Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill

I am pleased to rise to kick off the debate on the clauses of the bill concerning the title, commencement, and principal amendments to the Act. I will start with the title of the bill. I think this actually comes to the core of the issue. The bill is titled the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. Critically, there we are cross-referencing the primary legislation that this bill amends, and that is obviously the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. We heard time and time again in this Chamber and also at select committee that this bill would fundamentally change the core and the principles of that primary legislation. I think to even claim that we are remaining in the realms of the core values of that legislation is actually quite misleading.

So I am proposing that we change the title of this bill. Perhaps we could change it to the “Most Fundamental Change Since the Inception of the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act Amendment Bill”. Just to prove my point, I go back to that core legislation and those founding principles, because I think, had we done that at the beginning, that may have better informed the debate. Part 4 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 sets out under section 208 the guiding principles for our youth justice system. I think it is worth going over some of those. Section 208(a) states “the principle that, unless the public interest requires otherwise, criminal proceedings should not be instituted against a child or young person if there is an alternative means of dealing with the matter:”. That is an interesting point, the fact that it makes the reference “the public interest requires”. I ask who the arbiter is of whether the public interest is being served by having a 12 or 13-year-old being moved to, and dealt with by, a Youth Court.

I offer to the Committee the idea that we already have enough flexibility within our judicial processes and procedures in our youth justice system for that test of public interest to be made at that level. To arbitrarily move 12 and 13-year-olds into the Youth Court removes that discretion and public interest test as it sits in the primary legislation. I think section 208(c) is also worth reflecting on together as we go through the final part of the Committee stage. Again, it comes to the core issue. It states: “the principle that any measures for dealing with offending by children or young persons should be designed—(i) to strengthen the family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group of the child or young person concerned; and (ii) to foster the ability of families, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family groups to develop their own means of dealing with offending by their children and young persons:”.

This Act puts the family at the core. It says that if we are dealing with children in particular and they are offending at the level that the Minister claims we are trying to target, there must be care and protection issues in that young child’s home. The Act explicitly states that a core principle is that that family, that whānau, that hapū, that iwi should be a part of dealing with that young person’s or child’s behaviour. We are removing that through this change. We are taking the family out of the equation. When we move a child or a young person into the Youth Court, we essentially fly in the face of this principle within the core primary legislation.

I argue that we would be within our rights to look at the title of this bill and say that it is misleading, and to say instead that we should pick up on the point made by Judge Andrew Becroft when he said that this is the most fundamental change to the primary Act since its inception. Also at the core of this primary legislation is the idea that, essentially, our youth justice system, unless the public interest decides otherwise, should be diversionary and that criminal proceedings should, where possible, be limited in their usage for children and young people.

I do have some other proposals for other names that we could use for the bill. I want to be able to offer those to the Committee. I think we can see that this bill contradicts some of those core principles. Perhaps, if we go a little further into those core principles, we see that age becomes an issue as well. In section 208 it states “(e) the principle that a child’s or young person’s age is a mitigating factor in determining—(i) whether or not to impose sanctions in respect of offending by a child or young person; and (ii) the nature of any such sanctions:”. Again, we have a principle here that we are undermining with this legislation. Perhaps then this bill should be renamed the “Removal of Any Discretion to Test the Public Interest as Set Out in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 Amendment Bill”. It is not too snappy, I acknowledge.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: A bit clumsy.

It is a bit clumsy, but I think it points that we are fundamentally undermining what was ground-breaking legislation at the time that it was introduced. I want to go back to that point, because it is internationally recognised that our legislation is unique; it was well ahead of its time when it was introduced, and still remains at the head of its game. But the changes that we are seeing here today undermine that and contravene our requirements under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. So, perhaps again, a better title for this bill would be the “Contradiction of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Amendment Bill”. That is at the core of things as well.

I hear members on the other side of the House who are talking about the victims, and I will come back to that because they are specifically mentioned as part of the core principles of the Act as well. They are not mutually exclusive. That is why the public interest test is in there. We do acknowledge that we do have some serious offending amongst our children and our young people. But we could not size that in the Social Services Committee.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Oh, she’s saying that we do have some problems of offending. Oh my goodness!

