Norman Russel William: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Norman Russel William: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:701] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. I think it is really important in these debates that we remember what we are after. I think that in a lot of the debate about being tough on crime and all the rest of it we lose track of the final objective. We want to live in a safer society and we want to live in a society where people are free from violence. It is important to remember that that is where we are trying to get to. We often get caught up in all the punitive stuff and get caught up in dealing with all the people we do not like who have done really bad things. That is totally understandable but we need to keep focused on our objective which is that we want to live in a safe society and we want to live free from violence. 
The Green Party has been an opponent of violence. It is part of our charter. One of our fundamental principles is to oppose violence and we have a deep hatred of violence. But we accept that there is widespread violence in our society and anything we can do to reduce violence should be supported. 
We are supporting this bill but we are pretty sceptical about what it can do. The reason we are sceptical is that it does not appear to add a lot to existing law. There has been quite a bit of discussion today about that. Looking at section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002 “Aggravating and Mitigating Factors” I see that a lot of what is in this bill already appears to be law. It is hard to see that the bill adds much to existing law. We will support it because it does not seem to do any harm but we are not convinced that it adds a lot to what is already there. 
We would really like to see a lot more emphasis on avoiding reoffending. It would be great if as much energy went into preventing offending in the first place as goes into putting in place punishments and talking about what we will do about crime once it has happened. The Green Party would like to see most of our energy directed to preventing violence in the first place. 
I take note of comments made earlier. I think it was Chester Borrows who said that offenders have often been victims themselves in the past and I think it is important that we question what resources time and energy we could put in to stop that cycle of violence. That seems to me to be one of the key things. What support will we put into prisons so that prisoners can get drug rehabilitation access to literacy skills and education and access to the kinds of skills they need to get a job when they get out? Are we willing to spend the millions and millions of dollars that it would take to do rehabilitation properly? It is all very well to say that we will lock people up for longer and all of that but if we are really serious about breaking the cycle of offending then we need to stump up with a whole bunch of money for rehabilitation. It is not cheap; it is really expensive. It is actually not a cheap thing to do. We cannot just pass a law and we cannot just lock people up; if we are serious about avoiding violence in the long term we also need to ask what we are doing at the top of the cliff. What fences are we building at the top of the cliff? How are we supporting people when they come out of prison? Are we providing them with the support and the skills they need so that they can get a job and so that they do not get back into more offending and a cycle of violence? That is where we would like to put our energy. That is where we think the energy of this Parliament and this Government should go. 
That ties into one of the key things in all of this: dysfunctional families. The Greens think we should be providing more support to families. We think that increased fines for truancy which we have been talking about today will not help families. How will it help families that are already in trouble? So many families are already in trouble and how do we help them by giving them a $3000 fine? How does the 90-day trial period bill help them? It means that parents are less likely to have a secure job. If we are serious about avoiding violence against children which we all say we are then we have to ask what we are doing to support families that are under pressure and in trouble. That should be the first thing we do. That should be where we put most of our money and that should be where we put most of our energy rather than putting all our time and energy into rhetoric about the prison at the bottom of the cliff. What about increasing the minimum wage? All of those are issues that could take pressure off families. We need to support families so that the parents have more time and can do their job properly. 
The Green Party took a lead in terms of violence in changing section 59 of the Crimes Act. It was very reassuring to us that the latest UMR Research survey found that there had been a change in attitude to physical punishment of children. In 1993 87 percent of those polled thought that there were times when it was OK to use corporal discipline; this has now come down to 58 percent—from 87 percent to 58 percent according to a UMR Research survey released by the Children’s Commissioner. We think that is progress. It is about a culture shift in our society in relation to the way we treat children. The Green Party was very proud to lead the campaign to amend section 59. Once again we accept that it was not the whole solution; it was only one small part of the jigsaw puzzle but it was really important. 
I will reiterate and reflect on the comments about making sure that the Ministry of Social Development—in particular Child Youth and Family—has the money it needs to do the job properly. Let us make sure it has the money it needs. That should be a priority. It is all very well to talk about increasing sentencing and all of that but what are we doing to make sure that the agencies that actually have to intervene in troubled families and families under pressure have the resources they need? 
Finally I hope there is more consultation with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner because I think this kind of legislation would benefit from that kind of input. Obviously it would have been much better had the bill gone to a select committee so that we could have had the benefit of that whole process and I would certainly encourage the Minister of Justice in future to maintain an open dialogue with the Children’s Commissioner. 
The Greens will be supporting this bill even though we think that it does not make any substantial progress. We do not think that it does any harm. We also thank the Minister for his reassurances about the “defencelessness” provision and we hope that he will keep an eye on those cases as they work their way through to see whether there are any problems with it.