Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. We are all haunted by the names of children who have died at the hands of those who were supposed to treasure and nurture them. We cannot stand by and simply brush it off as something that happens to somebody else’s kids. They are all our responsibility. This Parliament must send a message that such acts are obscene. In August 2007 I made a commitment that if elected to Government, I would revise the Sentencing Act as it relates to violent crimes against children and ensure that the age of the victim should be more than just an aggravating factor at sentencing. I can advise the House that officials are already working to bring sentences for crimes against children into line with penalties for crimes against adults. This process will result in legislation being put forward when the House returns next year.

The Sentencing Act already lists aggravating and mitigating factors that can be taken into account when sentencing. Some of these factors will apply to offending that involves violence or neglect of a child. For instance, one aggravating factor covered in section 9 of the Act concerns offending against a victim who is particularly vulnerable by reason of age or health. That could cover offending against a child, but it also covers a range of other victims and scenarios—quite rightly—including the elderly and those who suffer from a form of impairment. That is how it should be, and the bill currently before the House does not change any of the existing provisions.

This bill provides a new section 9A that deals specifically with offending against children that involves violence or neglect. It actually lists factors that the court must take into account when sentencing for this type of offending, in addition to those factors already set out in section 9. All the new factors are designed to make the sentence more severe than would otherwise be the case, because they all reflect the fact that offending against children should involve a high degree of blameworthiness, and sentencing needs to reflect that.

The first of the new factors that the new section obliges the court to take into account is the defencelessness of children. Unlike adults, children cannot physically protect themselves against an adult assailant or permanently escape the offender. It is the cowardly bullying of a captive and weaker victim that justifies a harsher response from the State. The second factor requires the court to consider the serious or long-term harm that can result from offending against children. A childhood marked by violence or neglect can have profound effects on the individual and society, and that individual can even repeat the cycle of offending as a parent, thereby perpetuating the misery that this type of offending breeds.

A crucial aspect of being a child that can be taken for granted is the special relationship of trust that children are entitled to enjoy with adults who are responsible for their care. Children do not choose their parents or caregivers, and for the first years of their lives are utterly reliant on their care. This bill puts that trust to the forefront by requiring the court to take the magnitude of the breach of trust into account when sentencing.

Finally, the new provision requires the court to take into account any threats made to the victim that are designed to prevent him or her from reporting to the authorities, or any attempts made to conceal the offending from the authorities. There are instances where social workers may have experienced the sudden disappearance of children from a house when they came to it, or the sight of children clothed from head to toe on hot days so that bruising will not show. The sort of behaviour that results in these situations must be denounced, and this bill will take a step towards ensuring that.

This bill represents the first step in the Government’s response to offending against children that involves violence or neglect. As I stated at the beginning of this speech, we will go further next year by introducing a bill that tackles the issue of setting maximum penalties for offending against children. In the meantime this Government thinks it is important to get this legislation into force before the Christmas break, when so many children are especially vulnerable to abuse, stressful households, and neglect.

I do not pretend nor advocate that these measures are anything more than just a part of the solution. The Government will continue to work with social policy agencies to prevent child abuse and mitigate the harm it causes, and we will continue to look for new responses. There also needs to be a response from the criminal justice system in terms of denouncing such abhorrent behaviour.

I understand that all parties in the House are supportive of this legislation, and I want to thank, in advance—unless I am proven wrong—all members for their support. When a New Zealand child aged between 1 and 6 years is 8.4 times more likely to die from an assault than a child in Sweden, and a child under 7 is almost 4 times more likely to be hospitalised for assault, I am reminded of the words spoken in a different context that strongly emphasise the fierce urgency of now. I commend this bill to the House.

May I say from the outset that I share with the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, as I believe all members of this House do, the utter revulsion that we all feel as we see—too frequently—these cases of child neglect, violence against children, and, ultimately, tragedies where children are murdered. No one could stand by and feel any emotion other than total revulsion.

We on the Opposition side of the House will not oppose the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill, but I have to say it is a sad point that this bill will not stop one child being murdered. I do not say that in any grandiose or political way. This is a prescription that deals with action after the event. I am glad the Minister qualified in his speech—and I accept him at his word—that this bill is only part of the solution, but it is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It is not proactive, it is reactive. It is action after the event. It is not a bill filled with a vision or a plan. I note that he said, and I am gratified by it, that he would still be willing to work with non-governmental organisations and others who are at the coalface, who go into houses everyday—with tears, I suspect, in their eyes—and identify what is going on. Given that statement by the Minister, I would have thought it would be preferable to meet those words with actions and refer this bill to a select committee so that organisations like the Salvation Army, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Plunket, Barnardos New Zealand, and the whole host of other wonderful organisations could have input and provide their expert knowledge and experience. When we look at who was consulted about this bill, we find it was Government agencies only.

This is an exceptionally serious issue. It strikes at the heart of the most vulnerable in our community. I have to say, and again I do not say it with relish, that the problem with this bill is that the provisions that allegedly are ramped up here already exist in the existing legislation. In fact, in the Minister’s opening he said that the bill does not change any of the specific provisions in existing legislation. In a qualified way, I say that this is smoke and mirrors. I quote the words not of a politician, or of somebody who is partisan in this House, but of a learned expert, Otago University professor Geoff Hall, who, as members will know, specialises in sentencing in criminal law. He said that section 9(1) of the Sentencing Act already dictated 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 said “It’s already there. It sounds to me like it’s window dressing,”—referring, sadly, to this legislation—“what is being proposed, unless [the Minister is] suggesting that priority be given to one factor over another.” That is what Professor Hall said. I hope it is not the case, but I wonder whether certain parties in this House are not being a tad cynical with such a huge issue that strikes at the heart of our community by attempting to put forward legislation—a wee bit like the Bail Amendment Bill, although that issue is secondary to the gravity of this issue—to try to play a bit of a hoax on people.

