Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment BillFirst ReadingLe’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): I moveThat the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider this bill. Talofa lava greetingstēnā koutou katoa and thank you for the opportunity to introduce this bill to the House for its first reading. In introducing this bill to the House I would like to acknowledge the late Brian Donnelly QSM a former New Zealand First MP who strongly advocated for a bill like this to be developed in order to tackle the issues that this bill intends to address.JimRohn said that “Happiness is not something you postpone for the future; it is something you design for the present.” Our young children deserve happiness with good education and secure homes. It is impossible to postpone happiness for our younger generation for they need to plan for prosperity and stable lives today. So in order for our future generations to have stability we ought to carefully engineer their current environment and ensure that we design the best platform to counter the risks and evils that could harm and cause more damage to them and our nation in years to come.The bill brings a unique focus to the way in which New Zealand deals with criminals who continue to ignore the rights of our children to a safer and secure environment—an environment where they can grow up to become good citizens with aspirations to be great leaders of our future generations instead of professionals in criminal activity or leaders of some gang-affiliated organisation. I ask that we put aside our politics and come together and be united for the sake of our vulnerable children.The Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill seeks to make criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing. Criminal offending by adults often exposes minors to serious harm. That is why this bill aims to enable the legal system in New Zealand to view such criminal activities and give appropriate sentences that are reflective of this harm. I say: let the punishment fit the crime. There is a need for more emphasis to be placed on the well-being of minors or our children who witness and are exposed and unfairly subjected tocriminal activity. At the same time criminals who ignore these children should be held accountable.The bill will make criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing. It is a crackdown on individuals who engage in criminal activity in the presence of young minors and a minor would include anyone under the age of 17 years. The intention is to send a clear message to others in New Zealand that we will no longer tolerate crime being witnessed by children and that we can no longer allow our children to be abused in such a way that they become emotionally and psychologically affected.Another important aspect of this bill includes strengthening judges’ powers when sentencing offenders where minors have been exposed to potential serious harm. A primary example of serious harm is the production of illicit drugs in homes where children are living. Honourable members this bill sends a clear message that this is unacceptable. It has become too common for young children to be living in homes where drugs are produced and sold. The reality is that drugs are often associated with other forms of illegal activity from theft to gang associations and violence and with this comes the abuse. Young children are far too often the innocent parties to criminal offending by adults. There have been numerous media reports of children being placed in danger where crimes are committed which shows a real need for this bill to be passed into law.On 3 September or earlier this month I read a media release by the New Zealand Police saying that young children were present at some addresses that were the subject of a search executed on several Mongrel Mob addresses and that the police had made three referrals to Child Youth and Family. Children living in P labs suffer the risk of harm from living amongst toxic waste explosive chemicals and drug-manufacturing debris. Living in such a dangerous environment children are exposed to immediate danger from chemical poisoning contamination and the high chance of fire and explosions. Children found in P labs are likely to be inhaling and absorbing the same levels of methamphetamine as adult drug users.Senior lecturer in psychological medicine at the University of Auckland DrTreciaWouldes said that although there was no research on the long-term effects of P on children what was known about the effects of passive smoking could be indicative. The effects range from allergies to irritations from the drug with the worst coming from breathing the fumes daily and physical trauma or burns that could occur if the labs exploded. In 2010-11 more than 460 children were found in 37 percent of all clan-labs and 73 percent of all drug-dealing houses identified by the police. This is up from 26 percent and 65 percent respectively in 2009.If the direct harm from the drugs themselves is not enough children are often neglected because of the nature of the trade. In many cases children are subjected to and witness violence. A High Court judge last year was appalled at the number of women he saw in court for neglecting their children while using methamphetamine. Justice Williams reported that cases like these only create a generation stuck in the same drug-addicted cycle. In other words children pick up bad habits.I worked in the Department of Corrections where I came across offenders who were in prison with their father and grandfathers. Studies have shown that children learn from adults. Parents’ criminality strongly correlates with an increased chance of a child developing conduct problems and later on criminal activity. Children in environments where crime takes place are taught at a young age to accept this certain lifestyle. Offending is an indirect consequence of the offence.Several jurisdictions in the United States have passed legislation where drug manufacturing in a residence occupied by a minor is an aggravating factor at sentencing.In the state of New South Wales in Australia sentencing procedure legislation makes it clear that an offence committed in the presence of a child under the age of 18 is an aggravating factor. Why then is New Zealand turning a blind eye? It is time that sentencing takes into account the safety of the children. A situation where children have been exposed to dangerous criminal activity cannot and must not be taken lightly.The National Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children