Coddington Deborah: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20071] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am pleased to support legislation that is tough on sex offenders or anything that increases the penalties. I still do not think that many of these penalties are tough enough. The Minister himself spoke during the Committee stage about offenders like Peter Liddell—and I am sure he would include amongst them Lloyd McIntosh. They are offenders whom I believe we should lock up and throw away the key. Fortunately there are not many of them in New Zealand. We could probably count them on the fingers of two hands but the damage they cause is horrendous and there is no way they can be rehabilitated or supervised for 24 hours a day if they are released. Their history and behaviour proves that no sentence is tough enough for them. 
I agree that this legislation is not perfect. There are things in it that I do have issues with. But it is not so imperfect that it should be voted down and I do not agree that it should be delayed any further by sending it back to the Law and Order Committee. I do not think that would achieve anything. There is too much in the bill that is already covered by the courts. We have come a long way in this country in terms of the way courts deal with sexual abuse cases. Some of the excuses that are given in court are dismissed out of hand by the judges. 
Ron Mark referred to the so-called broomstick boys in Taradale. I do not have the case in front of me but I believe they were actually charged with something that was relatively minor. Their lawyers went just for grievous bodily harm—they tried not to have it as a sex offence at all. I cannot remember what the boys got convicted for but they had very very good legal representation and because they were convicted of a sexual offence I put them in last year’s edition of the  
Paedophile and Sex Offender Index 
. I got slammed for that by a prominent QC who accused me of double jeopardy. My argument was that if those boys had been Mongrel Mob members and had done exactly the same thing no one would argue that they should not be in the index. Just because someone gets good representation does not mean they should be treated any more lightly. My point is that the judges who handled that case and the appeals agreed with the prosecution that it was the victim who was paramount in this case. 
I am pleased that the definition of family has been extended. I am puzzled as to why Mr Tony Ryall keeps saying that it will include everybody who lives on a marae. Actually there are not many people who live on marae. People visit marae and they have functions there. I am not very knowledgable about this but Ratana is probably one of the few marae that people live on. There would not be many. So what is the problem with classifying those people as family? Should children on marae not be offered the same protection as children living on if you like a Pakeha marae such as the Centrepoint community? Anyone who remembers that case will remember the appalling excuses offered by the men involved when they tried to get off the child-sex crimes committed there. 
What I see as going hand in hand with extending the definition of family—and it is true that the majority of sexual abuse is committed by someone who knows the victim very well and who has groomed that victim—and as one of the keys to enforcing this legislation is to have a national database of convicted sex offenders. That list would not be freely available to the public but it would regardless of whether the offenders are named or have name suppression be available to parents or people who are in position of responsibility for children. Those parents and carers could through a bona fide source have access to the names of people who need to be trusted with children. If anyone wants to take out a loan borrow money or get something on hire purchase they have to agree to a credit check being done on them to make sure they are safe with other people’s money. There is no reason why we cannot do the same thing here. 
If people want to be trusted with other people’s children they should agree to a check being done on them to make sure they can be trusted with children. I do not see why it is such a big issue. We charge parents with the job of protecting their children and they should be given as much knowledge and information as they need to be able to do that in a responsible fashion. 
An article in the Ponsonby area newspaper just this week reported that the principal of Ponsonby Intermediate is having dreadful concerns because of parents not picking up their children on time at 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. Sometimes it is very difficult for parents especially with Auckland traffic to be there on time. The principal has been told by the police that about eight convicted paedophiles live in the immediate area but she cannot inform the parents of those children that they need to be there to pick up their children. She cannot be responsible for them and we need to be able to give parents this information. We need to end this State this Government “we know best” attitude that the Department of Corrections has. Its attitude is: “Leave it to us. We can protect the communities.” 
Having said that I know there is no single remedy. There is no silver bullet that will end the sexual abuse of children. But we need to do more to educate children so that they know that if people touch them in a way that is not appropriate they can tell someone and they will be believed. Sadly attitudes in society still show that there is more sympathy for someone who has been falsely accused of a sex crime than for someone who is a victim of a sex crime. Yes false accusations and false convictions are a terrible terrible thing if someone gets convicted and they are innocent. It happens in all areas of crime not just in sexual abuse. But for some reason and I have no idea why the public’s sympathy is aroused when someone is let off a case. I think there was such a case in Palmerston North recently involving a teacher. If he was innocent then it is great that he got off but there are hundreds and hundreds more victims who never get their day in court and who never get to see a prosecution. That is especially true if the victims are under 2 years old because it is very very difficult to bring the case to court and get a conviction. 
I do not agree with reducing the age from 20 to 18 when someone is part of a family. I did vote for the National Party’s amendment to tighten up that provision especially in light of the grooming clause because it makes it very easy for people who have a home-stay student or someone similar in their home to groom them and then when that person is 18 years and 1 day old they would have much more chance of getting away with their crime. I am not saying they would get off but they would have a better chance of getting away with it. 
If we are to have zero tolerance to crime in this country then we really need to deal with the issue of sexual abuse. It is not an excuse but research has shown that those people who are sexually abused more than four times do go on to lead a life of crime. It is not an excuse but it is a reason. Sooner or later at some stage that child whom we feel sorry for that child who has been abused turns into the criminal we fear and want to lock up forever. 
I agree with Ron Mark’s very good point about bringing in this legislation without the necessary police resources. We need to have more police in the child protection squads. There is an excellent child protection squad in Auckland that works in conjunction with Starship Children’s Hospital but its members admitted to me 2 weeks ago when I visited them that if all the child sex abuse that was going on in the community was brought to their attention they would simply go under because they could not cope with it. 
I congratulate Marc Alexander on his Supplementary Order Paper on grooming and I hope that the passage of this bill augurs well for the future when my Sex Offenders Registry Bill comes back before the House.