This bill, as I said earlier, is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It does nothing. I would have thought the way to start would be to deal with issues of resourcing in respect of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. What worries me is that I saw in the New Zealand Herald—I think it was on 10 December—the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, quoted as saying she would hold to account the Ministry of Social Development as National moves to cut 500 front-line staff from agencies within it like the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Of course, we know that in the 1990s the National Party did exactly that. It slashed and burned.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: You cut 450 front-line staff out of the ministry last year.

This is not an issue for silly interjections. We have had a bit of frivolity and humour in debate on other bills, but this is actually a really serious issue. But I will let Mrs Collins go because she shows herself for what she is. We know that in the 1990s there was a slashing of child, youth and family services. Those services work with non-governmental organisations to identify, as they are happening, issues like violence and neglect in the home before they translate, sadly, into death and murder. There is nothing in this bill to deal with resourcing or any proactive action that can identify those issues of potential child violence and neglect and can cauterize, ring-fence, and deal with them before they develop into a death and another little white coffin being taken by a family to a cemetery. I do not say this as a means of politicking, but I feel it is appropriate to point that out.

I said to Mr Power in the debate on the Bail Amendment Bill, and I will say it now in a different way, that if he wanted to have an impact immediately, and to create a deterrent to make people—families and children—in these situations feel safer in and out of their homes, he could have triggered the parole legislation. He could have done that without the participation of this House, because Mrs King passed that legislation. He could simply activate it through the Governor-General. I believe that would have a huge impact. Again, it is after the event, but it would have a huge and sustainable impact around these issues. When Labour was in Government we backed organisations like the Salvation Army and Barnardos New Zealand. We worked with and partnered those expert organisations. We set up, for instance, the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families. We set up and actioned the It’s Not OK programme. I have to say, sadly, that programme was criticised during the election campaign by a number of members opposite as being PC and nanny State. When a programme has a smidgeon of potential to save a child’s life, to prevent family violence, or to correct behaviours within the home that could lead to tragedy, I think it is worth giving it a go. It may work; it may not. During the election campaign some described the programme as nanny State and PC. Then there are organisations like the Methodist Central Mission, the South Auckland Family Violence Prevention Network, and parenting and family counselling organisations working all around New Zealand. These are agencies that deserve a backing.

This bill does not acknowledge the 16,000-odd cases of reported child neglect and violence that happen in the home every year. This legislation does nothing to be proactive—to move into that space with non-governmental organisations and Government agencies to try to cauterize those problems before they develop into potential tragedies. Maybe this Government can reassure us on this side of the House. Perhaps Ms Bennett could take a call to advise us whether, in the drive to cap and slash so-called bureaucrats, 500 staff from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and the Ministry of Social Development will be taken out of play—because they are needed. Who are these 500 people in the ministry who will be cauterized, sacked, or withdrawn? As I say, Ms Bennett is holding her own ministry to account.

I come back to where I started. Sadly, this bill will change nothing and will not save one child’s life. The provisions in the bill mirror the provisions of existing legislation, and Professor Hall, an eminent expert, believes—to quote his words, not mine—that it is window dressing. It is also predicated on a premise that judges are not smart and do not take these aggravating factors into account. If that is the case, I ask the Minister of Justice whether he can provide us with some evidence of court cases where, in his or the ministry’s view, these issues were not dealt with appropriately by a learned judge. I wonder whether he could provide us with that evidence and with the research that his ministry has done in the short period it has come up with these measures. As I have said, consultation has been exceptionally limited.

National is wholly committed to effective law and order policies, and has clearly signalled that there will be major changes to the law and legislation that exists today.

The situation during the Labour Government’s period in office saw a number of things that are saddening: a significant rise in crimes of violence, the growing power of gangs and their involvement in criminal trafficking, and the need to protect vulnerable members of the community.

I accept, of course, that the enactment of this legislation does not of itself resolve lawbreaking, but it does send a very clear message to the community as to activity that we abhor and are determined to confront, it does send a clear signal to intending offenders, and, of course, it sends a very clear signal to the judges to seek, in the exercise of their discretion in imposing sentences, a particular weighting on the issue that is the subject of the bill.

The Sentencing Act 2002 is structured in a way that might very well contemplate this law change. Section 8 deals with the principles of sentencing. Section 9 contains a number of aggravating factors, then concludes by saying that nothing in these provisions “prevents the court from taking into account any other aggravating or mitigating factor that the court thinks fit;”.

💬 Hon David Parker: Including age.

As Mr Parker has just commented, there is not sufficiently direct reference to the position of children in section 9(1)(g), which provides as an aggravating and mitigating factor “that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender:”. The section is aligned with the definition in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 of a child as a boy or girl under the age of 14 years.

There is a sad commentary in the explanatory note, which accompanies the bill. Under the heading “Status quo and problem” it reads: “Offending against children has extremely serious consequences, including the long-term consequences for both its victims and society as a whole. In 2006, Child, Youth and Family received over 63,000 referrals as a result of child abuse, violence, and trauma. Reported family violence, a substantial proportion of which involves violence against children, is growing faster than the reported violence category as a whole.”