introduced in recent years although well intended unfortunately gave New Zealand no assurance that the problem of children in crime-operating environments will be addressed. So let us hope that the Vulnerable Children Bill will enhance our combined efforts in this area.New Zealand First has brought forward before Parliament a solution to this serious problem. The bill recognises that children will slip under the radar. Just because harm to children occurs behind closed doors it does not mean that we should turn a blind eye when it comes to sentencing those guilty of the actions that have created such unfortunate consequences.The current legislation does not go far enough to provide results in sentencing that properly take into account the safety of children and their exposure to dangerous criminal activity. This bill defines minors as “under the age of 17 years” and covers both mental and emotional harm as well as physical harm to minors. Furthermore children need only to be present to trigger this as an aggravating factor.If this Government is going to take a serious stance on vulnerable children and tackle the negative issue of child abuse this bill paves a way in the right direction. Let us not seek the answer from the right the left or the centre but seek the answer that is right. I commend this bill to the House.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): National does support this bill the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill at its first reading. We will be very interested to consider this bill. National does support this bill because it aligns pretty fair and square with the work that this National Government has been doing in first of all putting the victims of crime first but also in its very strong cross-ministerial work programme looking after the interests of all children including vulnerable children.I commend the member Asenati Lole-Taylor for bringing this bill to the House. It is a simple bill. It proposes to amend section 9 of the Sentencing Act to add a new aggravating factor at the time of sentencing. As I understand the bill the judge presiding must take into account whether or not the child who is to be under 16 years old has had a crime committed in their presence by somebody over the age of 17 years—so it concerns an adult albeit a young adult having committed a crime in the presence of a young person or child under the age of 16. So the judge at the time of sentencing is to take the fact that that young person or child was present at the time of the offence into consideration when sentencing that offender.The member will be very aware that this Government passed legislation earlier this year to make it an aggravating factor at sentencing offences against corrections officers police officers ambulance officers—and I might be forgetting—Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: Fire ambulance.JACQUI DEAN: The Fire Service. We did that with the support of the House because we recognised that those service providers did not ever have the option of running away from an incident. So the fireman cannot run away from a fire. If that fireman is prevented from going about their business as happens and as happens to ambulance officers on a not infrequent basis and to prison officers they have no choice. They have to stand their ground. They have to deal not only with the emergency that they face like the prison riot we had recently but also with perpetrators committing offences or attempting to commit offences on them.So you can very well argue—and I think it is very true to say—that young people under the age of 16 can find themselves in circumstances through no fault of their own such as being in the midst of a crime scene be it as I think the member Asenati Lole-Taylor cited being seen in a P lab and having the toxic fumes and the very danger of explosion around them be it family violence or being sat in a vehicle that is the subject of a police pursuit. All of those scenarios are similar in that the child does not have the choice. They are children. They are in the control—one would hope in our society—of responsible adults. So I commend the member for bringing this bill to the House for its first reading and we will have a good look at it in the Law and Order Committee. It aligns very well—very well—with the policies of this National Government and with a lot of the work that this Government has done already in our first 5 years in Government.I will talk about some of the more detailed aspects of the bill. It refers to “in the presence of a minor” and that means in a place or a building where a minor is present or could reasonably be expected to be present or in close proximity to a place or a building where a minor is present or could reasonably be expected to be present. In other words I think the member is saying here that they do not have any choice. They are kids. They have got to do what they are told. They are minors. They get placed in these circumstances and here we have a bill that makes the presence of a minor an aggravating factor in the sentencing of the perpetrator of a crime. Well good on you Asenati Lole-Taylor for bringing this bill to the House.I just want to go through a few of the initiatives that are complementary to this bill and they are around the protecting of vulnerable children. I do have to disagree with the member that the Children’s Action Plan is not going far enough. I believe it is. I believe it is putting the interests of vulnerable children first and I think some of the provisions in that policy are going to be quite crunchy for people. But we are unapologetic in putting the interests of vulnerable children first. Why? To keep them safe. Why? Because they cannot choose the homes that they are born into or the situations that they find themselves in. They do not have that choice. We as adults have that choice; children do not have that choice. So I am unapologetic and I am proud of the Hon Paula Bennett’s Children’s Action Plan. I look forward to seeing the roll-out of the implementation of that plan and keeping our young children safe in New Zealand.Under National we have already toughened sentences for crimes against children. We have already done work in that area. It is now a crime to stay silent if you know that a child or a vulnerable adult is at risk. We removed the parole eligibility for the worst repeat violent offenders and for offenders who commit the worst murders. We did that with the three-strikes law thanks to our coalition partner the ACT Party. We