Power Simon: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:696] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the member Clayton Cosgrove for the series of reasonable and rational questions he put to me in the chair today. I will address two of those matters but the first matter I want to address is the matter raised by the Green Party although that was the third matter that Mr Cosgrove brought to the Committee. 
I noted that the Green Party member said she was not interested in what the law intended and what she was interested in was what was actually going to happen. I can talk a bit about both those things if I may. The issue of defencelessness is not in any way intended to align or design a behaviour on a scale of circumstances that might excuse behaviour because of a particular set of circumstances peculiar to an individual child whether his or her age be 14 years or for that matter less than 1 year for example. In no way is it designed to allow for the apportionment of blame to a child nor is it about shifting the blame for a child’s behaviour size or capacity in the sense that the member raised earlier. 
As I said in my second reading speech—and I accept there is a very subtle difference between defencelessness and vulnerability—it is my view and the Government’s view that defencelessness can be distinguished from vulnerability by focusing on the degree to which the victim could find protection from the offender rather than on the fact that children in themselves are more easily harmed or are somehow more to blame than adults would be in those circumstances. I accept the point the member has made and I think it is a particularly valuable contribution to the debate. It is quite a subtle technical point but I can assure her there is absolutely no intention to allow the types of circumstances that she describes to occur within the bounds of the legislation as it is designed. 
Before I address the other two points made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove I say to the Maori Party members that I think the contribution made in seeking advice from the Children’s Commissioner brought another dimension to the consultation which given the time frames we are operating in was a valuable contribution to the debate. The reason for the age as members from the Maori Party will appreciate is to align it directly with the Child Youth and Family legislation. The debate about the age of a child in the more general sense is one that will continue as domestic and international obligations in that regard do not always align. I can think of a couple of situations off the top of my head that eventually we will have a discussion about in this Parliament. 
On the matters raised by the Hon David Parker I thought that what he said was a particularly good contribution because it was technical around some of the issues. But I do not share his view I say to Mr Cosgrove that these clauses do not add anything to the discussion. The specificity that they bring to the matters to which a sentencing judge must turn his or her mind is quite poignant and pointed. The law of statutory interpretation—if I can reach back into my first-year law days—is clear that specific sections or clauses take priority over those of a more general and wider application. In the event that we are able to set up a specific section relating to children the sentencing judge would give his or her attention to that matter first I say to Mr Cosgrove prior to the more general provisions. That is why that is important and that is why specificity is important. 
In respect of matters surrounding parole I just say two things: all in good time and members should watch this space.