Mr Cosgrove said in his comments in the House that this bill is simply a smoke and mirrors change to the law, but that is not so, and I am sure that, intuitively, members of the House know that it is not so. Why would Labour vote for this change, if it were only a smoke and mirrors change? The reality is that it sends a sharp and determined signal to those entities that I have already identified. This is a law change that, on any measure, is appropriate, timely, and necessary.

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 16,000 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.

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 Kāhui 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 Witikā—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 16,000 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.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill, and I am very proud to represent a party, the Green Party, that has led the debate, and indeed legal change, for the protection of children from violence. It has done the hard yards on these kinds of issues and has consistently promoted the elimination of violence against children, women, and families. I pay tribute to my colleague Sue Bradford, who would otherwise be here to address the issues in this bill, and who herself was the architect of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act and led the agreement of, largely, the whole of this House to support that legislation.

The Green Party supports this bill because we support the recognition of the potentially vulnerable status of children around issues of violence, particularly those children under 14. We all know, and we have talked about this so far, that violence against children in New Zealand is rife. Children are still considered largely to be the property or the chattels of adults and parents. That is an attitude that still pervades this country. We saw that attitude alive and well in the debate around the repeal of section 59.

We agree with Labour members that section 9 of the Sentencing Act deals with this issue in a general sense, so to some extent this legislation enhances, if you like, existing provisions. The extent to which it will make a specific difference is still a bit uncertain, and because there will not be the opportunity for a select committee debate on this, we will not get any information from those at the coalface of dealing with this kind of legislation, whether it is the Law Commission, lawyers, those involved with family violence in the courts, or judges who might want to have a say on this. They will not be able to give us the information we need to know the extent to which this bill would make a difference to sentencing outcomes in those cases of extreme violence and neglect against children.

So it is very difficult at this stage, I think, to really understand the extent to which this bill will make a difference. We will support it in principle; we do not think that it will do any harm. But that is not a good way to make legislation—legislation should be much more considered than that. It should have a demonstrable impact; otherwise it is just a waste of taxpayers’ time and money. So we thought that a select committee process for something as important as this, something as significant to New Zealand’s families as this, an issue of violence and neglect like this, should have been taken out to the public so that they too could have had a say about it.

I want to refer to a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that will be tabled shortly, and available to members. I have spoken to some members about it. It is to remove paragraph (a) from new section 9A(2), inserted by clause 4. This would remove the defencelessness of the victim as a factor. On the face of it, it looks perfectly fine to include that in the legislation but, after further consideration, I am assuming that it is really about the vulnerability of the victim, the child under 14 years. To that extent there is a lot of case law and law on the vulnerability of victims. But my concern, and the concern of my party, is that on sentencing it may lead to arguments in court that such children may not have been without opportunity to defend themselves or that they had a capacity to defend themselves, whether or not they took it.

We have had, for example, issues around provocation. In fact, during the debate on section 59, before the section was amended, many of the decisions in the court cases that allowed parents to beat their children with weapons were based on the fact that the child under the age of 14 had provoked that attack or response. It was a reasonable defence that beating a child with a weapon, whether a piece of wood, a piece of wire, or a hosepipe, was justifiable in the circumstances because the child had behaved so badly that such a beating was reasonable. Of course, we have amended that legislation now, so that defence is not possible any more, which is a very good thing. But we do not want to see, with this provision, that somehow those arguments are being made again in the courts—that children might perhaps have provoked such a response, or, what is more likely, were able to defend themselves in some way but did not take that opportunity and, therefore, that is a mitigating factor to be taken into account in sentencing.

It may include issues such as the build of a child—some 14-year-olds are quite big; they are big kids, sometimes—for a child’s relative age when between the age of 0 and 14, but there is also, perhaps, a child’s ability to tell someone. There might be some argument that a child is verbal; a verbal child, beyond the age of 2 and a bit, could have told somebody if that child had had an opportunity. Perhaps someone might have asked a child about the abuse or neglect, but the child did not tell that person. Does that become an issue about the defencelessness of the child?

These concerns are probably on the margins of the kinds of cases we are talking about; none the less we do not want to see this law allow for any kind of apportionment of blame to the child. In our view, there should be no debate as to whether the child could have avoided that abuse or neglect by his or her own behaviour. This is the kind of argument that often happens in rape cases and sexual assault cases, so it is not unknown for these debates to happen in the courts. In our view, a child under 14 years old is by definition without defence—by definition. In our view, there is nothing that children under the age of 14 could do ever to justify neglect and abuse—not a single thing could they ever do to justify abuse, or to provide some kind of mitigating factor. So having criteria such as “the defencelessness of the victim” in the legislation may be interpreted as some kind of way of apportioning blame to the child in the courts.

The role of Parliament is to make the best possible legislation we can for the protection of the vulnerable as we can, but given the short circumstances we have in which to debate and analyse this legislation, this might be a reasonable mistake to have been made. It may well not have been intended to have that consequence, but, with the risk that it might, we say that wording should not be in this bill. I look forward to the further debate on that issue. There may be some assurance we can get that that is not what it will actually do. I am not prepared to accept an assurance that it is not intended for that to happen; that is not enough. It will not be enough for the child who has to suffer the consequences of counsel, at a sentencing, arguing as to whether that child itself could have done something about it, or stopped the abuse or neglect. That is not acceptable.