introduced screening of parole applications to allow the Parole Board to reduce the number of unnecessary hearings. Again this was putting the interests of the victims first be they adults or children. Of course there are always children associated with victims. We are all mothers we are all grandmothers we are all aunties and we are all family members. Every crime that is committed in New Zealand has a number of victims and a number of those victims are children.I could go through a number of initiatives and I know my colleagues will. I just want to talk about the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which is newly introduced into the House and is now going through scrutiny in the Law and Order Committee. Again this is another complementary piece of legislation that puts the interests of the victim first. It is about protecting the victim as much as is possible from crime and criminals in New Zealand. It might be adults but in this case it is children. This Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill is agood bill. We will support this bill through its first reading. I commend the bill to the House and thank Asenati Lole-Taylor for bringing it to this House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to take the first call from Labour on the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill brought by the New Zealand First member Asenati Lole-Taylor and to say that Labour is supporting this bill to the Law and Order Committee so it can be given further consideration both by the public and by members of this House. But we do have some reservations and I want to share and outline those with the House now.We absolutely agree with the member that it is incumbent upon us to protect the most vulnerable from harm. Our argument would be: what is the best point of intervention to try to ensure that those layers of protection exist? How do we best ensure that a child is kept distant from harm? How when they are found to be in harm’s way can we best ensure that they are supported and removed from that harm? Our question is whether adding an extra bit of criteria for when an offender comes to be sentenced is the best way to do that keeping in mind that as it is most judges would probably keep in mind or factor in the presence of children when they come to sentence. But what we are relying upon for this bill to take effect is first for a criminal to be charged—for enough evidence to exist for them to be charged—second for them to be convicted and then third for the sentencing to take place.I want to use the example that the member has used around the presence of children in methamphetamine labs because it is a very good example that the member is right to raise. There are a number of vulnerable children in this country who are currently exposed to the dangers of methamphetamine manufacturing. In 2010 alone 44 children were found living in laboratories physically living in the environment in which equipment and drugs were manufactured—a potentially explosive environment not to mention the fact that they were absorbing those toxins into their skin. That was in just 1 year. It is a growing trend and that is down to police records. Police records have demonstrated the presence of almost 200 children since they started measuring that.The issue is that you would assume that the police who for instance then report to Child Youth and Family when they go into a home where there is methamphetamine—they will tell Child Youth and Family that there is a child in the home where they have done a drug raid. We would assume as fair-minded New Zealanders that any parent raising their child in that kind of risk environment would have their child removed. It is a fair assessment a fair judgment to make. That is not the case. In some cases we have parents who are being charged convicted and sentenced but their spouse is still caring for the child and they go back into the home with that child. They may sometimes even return to manufacturing methamphetamine. The police have found this to be the case.Why is that? Well it is simply because the threshold for abuse and neglect implies that you are removing the necessities of life from a child and there is at least in the minds of Child Youth and Family a threshold that is not met through drug manufacturing. There is apparently not enough evidence to demonstrate that that is the removal of the necessities of life. Well in my mind when you find toxins equivalent to that of a methamphetamine user in the hair follicles of a child that is enough. That should be enough. Simply the fact that you consider it acceptable to raise your child in that environment that should be enough.So the point that we want to make is this. If we really want to protect children should we be considering the fact that it should be a separate offence in itself rather than an aggravating factor? Should we be considering that at least our child protection agency considers it neglect and abuse for those children to be in that environment? And why do we not do that first? That is what we know we are crying out for now. Putting any child back into a home where this is occurring says to me that a hole exists and ifwe are waiting until someone is convicted that does not fix the hole. So we have got to look at some of those other issues.But as I have said we support this bill to the select committee so that we can debate some of these issues. As I say some of our reservations are about whether or not it is directed in the right place and whether or not judges already have this power but that is something we look forward to considering. I thank the member Asenati Lole-Taylor for bringing this debate to this House.