Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2)

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) has a number of different elements to it. Some parts of the bill the Green Party supports, and some parts we are particularly worried about. On balance, we have decided to oppose this bill at the first reading, although we are hopeful that when it goes to the select committee a number of changes will be made, and we will be able to support it at subsequent stages.

One part of the bill that is not “at the top of the bill”, and that might have been lost a bit in the commentary, but that we think is very important, is the section that gravely limits what is traditionally called “the claim of right”, or what is sometimes called “the colour of right”. We are worried that there has been something of a knee-jerk reaction to the decision in a case often known as the “Waihopai Three” case, in which three men, charged with criminal damage at the Waihopai spy station, were found not guilty. They used the claim of right as a key part of their defence. It is unfortunate when changes in law are made mainly in response to the result of one court case, particularly when we are looking, as we are here, at a common law provision that has existed in many countries, still exists in many countries, and has a very important tradition in common law.

I will just go back to the original text of the claim of right in section 2 of the Crimes Act in relation to this amending bill: “claim of right, in relation to any act, means a belief that the act is lawful, although that belief may be based on ignorance or mistake of fact or of any matter of law other than the enactment against which the offence is alleged to have been committed”. The concept is fairly broad, and even though a person cannot misinterpret the actual offence for which he or she is charged, if the person puts the offence in a broader context or makes some mistake in relation to that broader context, or if some other factor comes in, then perhaps he or she can be found to be not guilty.

The change suggested in this bill is to restrict the use of the claim of right to cases where the person charged has some proprietary or possessory right in property—that is, under clause 4(2), the amendment takes out the belief that the act is lawful, and substitutes the provision: “ ‘at the time of the act of a proprietary or possessory right in property, being property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed’.” Just to put it in its simplest terms, that definition could apply—and correctly apply—to a case in which somebody picks up a bag, as some of us have done at times, and runs off with the bag, thinking it is his or her bag. Later on, that person realises that it is someone else’s bag but that his or her bag looks identical to it. In that case, technically that person is guilty of theft, because he or she has run away with somebody else’s bag, but in a court setting the court would say that, no, the person had an honest belief that it was his or her bag. Restricting the claim of right in that way, therefore, has some application, but it is a very limited application.

The provision would not apply even to something that is fairly similar in a property sense, to a situation in which, for example, people hear a scream and think someone is in distress. They are sitting in their own home and hear a scream. They think it is coming from next door, and that someone is being attacked. They go next door and bash down the door because they think it is rather urgent. Then they realise that the scream has really come from the next house over, and that the scream might even be something else—it might be someone screaming at the All Blacks on television, or something. They have a genuine belief that they are trying to help someone in distress, yet their next-door neighbour whose door they have just bashed down says he or she will take them to court because it is wilful damage, etc. They might try to use the claim of right, which people traditionally would have used, but in this case because they have no proprietary relationship to the property next door, they cannot use that claim of right.

The Waihopai case was broader than that, as have been so many other cases. The three people who were charged with criminal damage said that, yes, they had conducted an action that caused some damage to the dome surrounding the dish at Waihopai. They did not deny that, but they said that the context or the claim of right took into account broader international laws against committing murder and wars—like conducting an illegal war in the case of Iraq, which they referred to a lot in the court case—and the rights that New Zealanders uphold under the Rome Statute, which governs the International Criminal Court, etc. The three people said they were obeying a lot of international law, and that that outweighed other issues and provided a context for them to commit criminal damage to the dome at Waihopai.

When the claim of right is being discussed in legal circles it is not just accepted as an honest belief, and it is not just a moral entitlement; there also has to be a legal entitlement, which is why the three people had to provide evidence of the other laws in their court case, and why they had to present evidence that the spy station at Waihopai had some relationship to the breaking of those laws. If one reads the court transcript, one sees that the three refer particularly to the evidence of a Government communications security headquarters whistle-blower in Britain, who came out with a memo from a chap called Frank Koza of the National Security Agency—which Waihopai is linked up to and does its spying for—who said, just prior to the invasion of Iraq, that the National Security Agency and its offshoots would conduct a whole set of interceptions. He specified that the interceptions would be of dissident members of the United Nations Security Council in order to try to get a majority for the American invasion of Iraq. They failed to get that UN majority, but in the process spied illegally on United Nations delegations in their communications back to their homes. There are a whole lot of things there.