It would have been good as part of the process, and perhaps this issue would have been raised in those circumstances, to have heard from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, because I understand there was a great deal of consultation around this bill. It has been looked at by the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Social Development, the New Zealand Police, the Crown Law Office, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the Office of Ethnic Affairs, and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. They have all been consulted in the drafting of this legislation, but the one parliamentary body whose responsibility it is to care for, and protect, the interests of children in legislation and policy making was not consulted on this legislation. The most important office—the one that has had the greatest impact on providing policy advice, information, and support for campaigns to protect children against violence—was excluded from the consideration of this bill. That was a very serious oversight—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Was she in the country?

Judith Collins is making smarmy remarks about the office, but this legislation is about the protection of our most vulnerable children, and particularly those in abusive households and environments. Judith Collins can be as smarmy as she likes, but we are talking about protecting our babies from violence. I say: “Be smarmy all you want, Miss, but this is about protecting our children.” If she wants to play politics with this issue, that is her business and the public will judge her for it.

We should have had the proper agencies looking at this legislation to make sure that it would actually be effective. There will be no opportunity for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to look at this legislation now. It will be passed on a Saturday afternoon, under urgency. So that opportunity to really assess the impacts of this legislation on the lives of children by experts in that area has been lost. That is a very poor process for legislation of such significant input as this, dealing with the issue of protecting our children, our babies, from violence. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to add my support to the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill, and also to try, naive though it may be, to bring everyone back to a focus on what we are doing and why, and away from politicking. To that extent, I agree with every speaker so far. This is probably the first time since I have come into this House that I have agreed so wholeheartedly with the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, but I do agree with him when he said that this is not a bill for making frivolous interjection on. I could not agree with him more about that. I would also say it is not a bill for party politicking on, at all.

I have looked through the explanatory note of the bill carefully, and the first thing that strikes me is the “Objectives” section. Who can possibly disagree, or even quibble, with the wording of the objectives of this bill? I was gratified to hear the Opposition’s position on the bill—at first the wording was “will not oppose”, but then that changed with the Hon Phil Goff’s speech to “will support”. And now the Greens are making the same commitment as Labour. It is clearly a multiparty commitment to support a bill that the people in the gallery or those following proceedings on the radio or the television, I am sure, would call a no-brainer.

The only possible source of disagreement could be on how to achieve the objectives set out in the explanatory note, and we have heard a bit of quite sensible and moving, frankly, comment on that from the Hon Phil Goff. I will just touch, for a second, on his speech, and also on a speech he made yesterday on the Bail Amendment Bill, where he alluded to the fact that maybe we need to go into some very, very difficult questions. I think he may have been alluding to the ability, or the right, of people like the Kāhui parents and the Glassie parents to be parents at all. I think that is what he may have been referring to.

In my speech I was going to remind the House of a few of the most horrible cases, because I think they are worth remembering, but the Hon Phil Goff has already done that. One of the things that moved me the most, that got to me the most, in the Nia Glassie case—although I have found the stuff that everyone else has found revolting quite hard to read and quite hard to listen to, this ties in with something that is in this bill—was the testimony from the neighbour who said that she realised that the little girl was hungry and she thought she had been abused, so she went to give her food. She said the little girl shook with fear, covered her eyes with one hand, took the food with the other, and then ran away like a frightened dog. I hope the House will understand that that moved me as much as, or more, than the abuse involving the clothes line and the dryer and all the other terrible things.

This bill simply inserts “additional aggravating factors”. To touch on Metiria Turei’s comment, I think her amendment might have some validity, or some purpose, if it were not for the word “aggravating” in new section 9A(2) in clause 4. If it were just “the following factors” to be taken into account, then, yes, there could be some clever legal argument of the kind that Ms Turei has referred to. But in my view, and I am not an expert in the criminal law at all, the fact that they are listed as “aggravating factors” removes any possibility of such a convoluted argument.

In my opinion this measure should go through the House with whatever is the equivalent of “by acclamation”. There is no issue here of the separation of powers. The judiciary is not being ordered to do anything; judges are being told they must take these factors into account—that is all. The legislation leaves judicial discretion untouched. It does not fetter the judiciary in any way; it simply provides judges with some extra factors to be taken into account.

The House could filibuster through some of the debate on this bill, as we saw with regard to bills yesterday, and I will not go any further into that. Those kinds of speeches on the meaning of commencement dates, etc., I think would be an insult to the memory of James Whakaruru , whom the Hon Phil Goff mentioned, and to all the names I have written down here. And those are just the ones who were killed. There are 15,000 or so abused children who were not killed, minus the 10 who were. It would be an insult to them if we play politics with this bill, make frivolous interjections, and talk about nonsense meanings of the commencement date, etc.

This bill should pass as quickly as possible. It may not do much, but members on the other side of the Chamber have conceded it does no harm. In my view it does do something, and I am coming back now to the Nia Glassie example that I used. New section 9A(2)(b) states: “in relation to any harm resulting from the offence, any serious or long-term physical or psychological effect …”. I would like to think that in some case in the future—one like the Nia Glassie case—that did not, please God, result in death, if evidence was called of a little girl shaking like a frightened dog and covering her face, then that subsection could be taken into account in order to lock up a piece of vermin for as long as possible. I commend this bill to the House.

When I was a child, I knew the meaning of the words “he aroha whāereere, he pōtiki pirihi poho”—“a mother’s love, a child clinging to her breast”. When we refer to a mother’s love for her child, we mean our nannies, our koros, our aunties, our uncles. We mean whānau. Growing up in Whakatū, we knew that our whānau treasured us, their children, more than anything else in the world. We were their hearts growing outside of their bodies. They would all gladly suffer themselves, rather than see any child in any form of misfortune. This is the model that I have drawn on to raise our children, and our children are now replicating this same learning with our mokopuna. And that is how it goes, generation after generation reminding us that children have a right to our protection, they deserve to be heard, and they are entitled to be loved.