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I too want to congratulate Asenati Lole-Taylor on bringing this Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Bill to the House—I guess on having it drawn by what I should term the process of the roulette wheel. It is quite an achievement as I understand it. Many have sat here for years with no success at all in getting a bill drawn. It is a bit like going to theSkycity Casino and leaving with nothing which of course can happen.Andrew Little: Not by this Government. They’ve got plenty out of theSkycity Casino.IANMcKELVIE: Have you worked that out?The bill—[Interruption] They are rather noisy Mr Assistant Speaker—they are rather noisy. This bill has the potential to complement National’s law and order legislative programme which I think is having spectacular success. Aside from significant reductions in crime at almost all levels particularly in the youth crime area we have also of course seen recently in the youth crime area a great reduction in road deaths amongst young people. That is a pretty extraordinary achievement.My brief time in this Parliament has been spent on the Law and Order Committee and I have seen and learnt a lot about the outstanding role our police play in our communities keeping our communities and our young people safe. I want to briefly mention the work of our youth aid officers in our communities particularly in our rural communities. They really are the key to our policing success and of course to some extent this bill sets out to deal with the harm that comes to young people from their association with crime. Our youth aid officers play a critical part in the success that we have in keeping those young people safe and keeping them out of crime and those sorts of things.I also want to talk briefly about the work of the Department of Corrections and about what are at times testing intimidating and even dangerous conditions. I think the corrections department does a pretty amazing job. We have had the opportunity in the last 18 months to visit a number of New Zealand prisons to look at what goes on there and to see the efforts that have been made to repatriate those prisoners and re-educate them and get them back into the workforce. I think again that we are making significant progress in that area.This bill seeks to I guess impose tougher penalties on those people who by association involve young people in their criminal efforts. There is no doubt that young people associating with crime leads to them being much more likely to have a life involved in crime. So I think that the bill from that perspective has some great potential. There are already of course some opportunities for tougher penalties for people who involve young people in crime but this bill certainly clears it up.I want to talk briefly about this Government’s targets for reducing crime. We have a target of reducing reoffending by 25 percent by 2017. We want to reduce the overall crime rate by 15 percent and of course those results are significant already. I would have to say that some of the legislation that has gone through the Law and Order Committee in the last 18 months has certainly contributed to the improvement in those targets and no doubt the legislation that was put through in the previous 3 years had made a huge difference to those targets.The other area that the Government has firmly concentrated on is putting victims first. As the previous speaker Jacqui Dean said we have a bill currently before the select committee that aims to improve the opportunity for victims to protect themselves once those criminals who have done them the damage get out of prison. That is a pretty good start I think. There are also numerous other means by which the Government has moved to improve the lot of victims. I think that is a great bit of work. It is currently a work in progress of course. As Jacqui Dean said the bill that I am talking about is the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which is currently in the House.Andrew Little: This is the silliest piece of legislation the House has seen in a long time.IANMcKELVIE: Those of us who have the opportunity to serve on the Law and Order Committee have a greater understanding of these things and clearly we do not need to engage in this kind of discussion.Finally I want to congratulate the member on bringing this bill to the House and I commend it to the House. Thank you.DAVID CLENDON (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The first line of the explanatory note of this Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill essentially spells out the motivation for it I think. It simply says that “Criminal offending by adults often exposes minors to serious harm.” Undoubtedly it does. To those of us who are parents or even who have the care of other people’s children it is inexplicable in a sense that people would willingly expose children often to quite serious harm but sadly that is the reality. It is something that this bill seeks to address and the Greens are happy to support the progress of this bill. It is appropriate.The bill goes on to mention too that criminal offending by adults does cause harm to children who deserve protection from adult offending that puts them at risk. It is opportune or perhaps it is certainly appropriate that we are debating this bill in its first reading this week which is of course Children of Prisoners Week. I was very happy yesterday to host a brief celebration a launch of that week and of a display from PILLARSNgāPouWhakahou. I do acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues from across the House who cooperated and enabled that brief launch that celebration to occur in the parliamentary precincts. I would just like also—if I may diverge slightly—to mention and acknowledge VernaMcFelin the founder and current director of PILLARS who has 25 years of work protecting and doing her very level best to protect the well-being of the children of prisoners. She was recognised a couple of days ago with an award from the Department of Corrections. Twenty-five years is an extremely long time to be committed and devoted to a very tough call around protecting children from the consequences of adult offending.So with those comments I will talk more specifically to the bill. In a sense we see this as a belts and braces bill. We believe that clearly the intention is that having children exposed to criminal offending—and the specifics talking about P labs and the like—should be treated as an aggravating factor at sentencing. We note that in 2005 JusticeWinkelmann in sentencing an offender who was involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine said this: “it is a considerable aggravating factor that one of these operations was in the garage at the property where you lived with your children”. She went on to say to the offender: “you exposed your children to toxic chemicals in a dangerous environment.” So in a sense we have got some confidence that judges at sentencing would already treat the presence of children as an aggravating factor but clearly this bill would make it perhaps easier for judges to make that call and more likely that they would indeed consider that an aggravating factor. Certainly it does no harm; it may do good. It is kind of a belts and braces approach and there is no harm in that.It is a very short bill and none the worse for that. It is very clear in its purpose. We respect that purpose—to protect children from the very poor judgment clearly of adult offenders who may put those kids at risk. We compliment our colleague on bringing this bill to the House. We will be pleased to support it. Kia ora.