One of the problems with this issue is that in this particular case Government policies were being challenged, and Governments can react by saying they do not want their Government policies being attacked so they will change the law. That is what is happening in this case. Rather than the Government admitting that perhaps the court, jury, and judge got it right in the Waihopai case, it is just throwing out the colour of right, even though it has a long tradition. I think that that is a very unfortunate thing.

With regard to the other part of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), the Greens support the intention of the bill to put more moral sanction on assaults on children. That is very good, but as we and our co-leader Metiria Turei have said in the past, we are concerned that lengthening the sentences that apply, particularly to family members in a place where children might be abused, might provide a certain disincentive for reporting crimes. Family members will not want to get another family member into trouble if he or she will be given a 10-year sentence. Some of the people in that household might be abused but be very scared of coming forward to the police. There are all of those sorts of problems, and it would be much better to somehow bring in techniques and support for families and extended families in order to bring them on side, so that they can constrain and prevent violence in the home.

The Green Party is a bit critical of some of these provisions. Our criticisms parallel those of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and others.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) Link to this

It is a privilege to rise this evening in our Parliament to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). I say it is a privilege, because I think this legislation is particularly important when one digs down deeply into what it is to achieve. It will create a new offence of failure to protect a child or vulnerable adult.

Protection of vulnerable people—and particularly children—is important to everybody in this House, and when we move outside of this House we find that it is of particular importance to many New Zealanders. Children and the elderly are among the most vulnerable in our society. It appals me—but, more than that, it saddens me—to pick up the newspapers on far too many occasions and read about the horrific abuse of young people and of children by the very people in our society who should be caring about them the most. I think all Governments have grappled with the problem of child abuse—why it happens, where it stems from, and what we can do about it. I am very proud as a member of John Key’s National-led Government to say that I believe we have brought some important changes through this Parliament over the last 2½ years to start to deal with what is a horrific problem for society in New Zealand.

There are probably many reasons why, when we pick up our newspapers, we read about child abuse, but although there are reasons, I cannot think of a single reason that is an excuse for what I read about in our newspapers. Child abuse happens all over New Zealand and with different people in all walks of life. In many situations it is clear that others, family members and supporters who live in the house, must have known that the situation the young child is in is not a fair or good situation and that they are in some form of danger or are being challenged. It is not too much to ask for this House—in fact, I believe that New Zealanders want us to go as far as we reasonably can—to protect these young people and to make it a crime if an adult in a position to do something to save a child’s life and to protect them from horrible, harmful abuse does not step in and do so. Each of us has a duty not only to our own family members and children but to those around us—our neighbours and anybody out there who is vulnerable—to step in where we can and support them. I do not believe that it is too much for us in this Parliament to say to New Zealanders that where they can take some action they must, and that if they are negligent in that duty, then they should be brought to account.

We should not be punitive or pass sentence upon people, although I am sure there will be many occasions where some people should have acted, knew they must act, and chose wilfully not to, and I am not opposed to the law dealing with them fully. We should send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable. It is something that none of us wants, there is no reason for it, there is certainly no excuse for it, and if someone turns a blind eye, then they will be held to account. If we can spread that message throughout this country, I am hopeful—in fact, I believe—that many more New Zealanders will look over the fence, will look at what is happening in the next room or the next bedroom and say that it is their duty to stand up for that young, vulnerable person.

There is a lot of detail in the bill and a lot of other things. The Green member Keith Locke spoke a moment ago about some other areas of the bill. I have less concern about some of those areas than those members do. I will not go into them in any great detail today; I do not want to water down my message about the appallingness of child abuse. I think the Greens will talk about the other issues in great detail. I also ask New Zealanders from all walks of life and with all experience of this issue to come forward when the bill goes to the Social Services Committee and to let us know their thoughts. I think a number of people in New Zealand will say that the bill is a great start, that it is putting a line in the sand, and that it is telling others what we expect, but we have so much further to go as a Government, as a Parliament, but also as a society.

On a final note before I conclude, since we started this debate—and I am sure it will happen after I have spoken—members opposite have been talking about the appropriateness of the bill going to the Social Services Committee. I say to members opposite that the committee is a very hard-working committee. We have dealt with a number of issues regarding young people and other issues of law. I believe that not only are we capable but we will undertake our duties responsibly. Some of the Labour members who do not sit on the committee and have said we are not capable do a great injustice to their members of that committee, who I know will join with the Government to work as well as we can to make sure that where we can protect young people, we do, because it is our duty and our responsibility. Indeed, that is why we have been elected. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

It is my pleasure, as a member of the Social Services Committee, to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). I would not want to do a disservice to members on my side of the House by misrepresenting any questions they may have raised over why this bill is going to the Social Services Committee, because I do think it is a curious decision. This is the kind of bill that would generally go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Of course I do not say that as a slight upon myself as a member of the Social Services Committee, but given that generally these are bills drafted by Ministry of Justice officials—indeed, they are the ones who have had involvement here—I think it would be interesting to have an explanation from the Minister of Justice about why this bill is being directed elsewhere. Perhaps it is because of the heavy load that the Justice and Electoral Committee currently has. As a previous member of that committee, I can attest to the amount of work it is currently dealing with.

Some of that part-way goes to my first point, which is that no one in this House disputes that child abuse is an issue of critical importance for us to be addressing as responsible legislators. We have an abhorrent level of child abuse in New Zealand, and of course we should be dealing with it. The debate comes down to whether we are using the best tools and policy available to us in order to address this issue. That is the question I wish to raise.

Labour will be supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee so that we can further query that issue—so we can look into what options are available to us. Will lifting the penalties for someone who neglects to raise an issue actually prevent children from being abused in this country? That is the key question. If not, what are the alternatives, and are we doing enough there? Firstly, though, we cannot neglect the fact that there are some other elements to this bill. It is a bit of an omnibus bill, which, I think, seems to be the modus operandi of this Government when it comes to justice issues—slightly scattered, very reactive and knee-jerk, and not always coherent.

I will go back to a key point, given that Simon Power is available to hear this message. I ask when we will go back to the drivers of crime that were much heralded by this Government. With great fanfare the Government announced that it would finally be looking into the drivers of crime in New Zealand, the things that cause people to offend or that cause reoffending. It was a piece of work we were excited by, but it seems to have disappeared into nothing. I would not mind hearing a little bit more about that, in the mix of this omnibus bill.

I give my thanks, though, for the ongoing work that groups like ECPAT International and the Department of Internal Affairs do around the first issue this bill addresses, which is sexual grooming. That area is an incredibly difficult area to work in. I got a small idea of that when I worked for the Minister of Justice many years ago. What an incredibly draining, personally stressful, and difficult area those officials work in! My thanks go to them, and of course I say that we should be doing anything we can to support them in the work they do.

The second key change in this bill has already been touched on, and that is the idea that under section 195 of the Crimes Act, previously called “Cruelty to a child”, the maximum penalty is substantially increased by this bill from 5 years to 10 years. The provision is also altered so that those who have the care or charge of children will be liable for being grossly negligent in their standard of care in those circumstances. The point I wish to make is that if a child is being abused in a family environment, there is a strong correlation, I would wager, between that and the potential levels of domestic violence in a family. If that is the case, there is a whole range of services that we should be making sure is available, so that those who are in a situation where there is abuse or domestic violence will have the best opportunity they can have to exit that relationship. Exit points will be the first things they will be thinking about, above and beyond the idea of “What kind of prison penalty will I be facing if anyone finds out about the abuse of my child?”. The first things they will be thinking about are “How can I exit this situation, what support will I have, and will I be safe?”. Those are the things that I think we should be considering if we want to ensure that children are taken with speed out of a situation where they are being abused, or that those who are aware of the situation feel safe enough to raise that with either external family members or external services and agencies.