We know through the writings of early missionaries and their observations of Māori that this is how it has always been. The diary notes of the Rev. Samuel Marsden back in 1814 encapsulate these views: “I saw no quarrelling while I was there. They are kind to their women and children. I never observed either a mark of violence upon them, nor did I ever see a child struck.” I often return to my childhood memories for strength when day after day we are fed tales of horrific abuse, and through the eager eye of the camera we witness blow-by-blow accounts of sickening violence against children.

I have no desire to replicate the horror stories of violence and neglect against children. We must move away from the obsessive-compulsive fascination with retelling tales of torture—the endless roll-call of names, and the courtroom evidence that is trumpeted, broadcast, repeated, and replicated through viral networks. Every time a member brings the name of a child into this House that member brings with it the overwhelming shame of the extended family of all who identify with that same name. As a new member, I know that every time I rise I bring with me not only the name of my husband and children but the breadth and depth of the Hippolite and Gray whānau throughout Aotearoa and, indeed, the world. It is an awesome responsibility to live up to our family name in all my actions and utterances. So I ask whether it is right or fair that members recklessly punctuate speeches with the names of innocent children—names that will be for ever associated with criminal violence. We must be able to talk about the vile behaviours and actions that have led to child assault without forever vilifying the family names of the victims. We must start raising our sights above the sordid and the sensational, and agree to some common ideals; ideals like children having a right to feel safe, to feel good about themselves, to be appreciated, and to be encouraged. Ka tipu huna ana te tūkinotanga. Violence grows in silence.

This bill, then, sets a benchmark for our future, a future where there is no excuse for child abuse and no place for violence. What this law does is to create a new and specific section in the Sentencing Act that replaces the court’s existing discretion with additional instructions when judges are sentencing offenders convicted of violence against, or neglect of, a child under 14 years. We have to ask: why settle for 14 years of age?

We were also somewhat surprised that the Children’s Commissioner had not been approached about this bill, so we contacted Dr Cindy Kiro. We were advised that she was supportive of the idea about clarifying the law and providing specificity, direction, and prescription for judges when considering cases of child abuse. But she also introduced a question around the age-limit in this bill that we in the Māori Party believe is a very interesting idea. Dr Kiro poses the question to the House of what the appropriate legal age for children and young people should be. Within current law, section 10B of the Summary Offences Act 1981 makes it an offence for a parent to leave a child under the age of 14 without reasonable care and supervision. Fourteen is also the minimum age for a babysitter. At 15 one can earn a restricted driver’s licence. Young people can be sent to the youth wing of a jail at 16. At 16 one can leave school or leave home without parental consent, have sex, get a tattoo, start full-time work, and get married, but one still requires parental consent for medical or dental treatment. At 17 one can join the navy, the army, or the air force. At 18 one can buy firecrackers, get a firearms licence, join the police force, borrow money, open a cheque account, buy cigarettes, drink alcohol, and vote. Those are just a few of the diverse definitions of age-limits that complicate our current legislative framework.

The question that confronts us in respect of this bill is what threshold we are prepared to accept. When can we say that the age of the child makes him or her particularly vulnerable? The crux of the issue, of course, is that we are actually entitled to protection from violence at any age. This change addresses society’s abhorrence of a fundamental breach of trust. This issue extends outside the scope of this bill, but it is an issue that we may need to consider further in other debates. It appears that the younger the age, the greater the outrage. But I want us to consider that although the defencelessness of the child is, of course, a major issue, the serious long-term physical or psychological effect on the child as a result of the offence is severe no matter what the age.

There was never any question that we would do anything but vote in support of this bill. We believe that it is vital that we do everything we can to demonstrate society’s condemnation of all forms of violence, and this bill is another step to doing that. But it will not cause violence against children to stop overnight. That is a crisis we must all attend to. It is a crisis we must attend to in our own behaviours, our own families, and our own workplaces, and I include this workplace in that view. We must all be responsible for marking a line in the sand and ensuring we promote peaceful, non-violent communication. We must be consistent in our deeds and our words. All of us have the responsibility to demonstrate leadership in this regard. It is inappropriate for anyone in this House to point the finger at others and name and shame the perpetrators of violence if we do not also display our own commitment to model behaviour that is inspirational. All of us—and of course I include the Māori Party in my vision—must work hard at exhibiting conduct that displays respect for one another and that is truly mana-enhancing.

Offences against children are intolerable. They are not part of anyone’s vision for the future of Aotearoa. We know, too, that many complex issues underpin the breakdown of families: the devastating effects of poverty; the mind-altering dysfunction created by alcohol and drugs; the pervasive impact of mental health issues, including post-natal depression; and the narrow range of options that some families and individuals become trapped in. And we must acknowledge the enormous harm created by generations of violence, sexual abuse, physical damage, and emotional offences, which, if not attended to, will continue to restrict the opportunities for generations to come.

The Māori Party is proud to support this bill as the first indicator that the forty-ninth Parliament is prepared to stand up and make clear our concerted efforts to eliminate violence from our world. We are proud to support this bill, just as we were proud to support the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, which was initiated by our colleagues in the Greens. And there is nothing, in my mind, more worthy of urgency than the goal of eliminating violence from our society. Kia ora.