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the first reading of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. Can I at the outset congratulate Asenati Lole-Taylor on bringing this bill forward and on having the good fortune to have it drawn out of the ballot—well done. In a previous speech I made on a Government MP bringing forward a piece of legislation I was critical of course that it had not been turned into a Government bill. On this occasion I will not afford that same criticism to this bill because of course the member has no option but to bring it forward as a member’s bill and that is the right and proper use of the members’ ballot in my humble view. So congratulations.It is an important issue that Asenati Lole-Taylor puts before this Parliament because what more worthy cause of this Parliament is there than to be protecting children from harm and to be putting children at the centre of what we do? The Labour Party made a deliberate decision some 4 years ago that at the heart of all of its policy development would be the impact on children. So of course it is supporting this bill at its first reading and referral to the Law and Order Committee.I will personally be very interested to hear submissions on this bill because I have a bill that is a little similar to this but with quite different implications and different motivations behind it going into the members’ ballot. It is about having domestic violence as an aggravating factor at sentencing. I think there are some real synergies with this bill because of course one of the circumstances in which this bill would be brought to bear is in a situation where children are present during a criminal offence of—I am going to call it “domestic violence” but of course there is no actual criminal offence of domestic violence; possibly it would be an assault male versus female or however it is described in the Sentencing Act.Those situations are often—and far too often—occurring in homes and frequently children who are present are harmed when they are party to that type of offending. One of the stories I still recall—and it resonates with me whenever I think about the work our police do in this country—is the story I heard from a community constable about how important it was for him to do work in the local schools. He relayed to me a story about the fact that because children knew him and he had visited their school the children would come straight to him when sadly he was attending domestic violence situations in their homes. The children would come out of hiding—that is often what children do in these situations; they hide—and come straight to him. When the police knock at the door the children are even more terrified than they are of the events happening around them. But this particular police officer was telling me of the importance of having a relationship with the children in his community so that they knew that when he appeared at their door he was there to provide them with safety.So I think it is going to be quite instructive for us to see what submitters make of this bill. I agree with my colleague Jacinda Ardern—that is probably no surprise to anyone—in that I would much rather we were working at the front end of this and in a way whereby children are never put in this situation because sadly by the time this bill is brought to bear the harm has actually already occurred. The harm for an innocent child—who has no other option but to be party to a crime and to be in the vicinity of that crime—has already happened by the time a judge is considering an aggravating factor at sentencing. That is the saddest thing about the bill that we are debating here this evening. Having said that it is one measure that I hope will make some difference. I congratulate the member on bringing it to the House.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I will pick up where the member Sue Moroney left off in acknowledging the New Zealand First member Asenati Lole-Taylor for bringing this bill the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill forward. Members’ days are a good opportunity for backbenchers to contribute to the work of Parliament. Some bills have merit; some bills do not. They all get debated if they are fortunate enough to be pulled from the ballot. I am actually very pleased to be debating this particular bill.Most in the House will be aware but I am sure for the three or four people who are now watching me at home—Hon Chris Tremain: Come on—thousands.MIKE SABIN: Possibly five if they have not turned off already. As a former detective I worked on electronics undercover operations surveillance all the “ninja turtle” stuff at the time when methamphetamine—I was hiding behind trees; large ones obviously. I was working in the police at the time when methamphetamine went from being really a very little-known issue to New Zealand having one of the worst problems in the world with that particular drug. It is the only hard drug that can be made in the kitchen from readily available retail chemicals.New Zealand was quite captured by that drug. I was one of the first clandestine laboratory officers trained. The clandestine drug laboratory officers were trained to work alongside the Institute of Environmental Science and Research scientists go in and dismantle the labs gather the evidence and prosecute in respect of these things. During that process I came to learn of the immense dangers that the manufacture of this drug actually created. Sure members will talk about issues other than methamphetamine but if we look at that particular drug and the implication of that on children it will give a very good example I guess of where this bill may indeed have its place and that is in the significant aggravation that is caused when someone is manufacturing methamphetamine in the proximity of children. Sadly all too often that is exactly the case.Here is a drug that is made from readily available retail chemicals. It can be made in a plastic bag it can be made in a soft drink bottle and it is often made in the lounges kitchens and bathrooms of homes all around this country—it has been. There have been thousands of labs—many many hundreds of labs—that have been dismantled of significant size and scale. We are talking about chemicals such as hydrochloric acid sulphuric acid and solvents of all manner that are highly flammable but toxic in themselves such as red phosphorus which will self-ignite without any rhyme or reason. These are chemicals that in combination become incredibly toxic. They are not visible and often cannot be detected by the senses. They will emit during the manufacturing process. They absorb into the wall linings. They go through the wall linings and into the stud timber. They go through the floor down into the substrate beneath the floor linings. They go up into the rangehoods and all throughout the plumbing of the house. For every kilogram of methamphetamine 9.5 kilograms of waste is created and often that is tipped down drains or tipped out over the back lawn.When I looked at a lot of the analysis on the implications of the ticking time bombs thatmeth labs become what became very apparent is that children in those environments by simply crawling around would actually pick up those chemicals. They are typically putting a lot of things in their mouths so trace elements of those volatile insolvents and acids drain cleaner and so forth are being ingested by the children. Then of course those chemicals are producing methamphetamine which is often smoked in that environment as well. So the children are ingesting that smoke and the residue from the smoke also falls and they ingest that. Not only are they being poisoned but also they are ingesting the methamphetamine.It is abhorrent when one considers what goes on. Admittedly most people who are manufacturing in that circumstance are doing so to feed an addiction. They are addicted to drugs because they cannot not take them. But when children are in that environment and the parents can turn a blind eye to it it is almost something that I think is contrary to human nature. It is so abhorrent and the implications for the children are so severe. So on that basis alone I am happy to support the bill to be considered by the Law and Order Committee.The one note of caution that we may signal is the fact that judges do of course have discretionary ability to apply an aggravating factor in terms of sentencing and that will always have to be weighed off against an arbitrary legal status such as this. I think the bill has merit and I commend the member for bringing it forward.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The Government has introduced a number of bills that put the interests of children as paramount. An example of course is the Family Courts Amendment Bill which was recently passed. New Zealand First actually opposed that bill because we felt it had too many serious faults. Although it made the interests of children paramount in fact it lessened the circumstances in which a lawyer for the child would be appointed. So we felt that the Government had reneged on its own declaration about the paramountcy of the interests of children in that bill. But although New Zealand First did not support that bill we did support the principle of putting the interests of children first and we know that there is also cross-party support for this important principle.The Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill will increase sentences for offenders as a means of bringing home to them the need to protect children from the effects of their offending. That puts this principle into practice. So it is no surprise that all parties want this bill at least to go to the appropriate select committee for examination. All parties I am sure want to see something done about the problem that the bill seeks to address which is the exposure of children to criminal offending and to the psychological effect that this has on their whole lives one of which is to drag those children into criminal offending themselves in later life. Another recent piece of legislation is the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. This is supported by New Zealand First for the same reasons.New Zealand First and Asenati Lole-Taylor are promoting this bill to protect children from the effects of criminal offending. For too long victims’ rights have been ignored. The current Government legislation to reverse that situation will be well augmented by Mrs Lole-Taylor’s bill the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill because although the victims’ rights are extremely important generally there is a considerable gap in the need to emphasise children’s rights in these areas. The particular focus of this bill is to deal with a by-product of offending being the effects on minors when crimes are committed in their presence and when they live in unhealthy homes because of the effects of crime especially the production and selling of drugs. So the bill in fact targets that area and especially where methamphetamine is involved. Offenders who allow their criminal activities to cause harm to children must have a much higher degree of deterrence by the imposition of much harsher penalties. Such criminals must get a sharp wake-up call that not only is the offending itself going to be punished but also if it harms children then that will cause a significant increase in the penalty. That is the purpose of this bill. It is a simple and straightforward measure. Even the dumbest criminal will understand it. Accordingly the bill will help to attack one of the worst-affected sectors of the victims of crime—New Zealand’s children.We in this House have a sacred duty to do all we can to protect children and this bill is one way of doing just that. The essence of the bill is in clause 5 which says that it is“an aggravating factor in the consideration of sentencing of an offender aged 17 or over for the crime to have been committed in the presence of a minor if the actions undertaken to commit the offence put the minor at risk of harm.” Although there is nothing in the law currently that would prevent a court from taking that into consideration as an aggravating factor they too often do not do so. So it would be much better if they are required to do so as a mandatory measure. This would advert the courts’ attention to the issue so that they do consider this consistently in sentencing. I congratulate Asenati Lole-Taylor on bringing the bill before the House. It is a small measure but it is likely to have considerable impact on the protection of children and I trust it will get the support it deserves.