Goff Phil: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Goff Phil: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:675] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 First I will comment on a couple of remarks made by Dr Worth from the other side of the House by saying that there is not a member in this House who is not absolutely appalled at the tragedy which we witness year after year in this country of child death by abuse and neglect. It is not a party political thing. Over the last two decades about nine wee children a year on average have died at the hands of their caregivers or their parents. The level of substantiated abuse in our community according to Child Youth and Family is around 16000 children. That is something that all of us as New Zealanders are deeply ashamed of. 
Every person I imagine in this Chamber is here because of the benefit they have had of growing up in a secure stable and loving family. That ought to be a child’s birthright yet it is not for a significant minority of our children. If the answer to child abuse and neglect was a simple one then it would have been implemented by Governments decades ago; we know that it is not simple. 
We will support this Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill because as my colleague David Parker has suggested it does no harm. But I have to say to the Minister nor does it make any real difference. That is not a political statement I say to Mr Power. 
There is a text that Mr Power and Dr Worth as lawyers will know about. It is  
Hall’s 
Sentencing 
 which is the foremost text on sentencing in New Zealand written by the foremost expert on sentencing. That expert is Professor Geoffrey Hall from the University of Otago. I will read out what Professor Hall says about this legislation. He stated that section 9(1)(g) of the Sentencing Act 2002 already dictates that judges must take into account the age or vulnerability of the victim which covers children in no uncertain terms as an aggravating feature. He stated: “It’s already there. It sounds to me like it’s window dressing what’s being proposed”. That statement was not made by a politician or by a person with an axe to grind; it was made by a person who is the expert on sentencing in New Zealand. 
This law does not in essence change the existing requirements that I put into the Sentencing Act 2002. I happen to have— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It strengthens them. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No no it does not. I am afraid it does not even strengthen them. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Justice Simon Power. I believe that his intentions with the bill are honourable. I believe that he is concerned about the well-being of children and I would not accuse any member in this Chamber of being motivated by anything other than what is good for protecting those of our children who are most desperately in need. 
There is nobody in this Chamber for whom the name Nia Glassie or a reference to the Kahui twins does not bring a sense of outrage that these vulnerable children could have been treated in that way. It is not a new list; tragically it is not a new list. We can think of James Whakaruru we can think of “Lillybing” we can think of Delcelia Witika—all cases that New Zealanders are familiar with and have been appalled by. 
But notwithstanding that this measure is the same as what is in the existing legislation it demonstrates that legislation is what happens after the event to punish the perpetrator of the abuse. I happen to be one who believes that somebody who abuses neglects and most particularly kills children deserves the strongest sanction that we can place on them. But even if we did have capital punishment I would not pretend for a moment in this House that any one of those wee kiddies whose names I have mentioned would have been saved by that sort of legislation. My challenge to any speaker in this debate is to say whether they believe otherwise. 
We know what we have to do to stop this sort of thing. We know what the common factor in the deaths of each of those children was: they were from dysfunctional families—families where children were born to teenaged mums and where drugs and alcohol addled the minds of the people who were there. If we consider the faces of the people who killed Nia Glassie we can reach our own conclusions about the nature of that household that family and how things operated. 
Therefore it stands to reason I say to the Minister that if we are to make a real difference and if we are to protect our children—the most vulnerable citizens of this country—then we have to address the cause of those children’s deaths. That is where this House can make a difference and that is where the challenge is: for all of us to work in a multiparty way to try to find those solutions. But please I say to the Minister do not come into the House with legislation with the message that “sending a message”—as both Mr Power and Dr Worth have said—will change that reality. We do not “send a message”; we have to act to do that. 
Although I am the architect of some of the toughest justice legislation on our law books with regard to offenders I say that legislation by itself is not enough. It is about prevention it is about early intervention and it is about putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to preserving children’s lives. 
This is a problem that successive Governments have addressed and I am very proud to have been part of the Government that brought in programmes like Family Start and Early Start which said that we can identify those families that are dysfunctional—[ 
Interruption 
] Members can interject but I am making serious points. I am not being partisan about that and I believe those members should get off their high horse listen and contribute in the same constructive way. We have to deal with those problems by early intervention by identifying those children who are being born into and are growing up in a family where they lose their birthright of living in a safe caring and loving environment. 
We will be judging the Government on whether we are resourcing those things and we will be working constructively and positively with the Government to make sure we are resourcing them. My challenge is not simply to Mr Power or Mrs Collins; it is actually to Paula Bennett who is the Minister for Social Development and Employment. It is the dollars that we put into intervening with those dysfunctional families that will make a difference in the lives of those children and that will stop the tragedy of 16000 children in our country being subjected to abuse each year. 
I know that this bill is about the Government’s 100 days of action and about creating the impression of action. We saw that with the bail law we are seeing it with this sentencing bill and we saw it with the education bill that has just gone through. These are about perceptions but perceptions are fine if one is dealing only with politics. My plea to the Government is that it should deal with the reality of what is causing those problems. I ask Government members not to play politics with it or to come in here with things that are simply window dressing. Labour is putting an offer to the Government to work together to deal with the tragedy of child abuse neglect and killings in this country. That is a genuine offer. 
I know that the Minister is bringing this bill into the House with the best intentions in the world but the Minister knows Professor Hall knows and every member of the House knows that it will not make a difference. It will not make a difference because it is already in the law and it will not make a difference because we need the fence at the top of the cliff not just the punishment afterwards when the damage has already been done and the appalling consequences are already in place.