The honourable member who has just resumed her seat, Rahui Katene, has made a very good point, I believe, in relation to the constant naming of children in this area. Certainly, I quite often think about how hard it must be for the extended family of children who have been harmed, and for those people who are quite innocent of any wrongdoing themselves, to constantly have their family names used in the media and in this Parliament.

I will take just a couple of minutes to deal with some of the issues raised by the Labour-Green Opposition. There has been some talk today about the need for a select committee to look at this bill. I disagree. This bill is actually not about what causes an adult to hurt or kill a child; it is about the sentencing of people in relation to this area. It is not about what we can do to stop people doing this; it is about what we will do with them when they do. So, really, we do not need a select committee process in order to send a signal to the judiciary and to the public that we have heard the message of the public. We campaigned on this particular area during the last election, and the public has said that they want some action in terms of sentencing. That is the reason we are bringing this bill in, under urgency, before Christmas—to legislate for that as fast as possible. That is what the public of New Zealand has asked us to do.

When we look at some of the areas around how or why people offend in this way, we can look at some of the things that have been shown to make a positive difference. Family Start and the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters were all started under a National Government in the 1990s. In addition, Social Workers in Schools is another initiative of the National Government of the 1990s, which the former Government—which is now in Opposition—took up as well and supported. But so often when children are killed, there are so many people who know about what is going on, including people in the health sector, the education sector, neighbours—as we have heard—family members, and others. So often, I think, we tend to dwell on what they could have done differently. That is a good thing for us to consider. But this bill is not about that.

This bill is about those who commit the crime. It is about time, I think, that we also stopped and said: “Actually, no matter what else the rest of us can do to alert the authorities or to take action, at the end of the day these children are killed because an adult or some adults decided to do that.” It is about time they have to face up to the consequences of their actions. This bill will not, as has been said, stop children from being killed. It does, however, go some way to valuing our children a little more than we have in the past.

I first of all commend the House for the quality of the debate on the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. I think there is nothing like a bill where children or vulnerable people are being discussed to bring the House together. It is true that, across all parties, we care for our families, we care for our children, and we care for our community. At times we like to have the political debates and the rumble of Parliament, but when it gets down to tintacks we really do believe, I think, in the common good of our fellow human beings. I commend the House for this debate.

I say to the Minister of Justice that Labour members will support this bill. We will vote for it. In fact, the whole of Parliament will vote for it. But, as has been said, that is not because it will prevent a single child from being abused, maltreated, assaulted, or killed. We know that this bill is about what happens after the event. It is about what we do about the event. As Judith Collins said, it is not tackling the causes; it tackles what we do to the people who have committed the crime. So of course we will support the bill. The National Party manifesto states that National wants to send a message that violence against children is abhorrent and is not to be tolerated. There would not be a member in this House who does not support that message. During the debate on the Bail Amendment Bill yesterday all sorts of claims were made about what it will do; we all know that this bill will not stop the abuser from abusing.

We all know, as well, that the reasons why people abuse and perpetrate violence against others are very, very complicated indeed. It is a complex issue. As Phil Goff said, if there was an easy answer, every party in this Parliament that had been in Government would have put that solution in place. It is a complex issue. Abusers will not stop their behaviour just because today, a Saturday, at 3.15 in the afternoon and under urgency, we amend an Act of Parliament and put in place some window-dressing changes. It will not change the action of the abusers. They do not believe they will get caught, anyway. The behaviour of many of them is long term. For many years they abuse young people, often throughout their young lives, and they use their position of power to suppress and frighten their victims into silence. Their whole aim is to ensure that nobody knows what they are doing. They are certainly not thinking about what the aggravating factors will be.

As we have heard today, this bill does not make a great deal of difference in terms of the existing legislation. David Garrett said it may not do much but it does not do any harm. I agree with him. But I wonder why the Minister of Justice did not broaden his consultation, even though he was not going to refer the bill to a select committee and allow the public to have a say. Why did the Minister, in his consultation on, and putting together of, this legislation, not go outside Government departments and seek advice from somebody like Professor Geoff Hall? Why not approach people like him? Why not go to some of our extremely good non-governmental organisations in New Zealand that deal with children every day? Why not go to the Children’s Commissioner? Why not go to people who have great knowledge of what is happening to our children or who work on the front line in terms of providing support and programmes? I am very disappointed that the Minister saw fit to ask only Government departments—the same Government departments that many of the members of his party have called useless Wellington bureaucrats. Why not go further, in terms of his consultation, to find out what others thought?

I think it is a shame that the Minister, if I heard him correctly, intends to bring another bill into Parliament next year to deal with sentencing for crimes against children. The Minister is nodding. We have to ask why we are here today, under urgency, passing this legislation that people know will make very little difference—and that no one is not going to support—when a larger piece of work by the Minister will be introduced next year and, hopefully, sent to a select committee. The Minister is affirming that. Why could they not be done together? I can think of only one answer, and unfortunately I do not really like it. It is because this bill is a political manoeuvre, part of the Government’s promise of 100 days of action. That can be the only answer. The Minister knows that this bill will not stop an abuser today, tomorrow, or next week from abusing a child. So why not do the proper thing? Why not bring in the bills together? Let us, across this House, work on child abuse in New Zealand. Would it not have been a great start to the forty-ninth Parliament for us to genuinely take a cross-party approach to child abuse?