I will never in this Chamber admit, I say to Ms Goudie, that she has a point. I am sorry; I will not admit that in this Chamber ever. I do not believe that she has taken into account the far-reaching effects of this bill.

Again, up front, at the very beginning of the core legislation in the first schedule, it talks about the fact that this an Act to reform the law relating to children and young persons who are in need of care or protection or offend against the law. It states right up front at the very beginning of the legislation what the core principles of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Family Act are, and I do believe this amendment bill flies in the face of those principles.

So why are we doing it? I want to come back to this in my third reading speech, because it is a more appropriate place to discuss that issue, but I contend that this is actually about shifting criminal responsibility. It has been tried before in this House and it has failed. It has been tried by other members who are not now part of the Government, but were from a party long past, New Zealand First. It tried to shift criminal responsibility in New Zealand. It was much more overt about it, though. I believe that although this bill may not be as overt as that attempt, this is taking us down a similar track. So perhaps this legislation should be retitled the “Shift In Criminal Responsibility Bill”.

I thank members, though, for their contributions to the debate. I do hope my other colleagues take the opportunity to share their view on what would be a more accurate depiction of what this bill is doing to our youth justice system. As I have already stated, and as stated by Andrew Becroft, who is a much wiser person on the issues of youth justice than I, this is a fundamental shift and it cannot and should not happen in this Parliament without a robust debate first.

At this stage of the debate on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill, it is interesting to recollect a little where we have travelled, the number of people who have spoken, and the points they have made in this part of the Committee stage, which allows us to take a view over the whole bill.

I will make two or three points. The first point is that during the select committee process the Labour members prepared a three-page, fairly extensive minority report, but missing from that report was any talk about DNA. It has been quite interesting to see the debate we have had in respect of the conflict those members seem to find between natural justice and the Bill of Rights, and the taking of DNA samples. In an earlier speech we heard that apparently 12 and 13-year-old children would be held down to have a DNA sample taken from them. The DNA sample is actually taken by the young person taking what we know as a Q-tip, rubbing it on the inside of his or her cheek, and putting it into a plastic bag. The DNA sample is not taken by way of a burly policeman holding down the 12 or 13-year-old. It is important for the people who are listening and making an assessment on the validity of the speeches in the Committee stage to know that fact.

Another point was made about 12 and 13-year-olds being children. Of course, under this Act and the Crimes Act “child” is defined as somebody under the age of 14.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s right.

So by this definition under the Crimes Act, 12 and 13-year-olds are children.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s right.

On their 14th birthday they become “young persons”.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s right.

On their 17th birthday they become “adults”.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That should be 18, as you know.

We do not hear any disagreement from members on the other side of the Chamber in relation to when children become young persons, but we hear disagreement about when they become adults. Those members have a problem with people becoming adults when they are 17. But that is the definition we are dealing with in relation to the Crimes Act and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act.

It is important, too, to restate the point the Minister for Social Development and Employment made in respect of the offences for which DNA will be taken from 12 and 13-year-olds. These are crimes that are punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment or more. We are talking, for instance, of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Hon Lianne Dalziel has spoken on numerous occasions about a tragic murder that involved half a dozen young people, the youngest aged 12. If we think about that situation, we see that if the victim of that attack, Michael Choy, had not died, then the 12-year-old offender—who rang the pizza place to have the pizza delivered, opened the door to let the victim into the house, but apparently did not wield any implement that actually brought about the murder—could not have been charged with anything. He may have appeared as part of a care and protection process through the Family Court and but would not have been charged, and a DNA sample could not be taken in any event whatsoever.

The Minister quite ably made the point that, knowing the offending that went on by some of our most notorious offenders—like Joseph Thompson, Malcolm Rewa, and Graeme Burton—if we had the opportunity to secure a cheek swab that held the DNA of any of those three offenders, with them having committed a crime punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment or more, why would we not take it? Why would we not take the opportunity to prevent, for instance, the two of those offenders who went on to have at least 100 more victims in respect of rapes in people’s own homes? If, for instance, we had their DNA profile on record, then as soon as they had left a bodily secretion of any kind they could have been identified, and that may well have prevented the crimes against those 100 or so victims.

I believe very strongly that aligning this legislation with the DNA sampling legislation is a very real step. The DNA sampling legislation will prevent more victims than any other legislation this House is ever likely to pass. Aligning this Act in order to include 12 and 13-year-old offenders who have committed crimes of that magnitude is something that not even Harry Holland would have disagreed with, bearing in mind the way we treated 10, 12, 13 and 14-year-old offenders in Harry Holland’s day. I think it is important to try to take some of the emotion out of this debate and just look at it in real terms.

Another point that has been made time and time again regards the initial debate we had from fairly high-profile people within the sector who were anti the legislation, especially in respect of 12 and 13-year-olds. We have heard Judge Andrew Becroft quoted on many, many occasions. The reason, of course, is that he has huge credibility within the sector. It is interesting to note, though, that when he appeared before the Social Services Committee initially—he appeared about three times—his concern was that 12 and 13-year-olds who offend on this level, and would therefore appear before the Youth Court under this legislation, are actually few. But we know that their offending is very sophisticated and very violent, and we are now seeing a new trend that involves young women as well as young men. He argued that if we really wanted to help the situation, we needed to streamline the process of moving young people through the court system that involves 12 and 13-year-olds.

We responded to that suggestion and he actually was complimentary about the changes that were made. For instance, we allowed the process to move quickly so that 12 and 13-year-old prolific offenders whom the police bring before the court system can appear before the Youth Court quickly so that they can have curfews, they can have prohibitions on associations with people, and they can be banned from areas of high-level offending. We can get them on to what in an adult court are called bail conditions and in the Youth Court are called adjournment conditions—even if they then go back and appear before the Family Court. When Judge Andrew Becroft came back before the committee after the changes had been made, he commented that he did not have a heck of a lot of problem with this, because his suggestion was to streamline it, and that is exactly where it went.

When he returned again to the committee, at that stage some more flesh had been put on the bones of the military-style activity camps—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Without legislation.

—and the Government had started a pilot course. We did not need legislation.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: You don’t need it?

That is right. Just remember that the court could do it only with the consent of the young person who was appearing—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s right.

—and we are changing that. Labour agrees with that change, so let us not kick it around too much. When Judge Becroft came back before the select committee and found out what was being offered in terms of programmes while people were attending these military-style activity camps, he did not refer to them as boot camps; he did not align them with the corrective training that was going on at that time. The members who were present will recall—actually, not a lot of members opposite heard him, but I am sure that Ms Ardern will recall it—that when he came back, and when the programmes that went along with military-style activity camps were explained, as they were being run at that time, he did not refer to them as boot camps. In fact, in a direct response to a question from me he said that they were completely different from the boot camps that had been commented on within the media and by commentators reported in the media. He said he agreed with the programmes that were being offered in the military-style activity camps, and he agreed that the style of camp that we were running—and the supervision with activity, which is now part of military-style activity camps—was actually having the best results.

💬 Hon Member: No.

That is what he said. I am pleased to stand here today, because a number of us have worked on this legislation for a long time. In Opposition the Hon Anne Tolley and I spent a lot of time looking at the youth justice area, visiting a number of providers around the country, and working on the youth justice discussion paper that was the forerunner of this bill. Along with the other members of the law and order caucus committee of the last National Opposition, I am very proud of this legislation. We believe that people will be safer and young people will be dealt with very well.

I enjoy the opportunity to follow the member, because I consider that his contribution, unlike the Minister’s, was intelligent and reasoned, and I feel that he went through the issues.

💬 Hon Member: It’s true.

I do not think the member was listening to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paula Bennett, when she gave a response to a very serious issue that was raised with me. A constituent—and I did not know he was a constituent when he came up to me—said that I had given a good speech because it had made him think about how this legislation will affect his 11½-year-old son. He looked at his 11½-year-old son and said: “At 12, this child would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Youth Court.” It made him think. The Minister stood up and said, in response to the questions that I had asked, that she had been rung by people who said that I had given a bad speech. Well, frankly, I do not care what anyone else says about the quality of my speech. I am interested in the issues that the previous speaker raised.

I think that the previous speaker nailed it when he isolated the differences between Labour and National on this legislation. Nobody has mentioned this, and the Minister continues to refuse to do this in her incapacity to deal with the fact that these are children we are talking about. Does anyone in his or her right mind—and I hope Chester Borrows takes some further calls on this bill—seriously think that these children end up committing these terrible offences in isolation from the environment within which they live? Does anyone think that? Does anyone seriously think that the lives of these children have somehow been perfect and all of a sudden they go out and commit a horrendous crime, such as intentionally wounding with intent to injure? That is one of the offences we have. Does that happen in isolation of the family or the parents? Does that happen in isolation from a community, or from the whānau, iwi, or hapū? Does it happen all by itself?

💬 David Garrett: No.

No, it does not, and even the ACT member agrees with me on that.

In 1989 New Zealand created a world-leading mechanism for addressing some of these most serious issues. In fact, there is an element of what we know now that would make me want to rewrite the opening words of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. It states: “An Act to reform the law relating to children and young persons who are in need of care or protection or who offend against the law.” I think all of the children who offend against the law have care and protection issues. Not all of those with care and protection issues end up as offenders, but there is a connection.

I remember that when I first became a member of Parliament, a number of issues arose around the practice of having youth justice facilities on the same site as the care and protection units. The member opposite will recall those facilities in Christchurch. There were serious issues, because under the law they cannot mix. The irony that the social workers and the managers of those centres talked to me about was that it was crazy; they are the same children. They come in as care and protection cases, and then come back as offenders under the youth justice provisions.

The connections between care and protection and youth justice cannot be minimised, and that is what has happened with this debate. The previous speaker did not even mention the fact that these children have a right under our law to have the care and protection of their families, their parents, and their communities. What has happened is terribly wrong.

Let us look at some of the care and protection issues: whether the child or young person is being, or is likely to be, harmed—physically, emotionally, or sexually—ill-treated, abused, or seriously deprived; or whether his or her development, or physical or mental or emotional well-being, is being, or is likely to be, impaired or neglected. All of those issues lie behind these children. They do not end up being offenders simply because they have grown up to be offenders. There are issues that lie behind them and they are always, every time, about care and protection.

I want to take members back to the title of this bill, which I think is entirely appropriate: the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. It covers this legislation incredibly well. The bill states that only those children who commit absolutely terrible, heinous crimes will be seen in the Youth Court. They can then be sent back to the Family Court if necessary. I think the title and the commencement date fit well with this bill, and I am happy to speak briefly on that part.

I speak on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill with some sadness. When I heard Mr Chester Borrows talking about this bill and what it intended to do with young children, I was reminded of my days in practice. I was reminded of the Act under which I worked, the Child Welfare Act 1925. Under the provisions of that Act, I was working in South Auckland with young children, young people, and their families.

In those days, after committing a very small number of reasonably minor offences, those young people were railroaded, which was the practice of the day. What we did then with those young children was very much what this bill tries to do with our 12 and 13-year-olds. The Minister might not recall those days, but I am sure her officials can inform her and show her the research. We sent those young children to national institutions, to undertake discipline training. There was one place called Hōkio Beach School in the Horowhenua. There was Kohitere and places like Kingslea Residential Centre, and others. They were sent there to go through so-called intense training.

At one point, these young children were taken out to Camp Peak, owned by the then Department of Social Welfare, in the forest at the foothills of the Tararua Ranges, which is where these young people were given this kind of training. They were then brought back to Kohitere, and sent back to South Auckland. We were supposed to provide wraparound services for them at the time. Within a very short period of time, these young children ended up in youth justice facilities and in the criminal justice system. The recidivism rate was over 70 percent.

It was because of those experiences that the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act was designed. It took 10 years to design. I was very involved with it, because of the work I was doing in those days. It took a long time to design the Act, but it really set out the major difference between care and protection, and youth justice. My colleagues have read out parts of the Act and the purpose behind it. But this bill takes us right back to pre-1974 days. I am confused as to what it delivers. I think it does nothing more than deliver the Government’s punitive agenda.

During the election campaign, National members talked so much about violence. They talked about how they would be very strong and punitive, and this is the unpacking of that agenda. Sometimes it is best to stop and rethink, and say: “I now find myself in a different place. I now have material that officials have put before me, and on that basis I will design a much better and much more effective system.”

But that is not what this bill does. It takes us to someplace else. That is why the title of this bill should be the “Shifting the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill”, because that seems to be its driver. It has a punitive mindset. It will do again to our 12 and 13-year-olds what the 1925 Child Welfare Act did. It was all of those kinds of things that were in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act that focus on care and protection for that age group. We are talking about children and we are talking about care and protection needs. We know that the science and the opportunity are there. The system is there to do better for that particular group than where this bill takes us. Submitters to the select committee made it quite clear that this was a radical shift.

We have heard the name Judge Andrew Becroft from both sides of the Chamber today in the time I have been here. It just so happens that I was in Christchurch last Monday and I ran into Judge Becroft, whom I had never met, at Christchurch Airport. I went up and spoke to him because I had read in that morning’s paper an account of an address he had given the previous evening. The article said that Judge Becroft had talked about our having produced a lost generation of valueless children. I thought that that sounded remarkably prescient. So I went up, introduced myself, and asked him whether he had been accurately reported and he said that he had. He smiled slightly when I said “We’re pretty much of a mind, then, Judge.” He did not fall about making silly comments like Miss Dalziel would in that circumstance.

Judge Becroft went on to say that we have produced a generation—fortunately of only about 1,000 in his estimation, and he would know—of young people with no values, no morals, and no idea of what is right or wrong. That is where 20 or 30 years of the kinds of policies that Mr Prasad advocates have got us. During his contribution I asked him, by way of interjection, how many child killers there were in 1974. I am sure he heard me, because I have a loud voice, but he ignored me, because there were none. The terrible system at that time that he was talking about, funnily enough, did not produce Bailey Junior Kurariki, aged 12.

I heard that Bailey’s case had been discussed, and as I came in Chester Borrows was talking about him. When he was arrested at aged 12 and convicted of manslaughter he was sent to a youth justice facility and given intensive treatment, if you like, for want of a better word. He was given schooling, psychological assistance, and counselling. When he came to be released at age 18, I recall the Parole Board being quoted as saying that he was now a fine young man with a bright future.

Everybody knows that very shortly after his release he breached parole, and breached parole again, and again.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: He was hounded.

No, he was not hounded into beating up his girlfriend, I say to Mr Prasad. Sadly—and I say “sadly” very seriously—there is very little doubt that that man, and he is now a man, will reoffend seriously enough to be returned to prison for a long time. I feel sad about that both for him and for his victim. But it is no surprise.

I remember seeing his mother on TV—a dreadful-looking harridan from South Auckland, with several other children by different men. She has been facilitated in that lifestyle by the welfarism that Mr Prasad says is a great idea. That is just the point. The system that he thinks is so good has produced, over the last 20 and 30 years, a lost generation—Judge Becroft said it himself.

I was talking the other day to a policeman in South Auckland who talked about going to houses where 4-year-old children were referring to the police as “effing pigs” and “pig c___ts”. Those children have no hope at all; they will become Bailey Junior Kurariki. How can they not? They have been dragged up with no values—as Judge Becroft said in his speech in Christchurch—with no morals, and no idea of what is right and wrong. Members on the Opposition side are very fond of talking about root causes, drivers of crime, and all that stuff—and it is not just members on that side.

This bill, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill, is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff—it is. It is necessary because of what we have produced with 20 or 30 years of welfarism. Until we face up to that root cause, we will have this happening again and again. The 4-year-old children whom my policeman acquaintance talked about will be, in 10 years’ time, Bailey Junior Kurariki. How can they possibly be any different after being dragged up in that environment?

Mr Prasad and others over there like Miss Dalziel talk about the whānau, the family—the whole philosophy that the family is best.

I have to respond to Mr Garrett’s speech, because I feel there has been an utter misrepresentation of the position that members on this side of the Chamber have taken on this bill, and on why the bill is such a fundamental change to our Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, which was world-leading legislation when it was introduced, and which has been looked at by other countries as a means for trying to get underneath the problems.

I cannot believe that that member can describe another human being as a harridan and then describe her circumstances. That member does not know the circumstances she was brought up in; nor does he understand the environment Bailey Junior Kurariki was born in. I think it is really unfair to use that one example of a child who was convicted of manslaughter because he was part of a group. He rang the pizza place, and he opened the door when Michael Choy arrived, but I do not know how much he was led. I do not know how much pressure was put on him to do that. He was 12 years old; he was a child. I cannot believe—and I think it has been absent from this debate—the lack of responsibility that the ACT Party is prepared to take for what is, as the member says, a loss of values in our society, where we have children brought up who are so utterly and completely damaged that their lives will never, ever, fulfil the potential they might have had at the moment they were born.

I am really interested in what we can do across party lines to get underneath those drivers of crime. That is why I attended the ministerial meeting on the drivers of crime that was co-hosted by the Hon Pita Sharples and the Hon Simon Power. I really enjoyed that day, because I was able to sit there, listen, and discuss issues with people who were all there with a common thread, which was to determine what we could do to intervene earlier in the lives of these young people to ensure that they do not become the horrible offenders we are dealing with.

After I attended that meeting I was so struck by the passion of everyone in that room that I went back to the Labour caucus and said that I wanted us to do something we did not normally do: I wanted us to offer to work with the Government collaboratively on the underlying drivers of crime. I said: “Let’s do the 0 to 12-year-olds. We are not going to agree on 12 and 13-year-olds, and we are not going to agree on boot camps, but we do want evidence-based interventions for 0 to 12-year-olds. Let’s do that.” Did I get a positive response from the Government when I made that offer? No. I have been told that the Government is prepared to work with us on the Sale of Liquor Act but is not prepared at this stage to work on other legislation. Government members are saying: “Let’s just see how we go with the Sale of Liquor Act, and if that works then maybe we’ll sit down and talk to you about what really matters.”

I can tell members that there is not one single person working with children in this country who does not want both sides of this Parliament to put down the battle lines on the 0 to 12-year-olds. They want us to work together to come up with the solutions that will address the fundamental change in our society, which happened in the 1970s or whenever Rajen Prasad was working as a social worker on the ground. The difference then was that we had parents in employment, but I know that in the days of Roger Douglas the number of people working for the railways went from 22,000 to 7,000 over the course of 2 years. If members want to look at the cause of youth suicide, and if they want to look at the cause of some of the issues that affected children in the 1990s, they need look only at the massive redundancies that occurred in the 1980s.

I think we all have to put aside some of the concerns we have about protecting certain positions, and actually get real here. We are talking about children being given the responsibility of young people who are much older than they are—children who really have not had the chance to achieve their full potential in life. I believe that New Zealanders will back us for doing that.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The debate has been somewhat wide-ranging and I just want to bring it back to relevancy. This debate is on the title and commencement of the principal Act, and in future speeches I ask you to make sure we are focusing on the title.

💬 Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, I do not need any help with this. The member makes a fair point, but the title clauses and so on are generally construed to be in the nature of a summing-up debate, and I think members should cast their comments in terms of summing up. I think we have strayed a bit beyond that, but with points well made; the Committee needs to debate things on occasion. I just say to future speakers that when I call them, the debate is in the nature of summing up the evidence. That is what this is about, not starting off on a first-reading speech. I know that passion is running high, and that is a good thing. But let us stick within the rules and have summing-up speeches.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think that it is a fair thing that people do sum up in this title debate, but they should at least refer to the title, I think. It is all very well to sum up an argument, but to advance the same old argument again does step outside that. You have called it right; I am not questioning that, but I think that it would be good to hear the title mentioned a few times—or some alternative, perhaps.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the honourable member, but I tell the Committee that experience has shown that people will mention clause 1 and then go off and mention clause 2 and other things that they can technically make reference to. I hope that members who speak from now on will address the clauses under debate in the nature of a summing up, not a relitigation or an advancing of new arguments.