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on this important piece of legislation Asenati Lole-Taylor’s Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. I want to say as many others in this House have said tonight that we are duty bound to ensure that the laws that this House passes afford proper and real protection to the most vulnerable in our society and children are foremost amongst those.However now I want to be the fly in the ointment or thejeremiah and say that I have some concerns about this bill. I have concerns on the basis of longstanding principles of criminal justice and the drafting of criminal legislation. We all understand the need for an appropriate penalty to be in place when a crime involving violence and/or harm to others has been committed. There are important principles when it comes to our criminal statutes. One is that crimes because they attract the coercive powers of the State through investigation detection prosecution enforcement and sometimes incarceration or other forms of punishment are expected to be very clearly and unequivocally defined so that people know what the boundary is that they have to cross before they attract the label of criminal or before they have committed a crime. That is fundamental.What I see in this bill is some vague language some uncertainty and some equivocation. When it says that a minor is put at risk what does that mean? What is the nature of the risk? And what is the extent of the risk especially if there has been no material impact or effect on the minor? Given the definition in the bill of “the presence of a minor” what does it mean to say “where a minor … could reasonably be expected to be present;”? Well if the minor was not present and has not suffered harm what is the basis of attracting a criminal sanction and punishing the person?Let us punish the wrongdoers. Let us punish those who do wrong things and who cause harm and danger to others. Let us not try to criminalise a whole bunch of activity that in the absence of anything else would not be criminal. That is one point. Let us not have wishy-washy vague terms as the basis of our criminal statutes. We live in a time and sadly in a Parliament where it is very appealing and attractive to create more crimes and create more criminals and all the rest of it. We should be very cautious about doing that.The second point I want to make is whether or not this bill will actually add anything to what is already there. If you have a look at section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002 it lists 15—actually more than that because some of them are broken down into subsections—aggravating factors that a judge has to take into account. Five of them—at least five of them—would cover the very situation that the member who has sponsored this billLe’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor is trying to cover. If we have a look at section 9(1)(d) of the Sentencing Act one of the factors that a judge could take into account is “the extent of any loss damage or harm resulting from the offence:”. Paragraph (f) is “that the offender was abusing a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim:”—that includes a parent not using the house for the proper reason forwhich it ought to be used. Paragraph (g) is “that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender:”. There are some other ones there.Then you go on to subsection (3) which states some things that the court must not take into account including whether or not the offender was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And then subsection (4) is very clear that nothing in those earlier subsections “prevents the court from taking into account any other aggravating or mitigating factor that the court thinks fit;” and it goes on to say that that provision does not imply that any particular factor is any less or more important and that they ought to be taken together.The real question when this bill goes to the Law and Order Committee is what it is actually adding to our present law. Although we will support this bill going to the select committee we do not want to continue the trend of criminalising ever more behaviour and adding ever more to our criminal statutes when it may in fact be totally pointless.Tim Macindoe: Mr Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Timothy Macindoe.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): So does my mother when I am in trouble. May I begin as other speakers have done by congratulatingLe’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor on having her member’s bill the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill drawn and brought to the House. It is an exciting time.I have to say to Mrs Lole-Taylor that I am a little bit jealous as I have been here longer than she has and I too have a bill in the members’ ballot that has never looked like being drawn. If it is it will make a significant difference I think to dealing with an aspect of criminal behaviour in our community. But anyway I will not be churlish.I congratulate her and I want to acknowledge Denis O’Rourke who mentioned at the start of his address that National has had a focus since we came into office on building a safer New Zealand. It has after all been one of our key Better Public Services targets. We have had a huge number of justice-related and criminal justice - related measures that have come through Parliament and we are seeing results with a lower crime rate. In fact crime is at its lowest level in 30 years and that is a fantastic achievement. Youth crime is down significantly—Andrew Little: Get the figures right. Why doesn’t the member get the figures right? Doesn’t have an argument. Doesn’t have an answer.TIM MACINDOE: —and I think that Mrs Lole-Taylor is bringing something forward that is a thoughtful contribution to perhaps making another step in the right direction. I hear Mr Little chirping away. He needs to be reminded that before we came into office in 2008 crime was increasing gangs were on the rampage courts were overcrowded and our prisons were particularly overcrowded and had a chronic shortage of beds—Andrew Little: Why can’t this member get the facts right?TIM MACINDOE: I am giving him all the facts. He does not like it. He will not correct me because he knows that I am right. He will simply continue to barrack. Well that is fine. I expect that sort of fairly churlish behaviour but I will just carry on.In recent times we have put 600 extra front-line police on the beat—that is a good measure. We have got a 70 percent increase in police foot patrols as of the end of last year—that is a fantastic achievement. These are some of the reasons why we are getting these major improvements. I have no doubt that these will continue and at any stage we cannot let up on our focus.This particular