The Ombudsman in his report of December last year said that one of the problems we have in terms of crime and criminal justice is that it has become highly politicised and the subject of a lot of uninformed comment. He said, further, that we have two opposing philosophies driving policy matters in New Zealand at the moment: one called “penal populism” and one called “soft liberalism”. What we really want, and what he called for, is a rational debate on criminal justice. But he very much doubts that that is possible. Well, I believe that it is possible, with goodwill, but it does mean that, on a bill like this and on other bills that the Minister will bring in next year, he should open the door to other parties being able to debate the issue; he should genuinely extend an hand across the House and say: “We want to find the best solution to these incredibly complex issues.”

You see, it is not only New Zealand that faces the problem of child abuse. Professor David Fergusson, who is the director of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, has followed around 1,200 children who were born in Christchurch in 1977 for all the years since. He has also been part of a special report based on 8 years of studies in New Zealand, Australia, Britain, the United States, and Canada. Those studies show a similar pattern in all the countries we like to relate ourselves to—that 4 to 16 percent of children are physically abused, that one in 10 suffers neglect or psychological abuse, and that it happens every year, year in, year out. So it is not just a New Zealand issue; it is an international issue.

But I believe we are better placed than most countries to deal with this issue. The reason is that we are small. We are a small country, we have many nationwide services, and we are relatively well connected. I think we have many good policies and programmes in place. I do not care whether the National Party started some of them in 1953 or whether the Labour Party started them in 2000; we have some good programmes in place, we can build on those programmes, and we can take the best of them and make them work.

But that does mean having a commitment. It means having a commitment to dealing first with the most vulnerable in our society. We know that over the last 8 or 9 years the number of children who live in poverty in this country has been halved. We are left with about 150,000 vulnerable children living in families. They are the hard core, the children who are likely to appear in crime statistics in the future. That is where we need to start now. That is where we need to continue the work that is being done, and we need to commit to that work. I was pleased to see Paula Bennett identify those children. I will be interested in her putting out her programme and her plan to tackle them, because there is so much good work being done. I hope she does not treat that work in a political way—does not disregard a programme because it was Labour’s work or work that was done in the past—but picks it up and runs with it.

My only question of Paula Bennett would be to ask her to assure me that despite her commitment to reduce the staff of the Ministry of Social Development—500 staff over the next 4 years, 80 percent of whom are frontline workers—not one of the people who deal with vulnerable children will lose his or her job. It will not be easy getting rid of 500 staff without those people being affected. I would like that commitment, because we can deal with this issue if we deal with it across this House and work with our communities.

I rise to address two or three issues that have been raised by speakers on the other side of the House. Firstly, I reconfirm what this legislation does. It is a way of communicating with the court—with the judges and the lawyers. It is not intended to send a message to offenders, because offenders will never read it. Mr Goff’s good friend, Professor Hall, who wrote a book on sentencing, agrees that this is how Parliament communicates to the courts. Putting this legislation through under urgency does a particular thing that is very significant. This measure has been scoffed at by the other side, but it is important to note that although this is just one small step that is taken in urgency, it has achieved some profile because it has become part of what is known as the 100-day plan. It draws the attention of those people to whom it is directed. [Interruption] Would Mr Goff agree with me that the offender who is arrested tomorrow morning for an offence he commits against a small child tonight, and who pleads guilty and is sentenced before the court next month, will receive a greater sentence because of the notoriety of this—

💬 Hon Annette King: It wouldn’t stop him doing it.

We agree, but it is not directed at stopping anybody from doing anything. It is particularly directed towards the sentence that is imposed on an offender who appears before the court.

Maybe if the Leader of the Opposition had appeared in court in the past, he would have heard judges talk about recent statements from Parliament and the abhorrence shown by members of Parliament, which is a direction to judges, who pass sentences on those convicted of crimes, to sentence accordingly. The statements made in Parliament are then enforced on those offenders, and in this case the abhorrence of Parliament towards child abuse, child neglect, etc., will be reflected in a sentence that will probably be more severe than it would have been.

It is true, too, to say that a number of measures are directed towards a particular evil in this society. Yes, we need to direct a number of portfolio areas and the legislation associated with those portfolios towards child abuse. Some of it will be about education and health. This particular bill is about law and order and the justice system. It does not seek to be a silver bullet. It does not seek to solve all problems. It seeks to underline society’s abhorrence of these crimes and the fact that they are a regular occurrence.

About one child is murdered each month in this country by the people who care for that child. For some particular reason, we seem to murder people at about twice the rate that they do in the UK. We need to address the fact that we do live in a comparatively very violent society for a Western World country. I am pleased to be part of a Government that is prepared to do this. It is a small step at this stage, growing incrementally with legislation that will come in during the next 12 months to address more serious issues.

I finish by mentioning the comments made that this small piece of legislation has not gone before a select committee, and has not had the opportunity to be discussed by those, for example, in the non-governmental organisations. If we did that they would say: “Just get on with it.”, because we would not find a single non-governmental organisation that would not agree with society’s underlying abhorrence for these crimes, and would not agree that saying, through legislation, that the age of a child, a child’s vulnerability, and the fact that the crime is a breach of trust should be added to the list of aggravating features under the Sentencing Act. It is bit like asking children whether they like ice cream. We know what the answer will be. So those organisations would say to us: “Look, we pay you to be there, so get off your bums and do it!” Thankfully, we are, and I am pleased to see that the Labour Opposition is prepared to support that.

We all abhor child abuse and neglect. I do not need to say that again; it has been well canvassed by others. We acknowledge that New Zealand does have a serious problem with child abuse and neglect. Some countries that we would like to compare ourselves with are as bad as us, but others that we would also like to compare ourselves with do better than us. Whether or not they do, we certainly aspire to do better than we are doing in New Zealand.