Support for Women’s Refuge has to be a major part of that cohort of services, but what we have seen recently is a slashing of funding towards Women’s Refuge. The Government has tried to claim that that has not occurred, but it is yet to disprove the claim by Women’s Refuge that refuges are losing $700,000 worth of funding. That is incredible for an organisation that, from memory, has about 300 staff and already about 600 volunteers. It is already substantively a voluntary organisation, and now it has lost a considerable amount of funding. It is absolutely disgraceful to claim that this Government is addressing child abuse and domestic violence issues on the one hand by lifting prison penalties, but doing nothing to ease the path to try to remove children from vulnerable situations, with appropriate services, on the other hand. It is disgraceful. From my perspective, simply throwing in a new law that increases a penalty will not necessarily make any great change without those wraparound services being in place in the community where they are needed most. It is the same with the Te Rito coordinators, the police, and domestic violence advocates. All of them have said that these services make a difference on the ground. Instead, the Government is slashing them and saying that it will increase a prison penalty. Where is the evidence that that will make the difference we need?

I have not found any evidence in the regulatory impact statement. I point out that it is interesting that bills do not include regulatory impact statements any more; they just include web addresses. I ask whether that is some way of trying to make it a little more difficult to prove that the Government is not fully providing evidence for the bills it is putting before this House. But I went to the effort of looking up the said web addresses. Members will be pleased to know that I could not find the regulatory impact statement for this bill on the Treasury website, but on the Ministry of Justice website I found a clear point about teenage parents in particular, because the Government has made the decision that this legislation will apply to those parents under the age of 18. I will not dispute that, but the point was made that very little is known about the children who are raised in the care of young parents. It strikes me that that is as area where we make a lot of assumptions, and that some evidence would be useful.

The second point is that this bill does not include under-18-year-olds who do not have a biological relationship with a child. I query that, and I would like to hear the Minister of Justice point out the reason to us, perhaps via officials at the select committee or in the Committee stage. If a de facto happens to be the one who has the knowledge of child abuse and is under the age of 18, then surely there should be a level of equality in the way that he or she is treated in the eyes of the law. As far as I read this—

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call in respect of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). I also appreciate the fact that it will be coming before the Social Services Committee. As a member of that committee I look forward to investigating the circumstances around this bill, thinking about how this bill will be applied, hearing the evidence, and having the opportunity to do some stuff around the protection of vulnerable people, and vulnerable children especially. I am sure that all of us who come to this House who have worked with young children who have been abused and who have been neglected relish the opportunity to do some work in this area.

The fact is that we cannot legislate for people to feel responsible or to recognise their own responsibility, but we can legislate to hold people to account. When we have people living within households where there are vulnerable people, they should be held to account. There is a need to do something tangible in a country where one child every month is murdered. I can call to mind the faces of young children, whom I have worked with over many years, who have been absolutely abandoned by those whom they turn to, seeking help.

I am very pleased to be part of a Government that is working very strongly towards making vulnerable people in our community safer. To hear the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, suggest that the funding arrangements, for instance, for Te Rito and the Women’s Refuge was in some way a case of the Government’s abandoning its responsibility to look after vulnerable children is absolutely ridiculous. For instance, in respect of the monitoring of POL 400 family violence forms that are currently being done by Te Rito coordinators through the police and through Women’s Refuge, those forms will still be collated, those referrals will still be made, and the Government will still be funding those positions. Previously they had been, prior to the last Government, changing the rules around that in terms of who was going to do it. In Wanganui the Living Without Violence Trust was contracted to do that work. The previous Government took it off that organisation and gave it to Women’s Refuge for reasons of its own, despite the fact that the job was being done perfectly well.

