” will be liable to imprisonment. 
New section 195A substituted in clause 7 specifically deals with the issue of a group of people close to a household or in a household who would basically be considered to be part of that household and who “(a) knows that the victim is at risk of death grievous bodily harm or sexual assault as the result of (i) an unlawful act … or (ii) an omission by another person to discharge or perform a legal duty … and (b) fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim from that risk.” Subsection 195A(2) states that those persons are: “(a) a member of the same household as the victim; or (b) a person who is a staff member of any hospital institution or residence where the victim resides.” For the purposes of clarification subsection 195A(4) goes on to state: “(a) a person is to be regarded as a member of a particular household even if he or she does not live in that household if that person is so closely connected with the household that it is reasonable in the circumstances to regard him or her as a member of the household:”. In particular “(b) where the victim lives in different households at different times the same household refers to the household in which the victim was living at the time of the act or omission giving rise to the risk of death grievous bodily harm or sexual assault.” 
In other words it is no longer enough to simply turn away one’s mind attention or face from the harm or the risk of harm that is occurring in that household and to say “It is nothing to do with me.” It is not enough for persons to say they saw nothing occur there and that because they have no legal duty as a parent or the equivalent statutory substitution they attract no legal liability. This legislation says that that is not good enough. After the passage of this legislation eventually concludes if the persons are members of that household for the purposes of the legislation and they know that the victim is at risk the persons who have that knowledge will find themselves bound by a duty to take some responsibility for what is occurring in that household. No longer will a code of silence be able to descend over a family group who refuses to tell the police what has occurred in that household when its members can reasonably be expected to know. 
This is a step that I hope Parliament endorses—as it did at the second reading by quite a substantial majority—in order to confirm that this Parliament is prepared to take the steps necessary to protect the children and vulnerable members of society who find themselves in those households and who in a legal sense are unable to reach out to those who should know better and who should intervene in activity that is putting those children or vulnerable parties at risk. This is the first step in this process but it is part of a wider piece of work that the Government has been doing to try to protect children and vulnerable parties. I look forward to hearing the debate on this issue in the Committee stage and at a later time in this part of the discussion and I am happy to address the matters contained in the amendment that has been put forward by the ACT Party.