Hutchison Paul: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16631] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Clause 4 explicitly states: “The welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration—”. Then when I read new clause 4A(e) stating that the child’s safety must be protected and how he or she must be protected from all forms of violence I question whether this bill would be sufficient to protect a young 5-year-old girl whose case was brought to my attention by her heroic grandmother now her guardian at my electorate office in June of this year. 
This 5-year-old child was described by her oldest sister as having been kept for prolonged times in a dog kennel or in an old freezer; that a cattle prod was used on her; that she also had burns inflicted and was tied to the back of a motorbike and dragged. A specialist paediatrician said: “The MRI or brain-scan image indicates that this child has been the subject of severe head trauma. This type of severity of head injury is not seen in simple household accidents.” 
When I see in clause 4 that the welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration I think back to the day in my electorate office when I was shown the newspaper headline: “Child ‘lucky’ Couple narrowly escape jail for cruelty to daughter”. The newspaper report notes: “Cassandra Marie-Rose Edwards 31 and her partner Bruce Lloyd Potaka 26 were sentenced for cruelty to a child.” They neglected to seek medical attention for her after what was described as a home accident. What also stunned me was that the judge Michael Crosbie handed down a sentence of 280 hours’ community work to Edwards and Potaka. How does this equate to a life living with multiple brain injuries? As I read the paediatric consultant’s diagnosis which stated that the severity of that type of injury is not seen in simple household falls I wondered how carefully authorities had followed up on what had happened to her. 
On the same day that this child’s grandmother came to see me I wrote to the Hon Phil Goff and other Ministers seeking urgent advice. I stated in my letter: “I am aware that an appeal should be instigated urgently because of the timeframe available and would ask you to make every endeavour to do so.” I did not receive a definitive reply from Minister Goff until 12 July 12 days after the opportunity for appeal had closed. 
Fortunately I had been given alternative advice to write to the Crown Solicitor Andrew Cameron from whom I had a reply. It stated: “I confirm that the Solicitor-General has determined that a sentence appeal is appropriate in this case and it has been duly filed with the Court of Appeal. … Should further evidence emerge which would enable assault charges to be laid I will ask to review the file with this in mind.” 
On 1 October 5 days before the appeal was due to be heard the girl’s grandmother received a letter from the Deputy Solicitor-General N M Crutchley which stated: “I wish to advise that this appeal will not proceed.” What astounds me is the third paragraph which states: “The Crown remains of the view that as a general principle it considers wilful neglect of a child should be met with a term of imprisonment.” It seems extraordinary that the Crown has done a pre-trial deal whereby Mr Potaka and Ms Edwards have been sentenced to a community sentence when the Crown says quite clearly that it remains of the view that as a general principle it considers that wilful neglect of a child should be met with a term of imprisonment. Since that letter I have written to the Commissioner of Police asking for a full inquiry. 
I wonder as to the efficacy of clause 4 “Child’s welfare and best interests to be paramount”—the “paramount clause” of this bill when I think of that little girl and her grandmother and they way she has been served by the police by Child Youth and Family Services by the court process and even by the lackadaisical attitude of Ministers of the Crown to my urgent pleas. No assault charges have ever been laid. I hope that all these authorities do better and will recall the words of the neuropsychologist who assessed this child. Those words were that she has been “severely physically and emotionally abused” and the perpetrator is still out in the community and is therefore free to engage in further abuse of children. The paramount clause of this bill has not been upheld in practice.