In this country we have seen horrific cases. People can call to mind, for instance, the case surrounding the death of Nia Glassie. She lived in a household where a number of adults over the age of 18 lived. A number of people were witness to the atrocities that were carried out against that poor child until she eventually died, and people did absolutely nothing in respect of her. So I am pleased that this legislation will force people to take responsibility, and if they do not take responsibility themselves they will be held to account for the action they did not take to protect those vulnerable young people.

I remember one particular case where a grandfather had set about grooming his 12-year-old granddaughter. In response to that, the mother came and made a historic complaint of sexual abuse, in respect of herself and her sister. As the investigator I worked on that case, took the various statements, became satisfied in my mind that there was a case to answer, and went and knocked on the door of the abuser, the father of the two mature women who had made a complaint and the grandfather of the child whom he was grooming. I knocked on the door, he saw me, and he said “I know who you are. You’re Chester Borrows, aren’t you?”. I said yes. He said he had been waiting for me for 30 years, and he immediately admitted to the offending that was alleged against him. Nevertheless, while he went through the process and pleaded guilty, one of his daughters wrote to the judge and asserted that everything she had said had been a lie, in spite of the fact that he had made several admissions to us, and in spite of the fact that the evidence was well and truly beyond a reasonable doubt, should it have needed to be proven. The point I want to make is that the impact of sexual grooming is absolutely horrific and has a lifelong effect on people who have been the subject of those despicable acts by those most despised within our society—and so they must be.

Along with changing the law, widening the grasp of the law, and holding people to account, we must, as a society and a Parliament, seek to understand the nature of sexual abuse, not only just the ramifications of it, not only just the effects of it, and not only just to point the finger and lay the blame but also to actually fully understand the reasons behind sexual abuse, in terms of why it happens and what we can do to curtail this country’s horrific record in respect of it. I congratulate the Minister for Social Development and Employment on promoting the discussion about mandatory reporting. The fact is that in protecting our young children and the vulnerable adults within our community we not only have to paint everything with a broad brush but have to do everything we can through a number of pieces of legislation to be able to keep people safe.

In answer to a question that was raised by the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, we must remember that people who have a special relationship with vulnerable people and fail to act are caught by a number of pieces of legislation. The under-18-year-old de facto partner of a child’s mother, for instance, would, no doubt, be caught by other sections of the Crimes Act, which require people in such circumstances of having a special relationship with a young and vulnerable person who is abused, neglected, and in need of care to take action and to be held legally responsible if that action is not taken.

I commend this bill to the House at its first reading. I look forward to the select committee discussions, and to the investigations of the matters and circumstances arising from child neglect and abuse, which is just one of the things catered for in this legislation. I am pleased to speak in its support.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this

I am very pleased to be able to take a call on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). Despite venturing off into some issues around knife crime and the claim of right review, the bill is essentially focused squarely on strengthening the penalties and clarifying the responsibilities around abuse of vulnerable children. The key aspect of this bill is, of course, that it places a much greater and much clearer obligation on caregivers in charge of vulnerable people not only to provide the necessaries of life but also to ensure that they protect those vulnerable people in their care from any form of injury or abuse.

This is very, very important legislation, but it is also a very, very important message that must reach parents, caregivers, and anybody who has responsibility for children in particular, who are just so incredibly vulnerable, and anybody who is vulnerable to abuse or injury, that they do have a responsibility. For any of those people to say that they were unaware or unable to intervene simply is not good enough. They have to make sure that they do everything they can to protect those vulnerable people, particularly children in their care. So, of course, the Labour Opposition supports seeing this bill go to the select committee. We want to hear the debate around some of the initiatives in this bill, and we want to hear people’s ideas and views on how we improve the protections available to the people in our society who are at their most vulnerable.

We know that this bill places an obligation on caregivers in charge of vulnerable people. It also extends the current Act so that “parents, who are currently under a duty to provide their children with ‘the necessaries’, will also be required to take reasonable steps to protect them from injury:”. The age of the child, for the purposes of this legislation, is raised from 16 to 18 years, which should be a positive step.