I accept the invitation of the Government member Chester Borrows to make sure that we have a good debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. I think we are really getting to the crux of the matter now.

I particularly want to talk about the commencement date, because I am interested in what it means for the Te Hurihanga facility, based in Hamilton. If people have been following the debate they will know that this case really again demonstrates a difference between what the Government is proposing and what Labour believes is a really comprehensive approach to youth justice issues and youth crime. In Hamilton both Catholic Bishop Denis Browne and Anglican Archbishop David Moxon have come out calling for the Government to continue the funding of Te Hurihanga. I think the Hamilton community is looking at that decision and saying that on the one hand the Government is saying that it is wrong—it is the wrong model, it is too expensive, and we should shut it down—but on the other hand the two leading clerics in our city are saying that they want it kept open. Who is right in this debate? It is interesting that the Labour Party also sides on that side of the debate. I know which, out of those choices, I would put my faith in.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where’s the title?

The honourable member wants to hear what the bishops have to say, and I am happy to oblige. They said: “This decision has been based on the belief that the cost of turning 16-year-old frequent offenders into good citizens outweighs the benefits of having young men fully functioning in society as family members, workers and taxpayers,”. The article that quoted them goes on to say: “The bishops were unimpressed by the Government’s replacement ‘Fresh Start’ policy, due to be in place by October.” The reason that the bishops made a comment about being opposed to the Fresh Start policy, starting in October, was that that is what the Government has said it will replace the Te Hurihanga model with. The two principal clerics in our city were saying that they think it is the wrong approach.

Let us have a look at the title of this bill. When I am talking to people about what this bill does and I mention its title, they have no idea what it actually means. But when I say to them that it is the “Boot Camps Bill”, then they understand. That is what people know the Fresh Start programme as. It is actually about boot camps.

💬 Hon Member: The Prime Minister called it that. John Key called it that.

John Key first labelled it as boot camps; in fact, that is what it is about. People are not fooled. The people of Hamilton are asking why a programme that has been running in our city for 3 years as a pilot, proven to work with the most serious and most difficult offenders—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about the title?

I say to Mr Brownlee that I am talking about the commencement date: Te Hurihanga finishes in June, and Fresh Start starts in October. What will happen in the intervening period?

Not only that, but what will happen come 1 October? I have heard three different versions. I have heard that that Te Hurihanga will be replaced with a programme where offenders go through a 12-month process. That is eight offenders going through a 12-month process. Members should remember that this is an 8-bed facility. Yet the Minister for Social Development and Employment is standing up at every opportunity and saying that it will deal with many, many more offenders than it was, and that is why the Government had to close down Te Hurihanga. But if only 8 offenders are to go through this programme for a year, then where will it deal with those many, many more—with the many, many more that the Minister has promised? It cannot. Some people may say that we can shorten the programme so that it is only 2 months, and then we will be able to push them through faster and we will get the numbers that the Minister wants. What will that achieve? It will not actually rehabilitate anybody. These young men have committed an average of 23 offences before they even walk through the door. If they are going to be pushed through in a matter of 2 or 3 months—

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I am prepared to entertain another speaker, but I invite the speaker to address the bill in the way intended in this debate—that is, a summing up.

I am delighted to take a call on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill tonight. The title of this bill is rather clunky as it is. But having looked at what will result from this bill—and also from its commencement date; my colleague Sue Moroney has very clearly pointed to this—I say we will need to have a children’s prison bill. I will just talk about the youth justice central site, which has been built in Rotorua. The National members of our community led a campaign not to have that youth justice site built in Rotorua. Ruth Dyson and I spent a long time looking for it, because we said these were our kids and they needed to be looked after. We knew that they were children and that they needed to be given wraparound services. But National members very clearly said we should not have the facility at Kaharoa. They grew vociferous about that, and the meetings about that site were some of the most difficult public meetings that I went to.