As has been said, we will not oppose the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill, but it is important to put on the record, for the benefit of the courts, just how much of this bill is window dressing and why it is being put through. National raised expectations during the election campaign that it would find quick solutions to these somewhat intractable problems, so National thought it necessary to introduce this face-saving legislation into this urgency motion and put it through under urgency. The Hon Simon Power is a person who honours more than most National members the traditions of Parliament and puts significant legislation through to select committees, particularly where it affects the rights of people. Of course, criminal justice legislation does that. The very fact that this bill is not going to a select committee shows that it is not of very much significance. So does the explanatory note of the bill, which as much as admits that all the factors set out in the bill are already taken into account in sentencing.

The only thing I would disagree with is on page 5 of the explanatory note, which states: “However, as the factors that the court will be required to take into account are already usually taken into account under the current regime, we do not believe that this impact will lead to any substantive delay in courts.”, because it will not change much. The explanatory note says these factors are “already usually taken into account”. That is wrong. They are always taken into account now, because the law says that they “must be”, not that they “may be”. I think it is important to put on the record how new section 9A, inserted by clause 4 of this bill, compares with section 9 of the current Sentencing Act. Those aggravating factors must be taken into account under the existing legislation, as is made clear in section 9(1), which states: “In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:”. There is no discretion; the courts must take aggravating factors into account.

If we look at the first of the so-called new aggravating factors that are provided for in new section 9A(2)(a) in clause 4 of the bill, we see the courts must take into account “the defencelessness of the victim”. The comparable section in the existing Act is 9(1)(g), and it reads that an aggravating factor that must be taken account is “that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender:”. Clearly that matter is already covered by section 9(1)(g) of the Act, and the new provision does not add anything to it. New subsection 9A(2)(b) in the bill says “in relation to any harm resulting from the offence, any serious or long-term physical or psychological effect on the victim:”. Section 9(1)(d) of the existing Act already says the court must take into account as an aggravating factor “the extent of any loss, damage, or harm resulting from the offence:”. That is very broad and it clearly already covers serious or long-term physical or psychological effect.

Section 9(1)(e) of the current Act also requires that the courts take into account as an aggravating factor any “particular cruelty in the commission of the offence:”, so nothing new is introduced by new section 9A(2)(b) in clause 4 of the bill. New section 9A(2)(c) purports to say that “the magnitude of the breach of any relationship of trust between the victim and the offender” must be taken into account. Of course, that is already covered by section 9(1)(f) of the current Act. It states that an aggravating factor that must be taken into account by the court is “that the offender was abusing a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim:”. Nothing is added by the new subsection. New section 9A(2)(d) covers “threats by the offender to prevent the victim reporting the offending”. That is clearly covered by the existing provision in section 9(1)(a) of the Act, which requires the court to take into account “actual or threatened violence or the actual or threatened use of a weapon:”. That is clearly covered there. The last aggravating factor in the new legislation, in new section 9(A)(2)(e), is the “deliberate concealment of the offending from authorities.” Again, that is covered by section 9(1)(i) of the existing Act, which talks about premeditation, etc.

Judges will be scratching their heads about this legislation for two reasons. The first is the idea that without any legislation, judges would fail to find offending against children to be worse than offending against people who are not defenceless. That is nonsense. Judges are humane people, they are wiser than most of us, and they see the full ambit of crime. They already know what constitutes a more serious offence than other offending. I am confident that even without any legislation, the interests of children would be taken into account by judges when sentencing offenders. As if that were not enough, we already have law that makes that absolutely clear, because this is an area where it is important to make sure there are clear signals to the judiciary. That is why the legislation that was promulgated by the Hon Phil Goff and passed by this Parliament in 2002 already covers every one of the factors that are the subject of this bill. That is why I take issue with members on the other side of the House who are pretending that this bill somehow advances the protection of children, when it clearly does not.

I think if any further advice is needed on that, it is provided by Professor Geoff Hall through the newspapers, because he has not had the opportunity to do so through a select committee hearing. Once again I repeat that he said this legislation, although harmless, is also worthless, and that it adds nothing to the current law. For the record, Professor Geoff Hall is, if not the leading academic, then one of the two or three leading academics in this area of the law. He has experience that spans 4 decades. He is the author of the leading text in this area, Hall’s Sentencing, and he has looked at this legislation and said unambiguously that it adds nothing to the law.

Having said that, I say this bill is harmless and we will not be opposing it on this side of the House.

It is my privilege to speak on the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill—as someone who has had the humbling and gut-wrenching task of prosecuting and sentencing many for child abuse in its variety of forms. One point that is perhaps less thought of, which occurs to me, is a potential application in relation to this amendment bill and focuses on the central point that the abuse of children comes in a variety of forms. This legislation may well enable courts—and I emphasis that it absolutely will be for the courts; and I agree with the Hon David Parker that judges are wiser than most of us—to deal with the increasing problem of the so-called “P babies” whom courts deal with directly and indirectly. This problem occurs when defenceless babies, through no fault of their own, are subjected night after night to P cook-ups in the same houses that they sleep in. It seems to me that those babies will be suffering under subclause 9A(2)(b) “serious or long-term physical or psychological effect” and, in terms of 9A(1), they will certainly be neglected. That potential application is far more than window dressing, and it will enable courts to deal with that issue. This could make a difference in sentencing and it would indeed be very positive. There may well be other types of cases where this law can be used by the courts for the protection of children, and I am sure that no one in this House would disagree with that application and would not vote for it.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading