Ross Jami-Lee: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Ross Jami-Lee: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21335] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call in this debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). I have to say it is a little disappointing to have in front of us this amendment from the Hon John Boscawen. The three-strikes legislation is something that like a good number of my constituents and a number of New Zealanders out there I was happy to see being passed through the House because it dealt with the sentencing of serious violent offences. But one would have to say when one reads the provisions in new section 195 of the Crimes Act that are proposed in clause 7 of this bill that they just simply do not fit with the crimes that fall under section 86A of the Sentencing Act. Let me just read out a number of those crimes. We have sexual violation rape murder manslaughter wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and aggravated injury. Those are all crimes that are acts of commission. The new section 195 is essentially for the most part about an act of omission. It is about a situation where an individual is not taking certain steps around children and vulnerable adults. Certainly if the person was the one committing the child abuse then absolutely that is terrible and absolutely that goes a step further along the lines of what the Hon John Boscawen was talking about but one would have to say that there is quite a difference between being the child abuser and being the person standing back and doing nothing about the child abuser. This bill is saying that it is wrong to be the person standing back and doing nothing about the child abuser but it is a lesser offence than actually being the child abuser. 
That is quite a critical point because the three-strikes legislation was something that this Government felt was important to pass but there is a difference between being tough on crime and going too far. I would say that the amendment that we have today goes just that step too far because there is quite a difference between an act of commission and an act of omission and what we are talking about here in new section 195 is an act of omission. 
On a wider note I will say how good it is that this legislation is being debated. Jacinda Ardern made a comment earlier in the debate. She said that Labour had unfinished business with this legislation. Well this is something that Labour never did when it was in Government and it has taken a National Government to come here and do this. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: It took 130000 children out of poverty. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: I hear Carmel Sepuloni the woman who could not remember which reading we were on yesterday. She did not know which reading we were on yesterday. She thought it was a first reading when it was actually a second reading that we were debating. She is claiming to be an expert on this. It took a National Government to bring this bill to the House. We are doing this because we are a Government that is about action. We are a Government that says that children are the most vulnerable members of society that standing back and doing nothing about child abuse is not a good situation to be in and that those people should be punished as well. 
I will talk about a few other matters that have not been covered yet in the debate today and one is the increased penalty for carrying offensive weapons. We have not heard a lot about that but that is another step that the Government is taking in this bill. We are increasing the penalty from 2 years’ imprisonment to 3 years’ imprisonment and we will be doubling the penalty for child abuse under this legislation as well. Those are some other matters that have not been debated so far but they also need to be mentioned because they are important parts of this bill. 
The final part of this bill that I will mention is the claim of right defence and we heard Keith Locke talk about it earlier. I will refer to a comment that Metiria Turei made yesterday in the second reading debate. She said that the changes to the claim of right defence were an attack on civil rights.