Ardern Jacinda: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I want to make it absolutely clear that I would say that there is probably no member in this House who would argue against the principle of ensuring that children are kept from harm and I do mean harm in the broadest sense of the word when it comes to criminal offending: harm perpetrated against the child themselves; exposure to the negative environment that is criminal offending even if that harm is not directly to the child; or even the harm that comes from a child who has a parent who is engaged in criminal offending and who loses that parent to the justice system and to incarceration. The question therefore is not whether we should be trying to prevent harm against children; it is how we can best ensure that we prevent that harm—how do we do it—and unfortunately the bill that has been put forward by the previous member of New Zealand First Asenati Lole-Taylor just simply does not achieve that goal.We can see this if we go back to the general policy statement in the explanatory note of the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill itself which states: “Criminal offending by adults often exposes minors to serious harm. A primary example of such offending is the production of drugs particularly methamphetamine. … Minors are often innocent parties to criminal offending by adults and deserve protection from adult offending that puts them at risk of harm. This Bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002 to make criminal offending in the presence of a minor an aggravating factor at sentencing.” That is probably the most crucial part of that statement—“at sentencing.” This bill relies on an adult to first be charged be successfully prosecuted and then be sentenced for the crime of producing methamphetamine. It does not make the act of producing methamphetamine in front of a child in the presence of a child—endangering a child—an offence in and of itself. That is probably one of the most significant issues with this bill and there are a couple of examples that I want to give as to why that means that this bill will not succeed in the way that the member perhaps intended.We actually already know first of all that the Sentencing Act does allow aggravating factors to be taken into account and we heard submissions that suggested that actually the intention that the member included in this bill was already achieved by the existing law. The Sentencing Act 2002 as introduced by Phil Goff allowed flexibility around aggravating factors. Instead I think that perhaps the original drafter of this bill intended for something quite different to be occurring. We do know for instance that children are currently being exposed to the manufacturing of methamphetamine and we know that because of the research of one woman. I want to pay tribute to Chloe Barker. She is an Auckland-based lawyer who a few years ago now analysed Institute of Environmental Science and Research data related to children and clandestine labs as part of her Master’s degree. She worked very closely with the police and the police were very cooperative on the work that she did.She found that from 2006 to 2010 there were 191 children living in the presence of methamphetamine labs. Those labs were the ones that the police successfully broke into and closed down and subsequently the police laid charges against the offending adults. We know that there has been a steadily increasing rate though. In fact in 2002 34 percent of all the labs discovered by the police had children present living in the confines of the lab itself. We know from a more detailed audit in 2008-09 that in 21 percent of labs there was evidence that the children were present during the manufacturing process that in 45 of the 53 labs reviewed there was evidence of chemicals within reach of children and that in 36 of 53 labs chemicals were stored in food or drink containers and in one case they were stored in a child’s school drink bottle complete with their name and their school room number on the bottle itself. We know that that also has an effect. There has not been quite enough research in this area but we know from the hair follicle samples of 23 of the 26 children tested methamphetamine was found to be present in those children’s hair follicles. We do not however know the long-term effects of that presence but I assume that anyone would agree that that clearly indicates harm in some form or another.But here is the kicker: despite all of that research and that evidence there is a low rate of successful prosecution connecting the child to that criminal offending. As Chloe herself was quoted as saying in the Police Association magazine: “Currently in New Zealand general child abuse laws are used to prosecute those who have exposed children to the dangers of the methamphetamine manufacture environment”—so they are being prosecuted under child abuse laws. She went on to say though: “The Crown … has needed to show that this exposure was wilful and likely to cause unnecessary suffering actual bodily harm injury to health a mental disability or disorder. Attentive evidential questioning and interviewing of the suspect and witnesses is required to establish intent.” As you can see if you are prosecuting under general child abuse laws with that threshold test—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.JACINDA ARDERN: Before the break I was discussing the work of Chloe Barker an Auckland-based lawyer who has done a significant amount of research into children who are affected by parents or caregivers operating methamphetamine labs and the subsequent ability to take action against those caregivers. The point that she had made and which I quoted to the House was that currently in New Zealand more general child abuse laws are used to prosecute those who have exposed children to methamphetamine and that the tests in those laws are relatively high. The point that I was wanting to make was that the principle of what Asenati Lole-Taylor was trying to uphold in this bill is a good one but the mechanism was incorrect. The Sentencing Act requires someone of course to be charged and convicted before you can then apply an additional aggravating factor when in fact what we need to do is address the fact that the act itself of exposing a child to methamphetamine manufacturing should be easier to prosecute either as a stand-alone form of child abuse or as part of the Crimes Act. It should have its own charge in and of itself. That is the problem that actually has not been addressed with this bill and we implore New Zealand First to have a think about how that could be done instead.At the moment one of the issues is that the child abuse laws require you to demonstrate injury has occurred. There is not much longitudinal research around the long-term effects of exposure—not intake of but exposure—to methamphetamine. Of course to do that long-term research you would need the consent of caregivers. That in itself is going to be an issue. If you were a caregiver in the past who has exposed a child to methamphetamine and the transience of the families who may have children who have been exposed to methamphetamine are just basic issues around trying to track long term those effects. A secondary measure though if we are finding it difficult to prove injury is that we then need to lower the threshold test in the law but we should also be making sure that actually we do treat this as a child welfare issue.I want to pay tribute to the New Zealand Police and to Detective Senior Sergeant John Brunton in particular who is the manager of the national clan-lab response team. He stated that the exposure of the children to drugs and chemicals is often complemented with exposure to criminal lifestyles neglect and psychological emotional physical or sexual abuse. He said speaking of Chloe’s work that “The study corroborates my belief that Police and other response agencies could be more effective in bringing about better outcomes for these children if supported by legislation and information-sharing policies.” What he was referring to was the fact that since 2007 the police have had standard operating procedures that tell them how they best deal with children found in manufacturing labs. Child Youth and Family right up until 2013 had no such operating procedures. It had no agreement with the police on how to deal with these children. In some cases we had examples of children being removed and then rehoused—rehoused—with caregivers who were operating methamphetamine labs sometimes 2 days after they were removed. That is utterly unacceptable.My understanding is that Child Youth and Family has finally come to the party with the police but it was simply not good enough that the exposure of these children to these environments was not seen as sufficient to warrant emergency procedures to ensure that those children were safe and kept away from harm in the longer term. We must do better in this area. I want to congratulate Chloe Barker again on her work and police officers like Detective Senior Sergeant John Brunton on their ongoing work. We should be listening to their research and constructing legislation around that so that we make a real difference on behalf of children.