Turei Metiria: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:694] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to address a couple of matters that have been raised since I spoke in the first reading debate. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister of Justice is taking seriously my concerns about section 9A(2)(a) inserted by clause 4 and is looking at the application of that provision in practice. If I am right—and the Minister might want to correct me—when he spoke in the second reading he said that the provision was not designed or expected to include looking at fault of the child or blaming the child but rather at whether the child could find protection. I ask the Minister whether that is right. 
Hon Simon Power 
: What was that? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That the issue is the extent to which the child could find protection. If that is the wording I heard from the Minister in his second reading speech it concerns me somewhat because I am not sure how one would factor into the sentencing of the offender the availability of protection for the child. The protection presumably would refer to factors external to the child and external to the offender actually—other opportunities that might be available to that child or alternatives to the situation that was going on. But in the court process there are only two parties: the offender and the victim. Any factor has to be related directly to either the offender or the victim. 
The alternative way of looking at the issue of whether there was the possibility of protection for the victim would be to suggest that protection was available but the child did not avail himself or herself of it. Again it comes back to the need to have a factor that is relevant to either the victim or the offender. Any factor that somehow in any way imports any kind of responsibility on to the victim in the circumstances of this legislation simply is not acceptable. 
We will continue to have this discussion no doubt in the Committee stage. We might even hear more from Mr Garrett about why he considers that my amendment is not necessary because it is about aggravating factors in sentencing. I am not quite sure of his reasoning but I would be very willing to hear his argument. 
I have two responses to Mr Borrows’ contributions. One is to afford him significant respect for his comment this afternoon that very many offenders are themselves victims and there is a very line at which point one becomes one or the other—that those two states if you like are not mutually exclusive. This is one of the reasons why the Green Party has campaigned very strongly against a legal system that is focused on punishment and retribution as opposed to rehabilitation reintegration and the elimination of reoffending. There is a very fine line between being an offender and being a victim in many of the cases we see go to the courts. If retribution is the No. 1 priority of the legal system then we simply will not stop the reoffending that goes on. I have talked about that in discussions on other legislation particularly the Bail Amendment Bill which was recently before the House. 
There was another comment that Mr Borrows made that I do not agree with at all and would like to refer to. Part of it is the discussion on the merit of including the provision about the defencelessness of a child. If the bill had gone to a select committee the consideration that both the Minister and I are giving to those words in the legislation would have happened in the select committee process. In the second reading debate which we are having right now we would have been talking about the discussions that had happened in the select committee the officials’ report that dealt with the definition of those words and the views of the submitters who had come to talk to us about the application of those words in practice in the courts. We are unable to have that discussion or get that input because there has not been a select committee process where we could have had exactly that discussion. That makes for very poor lawmaking. I do not agree with Mr Borrows. He might think he knows everything in the world; I do not assume that for myself. I certainly would not claim as he did to know what the answer would have been from every person who might have wanted to make a submission to the select committee. I am sure he really did not mean that. I hope he did not. 
That is why the select committee process is so important particularly when we are dealing with such significant legislation and especially when we are dealing with legislation that is about criminal law actually. The greatest power that the State has is the coercive power of the police the armed forces and the judicial system. It is the main area of the exercise of extreme State power in relation to our community as a whole so it must be subject to the highest possible level of scrutiny by the members of the public themselves. They must know what the change in the relationship between them and the State will be. Also we must make sure that the machinery of the State in respect of criminal law has the best and most correct mechanisms for dealing with the issue that needs to be dealt with. We must make sure that there are no erroneous powers given to the State there are no holes in the powers that are given to the State and the balance between the rights of the community and the State is properly met. That is why the select committee process which includes public discussion is very important when it comes to criminal law. We are missing out on that process on very important critical legislation that deals with one of the most important issues that this country ever deals with which is violence against and neglect of our most vulnerable citizens.