Power Simon: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:688] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was the subject of some very worthwhile debate at its first reading and that debate usefully crystallised some of the issues for the House. I thank the House for its unanimous support of this legislation. I think it was the Hon Annette King who made the statement that from time to time Parliament and politicians get it right when issues that matter come before us. I note the bipartisan offer from the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Labour Party to work on issues of child abuse and crimes against children. I know that the offer was genuine and I will certainly take that into consideration. I thank both the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Labour Party for that. I also thank all members for the genuine way that they have approached the legislation. That is not to say I have agreed with everything they have said but I believe that everybody has approached the issue in a way that has lent some weight to the discussions. 
Offending against children that involves violence or neglect is far too common in our society and the root causes of such offending are much more diverse and fundamental than can be targeted by sentencing in the criminal courts alone. No one today is suggesting otherwise. However sentencing for such offending must as I said earlier reflect society’s abhorrence of child abuse and the far-reaching impacts it can have. 
The Sentencing Act already lists some aggravating factors to be taken into account at sentencing that apply to offending against children. But this bill takes that further. The new factors will be considered alongside the existing factors and can be distinguished from them albeit subtly. I raise this issue because of the point that the Green member Metiria Turei made during the course of her contribution. Defencelessness can be distinguished from vulnerability by for example focusing on the degree to which the victim could find protection from an offender rather than the fact that a particular child is more easily harmed or is somehow to blame in a situation of conflict such as in the circumstances raised by the member. More important the inclusion of the extra factors provides a clear signal to the courts that Parliament intends to take offending against children very seriously. Obviously how the independent judiciary chooses to respond to that signal is of course entirely in its own hands. But I think the unanimous support in the House for this legislation today makes it clear what the representatives of the New Zealand public think about that issue. 
If the House passes this bill the new law will come into effect in a matter of days. The court will take the new factors into account when sentencing all those who offend against children from day one. The reason the new provision could I guess be applied in that sense is that it does not amount to a penal enactment. Section 5 of the Sentencing Act provides that the Act will apply to offences committed before and after the commencement of the Act with certain exceptions. 
The bill is a first step and I accept the contributions from others who stated that there is much more to be done. Early next year I will be introducing a bill that deals with offences and maximum penalties available when children are the victims of offending. Other Government initiatives in the criminal justice area such as denial of parole for the worst repeat violent offenders will also have an impact on those who offend against children. However we are dealing with sentencing today and I will now turn to the policies behind the bill. Section 7 of the Sentencing Act provides that sentencing has several purposes. One is to hold the offender accountable for the harm his or her actions have done to the victim. Another is to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility for or acknowledgment of the harm he or she has caused. A third is to denounce the conduct in which the offender was involved. There are several other sentencing purposes listed but I see this bill as furthering those three in particular. 
When a child is a victim of violence or neglect the offender has a lot to be held accountable for. Studies have shown that by the age of 18 physically abused or neglected children may have impaired interpersonal skills problems with academic performance aggressive and violent behaviour an increased risk of youth offending and suicide and potentially a range of psychiatric disorders. Offending against a child can blight the victim’s entire life and can have disastrous consequences for those who interact with him or her for years to come. That is why the bill expressly provides that the court must take into account the harm caused to the victim by the offending including any serious or long-term physical or psychological harm. Offenders need to have it brought home to them what damage they have done and the time for this to happen in any real and tangible way is at sentencing. 
Another factor to which the bill draws the court’s attention is the magnitude of the breach of the special relationship of trust that should exist between a child and an adult. A caregiver has responsibilities towards a child and a child has legitimate expectations of a caregiver. Sentencing should reflect the degree to which the caregiver has abandoned his or her responsibilities and the sentencing process should work to force the offender to confront the level of harm that the offending has caused. As we have seen in recent cases some offenders seem to consider violence against children as a normal part of being a caregiver. The sentencing process provides an opportunity to challenge that attitude. Finally another purpose of sentencing is the denunciation by society of certain conduct. The level of penalty imposed by the court is a reflection of society’s condemnation of particular conduct. A harsh penalty indicates that certain behaviour is unacceptable and demonstrates that it will not be condoned. 
Few crimes are more unacceptable to a civilised society than attacks on its most defenceless and vulnerable members which children undoubtedly are. This is aggravated when the offender has actual responsibility for the defenceless victim. Such conduct is unacceptable not only because of the harm it causes to the victim and in the longer term the community but also because such conduct is worthy of condemnation in its own right—it is just wrong. Society needs to constantly reaffirm its repudiation of violence against children because that repudiation is a mark of a sane healthy society. We do that most concretely through sentencing for offending against children and this bill strengthens that commitment. 
As a father I want New Zealand to be a great place for kids to grow up in where they are all safe and well cared for as I am sure all members in this House do. As Minister of Justice I want to be sure that people who place that safety in jeopardy are held accountable. As a Government we want to ensure that families are stable functional units contributing positively to society and as parliamentarians we all have the opportunity to denounce the mistreatment and abuse of children by supporting this bill. I commend this bill to the House.