For every single one of us in this House our stomachs churn when we hear of abuse, neglect, murder, and injury to young people caused by adults who should be taking care of them. So, of course, we want to see these provisions considered by the select committee, and we want to do anything we can to protect vulnerable children. I know that Government members know this. This is not an attempt to attack Government members, but this bill is somewhat the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. This is our response when things have gone so badly wrong that a parent or a caregiver abuses a child in their care.

We need to think about this more and, hand in hand with this type of legislation, we need to look at what needs to happen to make our families stronger and to give parents the tools, the skills, and the self-respect in a lot of cases to avoid getting into these situations in the first place. If we are truly to put children at the centre of everything we do, we need not only to think about the consequences of things going badly wrong and giving people the message that they should not be committing these types of crimes but also we need to look at how we can work with and support families to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen.

That means more resources for the types of parenting support programmes that are out there already—things like SKIP or the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters, known as the HIPPY programme, which are available but which so many parents are not able to access because their resources are so limited at the moment. Let us think about how those programmes are supported by early childhood education, and about supporting parents, whether it is through things like paid parental leave or other schemes to ensure that parents are at home and part of their children’s lives. Just generally raising standards of living would go a long way to improving the environments in which children grow up and preventing some of the issues that this legislation is trying to deal with.

When I think of what we can do to support families and to prevent the abuse of children in our communities I always go back to an organisation in my electorate called Te Aroha Noa. Some years ago it decided to move into a part of our city where we knew there were vulnerable families, to get alongside those families and to work with them, initially by opening a playcentre, which grew into fully fledged early childhood education around which adult education support was placed, and around which programmes such as SKIP and the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters have been placed. Te Aroha Noa has now moved into adult community education. It works with the whole family. It gets involved with the family, in particular with vulnerable families and young mothers. It works in a part of my electorate where this type of work is definitely needed.

I honestly think that organisations like that are doing more to achieve what this bill sets out to achieve, to protect vulnerable children and families, to give them hope and to create the environment in which children are nurtured, than a piece of legislation, important as it is, can do to support those families and create the environment in which children are safe, and in which we can start to curb child abuse across our society.

This is important legislation. I applaud the Government and the Minister for introducing it to the House. I think there will be a very interesting debate at the select committee about what is in this bill. But if we are serious about tackling the issues of child abuse, then we have to think about what leads up to the situations that this bill seeks to deal with. We can double the maximum penalty for cruelty to a child, we can wield the threat of imprisonment over families, and I have no doubt that will have some effect on people’s actions. We can extend the legal duty on parents and caregivers as much as we like, but we actually have to start going back to what Mr Power called the drivers of crime and what is behind the issues this bill is trying to deal with.

This is good legislation but it cannot be in isolation. We have to think about everything else that goes alongside it. We have to think about supporting and getting alongside our families and our communities, and getting alongside the people who are trying to prevent this stuff from happening in the first place rather than simply looking at how we mop up the mess after it has occurred. We support this legislation but we do think an awful lot more has to occur if we are really going to tackle child abuse in this country.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) Link to this

It is pleasing to hear that the Opposition is supporting this Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), because it is a very good bill, and it is very timely given many of the cases from around the country that we see in the media. It is also good to hear an Opposition supporting a bill. Although I am relatively new in this Chamber, it seems to me that the Opposition often opposes many of the good things this Government does, so I am pleased to hear that it is now supporting this bill.

I doubt whether many people around the country would think this is a poor bill. Many people would see this as a very good bill because it is about protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. It is about protecting children and vulnerable adults, and doing what we can as a Parliament to help those people. I have often heard the saying that a society is judged by how it treats animals. I think that what is more important is that a society should be judged by how it treats children and vulnerable people. This Government is sending a message that it is wrong to treat children or vulnerable people poorly. It is sending a message that if a person is cruel to a child, that offence should be punishable by a long prison sentence. It is sending a message to people who do not protect children, and who do not provide what they need to be safe in their homes and society, that those are things that should be frowned upon. This Government is creating a new offence relating to a failure to protect children and vulnerable adults. Those people need support and help. They need this legislation so that penalties are in place if a person does not provide the necessary protections that are important for those people.

The bill also doubles the maximum penalty for cruelty to a child. It is saying that 5 years as a maximum penalty is not enough. A maximum penalty of 10 years is far better. The 5-year penalty has been doubled because it was insufficient. Any person out there who is cruel to a child must be frowned upon by society and punished severely, and 5 years as a maximum penalty simply was not enough.

The amended offence of sexual grooming is a timely matter. Many people would have seen a bit of coverage recently about Facebook and certain things that have taken place there. I for one find what has been happening appalling. I realise that a lot of investigation is going on at the moment, but, should a case like that be seen to be happening around the place, many people around the country should be saying that it is appalling and needs to be dealt with. The amended offence of sexual grooming makes it easier to catch those people and to punish them. It makes it easier to point out that they are doing the wrong thing, and that they need to be stopped.

Finally, I will talk about the claim of right defence and the changes taking place there. I heard the contribution from the member Keith Locke, when he essentially defended the Waihopai spy base issue that happened a couple of years ago. I think that anyone who believes that what those people were doing at Waihopai was a good thing is probably in a similar camp to Hone Harawira when he thought that Osama bin Laden was an honourable man. We have to say that those types of beliefs are wrong. Anyone who thinks that those people at Waihopai were there to do the right thing has a few screws loose. Anyone who cannot accept that those people knew full well that they were causing million-dollar damage to Government infrastructure, and who thinks that that was a good thing, needs to reconsider his or her position. I am proud to be part of a Government that is changing the law on behalf of the taxpayers of this country to make the law tighter, so that people who cause wilful damage to Government property are unable to do that and get away with it.

This is a good bill. I am glad the Opposition has decided to support something. Let us vote.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

The Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) deals with several issues. A particular focus of the bill has been to ensure that children are adequately protected from assault, neglect, and ill treatment. This bill implements the Law Commission’s recommendations in this area, and it also addresses an emerging knife crime problem. It responds to issues of scope with the sexual grooming offence and the claim of right defence. Labour, of course, supports this bill, and supports the measures that it takes to prevent and mitigate the harm and abuse of children. However—there often is a “however” when we say that we support a Government bill—we do have reservations about certain provisions and their ability to be effective in combating the actual problem.

When we listened to the previous speaker from National, we heard him talk about the concern that the Government has for children who are abused or children who are at risk of being abused. Members on this side of the House share those concerns. We are of course concerned about abused children, and about the risk of abuse to children. However, members on this side want to take an approach, where possible, that is about the fence at the top of the cliff rather than the ambulance constantly at the bottom of the cliff. But we see that the focus of members opposite is overwhelmingly on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We support aspects of that approach, given that there are times when that approach is necessary. But when that is the entire focus, then we are concerned, because we know we will see the need for more and more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. That is what the Government is setting us up to have to respond to.

When members opposite talk about the abuse of children, I cannot help but reflect on some of the decisions that have been made recently by the Government. Some decisions do not protect the best interests of children, and do not protect the best interests of those children’s mothers. I am talking of decisions like the cuts to domestic violence programmes that have been made by members on the other side. I am also talking about cuts to Te Rito programmes, cuts to women’s refuges, and cuts, in accident compensation, to counselling services for victims of sexual abuse. Those are all the kinds of services that this side of the House would expect of any Government that cares, and purports to care, for children who are abused or at risk of being abused. As I said before, members on this side of the House support this bill as we do have concerns, but we are disappointed in the Government, because it seems to put measures into place or take legislation seriously only when it is already acting as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

Along the lines of things that have been cut, I should also mention the inability of the National Government to deal with legislation that would make a difference in respect of violence, in respect of women and violence, and in respect of children who are abused or who could be abused. The bill that I am thinking of is the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which was thoroughly consulted on with organisations in the sector, yet it continues to languish at the bottom of the Order Paper.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

Although I am the Minister in charge of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), a colleague of mine actually moved the first reading motion and delivered the first speech in this debate.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Social Services Committeeconsider the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) , that the committee report finally to the House on or before 18 August 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).