Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill

Bearing in mind the nature of the debate that has occurred we are not going to labour the point, but I just want to raise a couple of very short points with the Minister. The first is whether he could briefly go into a little more detail in respect of Ms Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper. I have talked to the cross benches about the ramifications of the points that she made, which I think are very valuable points. The second point I wanted to touch on, and again I mean this in a genuine way, is whether the Minister could perhaps provide some of the rationale, if he will, behind the new points and the new factors that are raised here, because we do still make the point to him that there is duplication. I would be interested from his officials’ point of view in a little more detail to address the points that Mr Parker raised as he went through and did some legal analysis, because Mr Parker’s thesis was that there is no difference here. As a third point I would make the plea—I suspect I will not get a response today, but being an eternal Irish optimist—

💬 Hon Simon Power: As am I.

Indeed. I would just ask him whether he is prepared to speak again briefly about the parole legislation, and whether he will give us some sort of time frame if he is not prepared to trigger it as we have invited him to do, whether he would be prepared to offer some brief explanation as to what he proposes to do around that parole issue; whether he is going to bring some new ideas or new legislation to the Parliament—if so, when, and what that would be—or whether he is prepared again to acquiesce to our request to trigger it. Because I say in conclusion that that will have a real and significant impact on the safety of New Zealanders, unlike the two pieces of law and order legislation that we have dealt with in the last 48 hours.

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 Māori 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 Māori 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.

I appreciate the comments made by the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, and the seriousness with which he has taken my concerns. I still think there may be some room for misinterpretation of that provision in practice, but, assuming that if there was such a misinterpretation at some point in the future it could be dealt with in other ways, I think it will be worthwhile to withdraw Supplementary Order Paper 2 in my name at this stage, in the spirit of the whole of the Parliament supporting the Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill. I think there is no need for anyone to take any divisions or votes, because we all agree on the importance of the legislation, and because the issue is taken seriously.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Supplementary Order Paper 2 in the name of Metiria Turei has been withdrawn.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading