Prasad Rajen: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21232. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) especially since the Social Services Committee considered it and I was a member of that committee. The Minister of Justice Mr Power seeks the strength of the signal this Parliament ought to send about the level of intolerance there should be towards abuse of children. Certainly that assurance is given from this side of the House. We will be supporting this bill and join with the Government in the provisions this bill contains about the very clear signal the Government wants to give. So now under the provisions of this bill if somebody is in a home where abuse is taking place and the person is aware of it and provided that the abuse is of a particular nature in that it is out of the ordinary then there is a process and there are criminal responsibilities as well as a responsibility to report that. 
However this is the third year of this Government and child abuse in these 3 years probably has been a constant reminder to us about one of the dark sides of our society. At the end of 3 years the question I ask is: “Is this it? Is this what we are going to do? Is this the sum total of what this Government could have achieved in 3 years in this particular area?” So what do we have? We have had over the last 3 years some very punitive provisions towards children and young people who have fallen foul of the law who have been abused or who have done things we would not consider appropriate. So we have tried those negative punitive provisions. I remember the big debate—one of the most intense debates we had in the early part of this Parliament—around boot camps. Even though the Government had been told that all of the research tells us that they do not and will not work—most submitters said that to the select committee at the time—but did the Government listen? No. The Government could have spent the same amount of resources and time really trying to find out what the factors are that lead families to abuse. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: It is a pleasure to resume what I was just getting into prior to the House rising for the dinner break and now the Minister is listening to this contribution. The Minister has sought from this side of the House a very clear statement that this Parliament is sending through this bill to people about the safety of children and how important it is for anybody who has responsibility for children to conduct themselves and undertake their roles relationships and activities in such a manner that those children are not jeopardised. That assurance is given unequivocally from this side of the House; hence our support for this bill and our support for all of the provisions of the bill. 
The process in the select committee was very very useful. We went through the bill in some detail. The officials did a great job. The committee was well led by Ms Katrina Shanks and we had a lot of opportunities to discuss what is in this bill. So I say to Minister Power that the assurance is given in this particular way. But I was reflecting after giving that assurance on the fact that over the past 3 years child abuse has really been in everybody’s minds in New Zealand. There has been a lot of discussion and discourse about it so it has been at the forefront of our minds—cases have come up discussions have been widespread and citizens have shown their abhorrence for child abuse in any form—and this side of the House has supported any reasonable bill that has come up any reasonable proposal to address the needs of children and families over the last 3 years. 
But what I was then reflecting on was after 3 years is this it? Is this the total programme that the Government had for children? If so then clearly something is missing because by and large much of this has been quite punitive in a sense—you know the exuberance around Future Focus and boot camps which are largely punitive. The Government has provided punitive measures in order to bring people to account particularly children young people and their families. We wonder why the Government has made it so difficult for children through its own policies and why it is difficult for the Government as indeed we saw last week in the House through questions to the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the Prime Minister about child poverty. Really everybody in this House knows there is a link between child poverty and child abuse and all of the things that do go wrong in families. We know—figures tell us—that there are 200000 children living in poverty in New Zealand. We have sought an assurance some confidence from the Government that it was aware of this that it had an idea in mind and that it actually had some plans around this. But what we have heard this week under quite intense questioning from this side of the House was really a game being played but not actually talking about what the figures were. There was a lot of discussion about definitions but at no point was there ever an acceptance by the Prime Minister the Minister for Social Development and Employment and any other Government members that there is a problem. There are about 200000 children living in poverty in New Zealand and what is the programme to get them out of poverty? There is nothing here. Indeed this bill one would have thought would address that. Is it addressing what the consequences of child poverty are what the consequences of family dysfunction are when it comes to child abuse? We can pass provisions like this and they are to be supported because they are part of the framework but they do not go far enough particularly at the end of 3 years when this now represents the last leg of the Government’s total programme around children. 
The other point to be made is that one would have thought that somewhere there would be an acknowledgment that 40000 children go to school hungry. That again reflects that something is wrong in our society. There is no dispute about those figures; schools tell us about them parents talk about them and voluntary groups go out and feed those children. When we look at those kinds of figures we look to the Government to ask it about what other things there are and how the Government might address them. Then there is no answer. It is far easier for the Government to come up with punitive measures of this kind and leave it at that. Every provision in this bill emerges out of a story that has been told and has been very public. Whether it was the Kahui twins Waihopai or something else each one of these things comes out of things that have gone wrong. The Government wants to give the impression that it is addressing the fundamental issues; in fact it is not. These measures are still window dressing. 
One would have thought that by this stage the Government would have worked out the need for a holistic examination for all of these issues. Its answer is the green paper; the green paper will do it all. Well the green paper is actually a white flag. It says that we not know. The green paper simply goes out and asks people whether they think the Government should be doing this. Well we do not need the green paper. Each of the issues raised can be addressed now and should have started some time ago so that the future for those children and their families would have been far more sustainable at least getting them out of that particular risk. 
In the end one has to draw the conclusion that the Government does not have a comprehensive plan around children; the Government has given up that space to the green paper and it has come up with acts of conscience so to speak. I hope that speakers will get up and explain how it is that this bill addresses those fundamental questions. The Government has been absent for children. Its programme has been devoid of constructive ideas and much of it has not worked. Thank you.