bill amends the Sentencing Act. As I am one of the final speakers it may be that some people have only just tuned in. The bill will amend the Sentencing Act “to make criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing. Where the offending endangers or exposes a minor to potential adverse effects from that offending the sentence must reflect this.” I am sure we all shudder at the prospect of children being exposed to violent crime or perhaps being brought up in a P lab or seeing some appalling gang activity. What an appalling impact that must be having on these children. There is sadly huge evidence that children who grow up in that sort of environment go on to be at risk of committing that sort of criminal activity themselves and therefore everything we can do to try to prevent that from happening has to be a good thing.I do however want to reassure the public who may be listening that the presence of a child and the risk of harm to them are already aggravating factors that can be taken into account by the courts in sentencing even though they are not specifically listed at the moment in the Sentencing Act. Furthermore where the offending has involved the presence of children alongside the manufacture of drugs offenders have also already been charged with neglect offences and so it should be because as I say the prospect of this happening is so damaging for those children.So as has been indicated by my colleagues National is supporting this bill at its first reading so that it can go to the Law and Order Committee so that submissions can be made on it and it can be given due attention.Colleagues have also mentioned theChildren’s Action Plan. I am a particular fan of and advocate for that because it is part of dealing with the real problem we have with vulnerable children in our community growing up in some dreadful circumstances and being subjected to the most appalling abuse. Sadly we have one of the worst rates of child murder in the Western World. As I say this issue is a passion of mine. I acknowledge all those who work in our communities to deal with that issue and again I hope that this bill will make another contribution in that direction because although we have made some progress there is still a long way to go.I was glad that Mrs Lole-Taylor acknowledged the late Brian Donnelly and the work that he did in this area and I too echo that. He was a fine member of Parliament.We know that a key to reducing crime long term is to stop children from entering the criminal justice system. This is a bill that may well contribute to that end. It will I am sure play a constructive role.So for these reasons I too support its introduction and the fact that it should be sent to the select committee. It sounds from the way speakers have talked as if it will be. I again congratulate Mrs Lole-Taylor on her achievement. I will follow the bill’s progress through the select committee and beyond with interest.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First):Talofa lava.Malo lava lesoifua. I want to acknowledge the contributions by various honourable members tonight. I am reminded of H Jackson BrownJnr’s words: “Live so that when your children think of fairness caring and integrity they think of you.”—they think of you. During the development of this bill theSentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill the memories of my dear eldest nephew reminded me of the difficulties he faced in his first 17 years. If you are listening nowIoane I just want you to know that I do love you. Your experience encouraged me to ensure that this bill came to the House.I am encouraged by the contributions and support shown by various members in the House tonight. I also want to acknowledge the comments by David Clendon here with regard to prisons and the fact that this week is celebrating PILLARS’ contribution to fathers in prison and their children. Ian McKelvie also mentioned the visits he has madeto some of the prisons. I can assure you that I have spent 6 years in the prison environment. I can assure you that I have spent 6 years in the Department of Corrections looking after or catering for the top part of the northern region in this area. Rehabilitation and reintegration is something that is very dear to me. During that time I came across a lot of different generations from the same families. They happen to be the families who come from the same kinds of problems. If it is not domestic violence it is abuse rape or of course drug dealing.This bill takes a clear stand that it is not OK for children to witness and be innocent bystanders to crime. We need to send a clear message that we will no longer sit back and ignore children who are innocently caught up in high-level criminal offending and ongoing crime that leaves them in the path of harm. Children are too often the innocent parties in criminal offending by adults.I acknowledge the comments that were raised by Jacinda Ardern tonight about the judges that often they do not take it into account or often they do take it into account and they should. I suppose the response I can give to that is that judges often forget that the children were involved by the time the sentencing happens. By then they often just give a lenient sentence based on the actual criminal forgetting that there were children involved and in addition to that forgetting the mental and the psychological effect that has on our children in those situations. I do hope that the Law and Order Committee though will give that some serious consideration in order to incorporate those comments that were raised by Jacinda Ardern. I sincerely hope that AndrewLittle’s concerns will also be addressed and any of the loopholes that he considered to be missing from this bill.Where offending endangers minors or exposes them to potentially adverse effects the sentence imposed should reflect that. Criminals should have no right to endanger innocent children. The people of New Zealand expect us to fix this problem. Our children are the future of this nation and if the individuals around them are not taking responsibility to protect them from harm and a cycle of abuse and plus are initiating them into a life of crime then surely it is time they are held accountable for their actions. Punishment is not for revenge but to lessen crime and reform the criminal. Decisions in this House should be made based on what is in the best interests of our nation and our people not on individuals’ needs or personal agenda. I duly commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Law and Order Committee.