Hide Rodney: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21338] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I listened most carefully to the Minister of Justice’s speech and have some sympathy for his position regarding the three-strikes amendment of the ACT Party to the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) but with great respect I think the Minister is wrong. I also think Jami-Lee Ross is wrong and Labour too is wrong. If I may take my time I will explain why. 
We are introducing a new offence in this bill. We are reflecting society’s desire that if someone stands by and does nothing and allows a young child to be hurt to be maimed and to be sexually molested that person has committed an offence. That is what we are saying in this bill. We are saying that for that crime an offender can be put away for 10 years. That is how seriously Parliament is taking such a new criminal offence and we are right to do so because the public is sick to death of people saying: “Oh it wasn’t me. I couldn’t do anything.” when we know they could have done something. We are saying that although the offender did not commit the crime—they did not physically go over and hurt the little baby—they stood by and did nothing when they could have stopped it. Parliament is saying that is a criminal offence and society is saying that is a criminal offence. That is what we are doing in this bill. 
We are saying that the offence is as bad as if the person committed the crime because they can be put away for 10 years. But hang on we are saying—Jami-Lee Ross said this the Minister said this and Labour is saying this—that in our criminal code standing by while a little baby gets molested is not as bad as aggravated burglary. Why? It is because we will not allow the three-strikes provisions to apply. If people commit aggravated burglary and are convicted in New Zealand once they get just the sentence twice they get no parole and three times they get the maximum sentence. What Labour is saying what the Minister is saying and what Jami-Lee Ross is saying is that if an offender sits by and allows a young baby to be maimed and molested it is not as bad as aggravated burglary. If they do it once they get just the sentence if they do it twice they get just the sentence and if they do it three times they get just the sentence. That process does not reflect what the people of New Zealand believe. They want to see this crime dealt to. They do not want to say that aggravated robbery is up here and standing by while a little baby gets molested is down there. 
The Committee tonight is creating an anomaly. It is saying that for a violent offence the three-strikes law applies if the sentence of imprisonment is for more than 7 years. But for this crime—sure I accept it is a crime of omission but we are saying it is as bad as if the person committed the crime because they could easily have stopped it or called the authorities yet the person did nothing—we are saying it is a lesser crime. We are failing in our duty. Yes we have rhetoric but let us back it up by saying that standing by and not calling the authorities when a little New Zealand baby is being maimed and sexually molested is as bad as aggravated robbery. Whatever members think about the three-strikes law it should apply in this case because if it does not then the actions of members tonight do not match their words in saying they are getting serious and sending a signal. The Committee is not doing that.