There is a delicious irony here tonight: National is building a youth justice central site in Rotorua and closing down Te Hurihanga, which is an hour’s drive away in Hamilton, when the call from the provisions of this bill and the requirements that it gives to the Youth Court are to criminalise children of 12 and 13, who will need to be placed on short-term programmes of about 13 weeks in order to turn their lives round. There is an irony here. National members complained during the election campaign that they did not want to have these facilities in their backyard. They said we should take the youth justice facility out of Rotorua and put it up in the forest. We fought—I fought—to have that facility sited in our community. Now the Minister is coming in, with Todd McClay, the member for Rotorua, and lauding how fantastic National is in dealing with the young kids in our community. Yet just 1 hour away from Rotorua, National is closing down a model facility in Hamilton that is second to none in the country, and that we learnt from in terms of its success, when already we are being told that not enough beds will be built in the Rotorua facility.

National has done no long-term planning. The commencement date of October for this bill is absolutely, totally unrealistic. This is all because National went out on the campaign trail with rhetoric and slogans, saying it would get tough on crime. But this bill does not fix the criminal offending of young children. The title of this bill is, I suggest, quite wrong with regard to the provisions that it gives to the Youth Court. I think that we should have called the bill the “About Children and the Family Court Bill”, in light of the provisions around jurisdiction and orders that are required in order to fix the drivers of crime in our community.

So here we are crammed into urgency tonight, in absolute chaos, I have to say. There was no question time in the House today, because the Government could not bear to go under the scrutiny of the media. We are going until midnight tonight in a shambolic way; proceedings have been managed absolutely shambolically. We succeeded in moving a part in the bill that we were debating previously, and the senior Government whip quickly looked embarrassed, so the Speaker came to the House and the Government tried to fix things up. We will argue and debate this bill tonight. The commencement date is a shambles. The bill is just a farce. It is about the Government saying it will fix the issue of youth offending by October. Well, we will not have our youth justice site in Rotorua ready in October. By October Te Hurihanga will be closed down—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: By June.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK:—by June—and that is a sign that this Government is in absolute chaos about addressing criminal offending ranging from children right through the spectrum to young people who are classified as adults when they are 17 years of age.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to speak to the commencement date of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. I take it that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paula Bennett, is satisfied that the time frame allowed for this bill to come into operation is enough to do the complex development work that must be done in order to satisfy the direction that this Minister is trying to set. I have a sense that the time frame is too short. I will explain.

I say to Mr Brownlee that it may be useful for him to reflect on what it actually takes to design a new model to begin to address the complex needs of people of this nature. If everything was working, a bill like this would not need to be brought to the House. A whole new science needs to be brought together. “Wraparound services” is a term that is very easy to use. I have heard for the last 10 years, or longer, that they are what we are trying to do, and many have tried to design wraparound services and apply them to the lives of troubled young people and difficult families. In fact, many of them have been highly unsuccessful. They have been highly unsuccessful because the political masters have not allowed enough time for the complex models to be developed and tested before we subjected the lives of people who are at a vulnerable time to them. That member over there talks a lot. What is it that he is trying to say?

💬 David Garrett: The political masters over the last 10 years, when you have been saying that the system has failed, were the Labour Party.

Thank you. I heard the member and I would like him to hear me now. I wonder if that member knows how it long it took to develop the particular model of Te Hurihanga?

💬 David Garrett: No, I don’t.

Well, the member should not speak if the member is not aware. That model was one that has been shown to be successful, I say to the Minister, and it took a long time to design and put together. It is successful, yet what is the Government doing with it? I use that example only to show that these models that the Minister believes will materialise will take some considerable time to design. It will not be like the national standards, which are untested, untried, and are having a lot of problems, and will not succeed.

But this particular time frame—[Interruption]—I am reasonably informed about this, I say to Mr Lotu-Iiga. It is not possible to design a model in a short period from what will be a relatively standing start. If it were not being designed from a standing start, it would be in operation already, and it is not. The Minister will probably regret it when we bring up case after case in the coming years of failure. When we do, I hope the members sitting up the back there laughing will apologise. Indeed, that is what they will need to do. I say that to the three members—the troika—who are sitting there, the new members of the National Party, including Mr McClay and Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga. They should take the time to have the courage of their convictions and say that this October 2010 start date could not possibly be adequate to design the models, test them, resource them, and put them into operation.

The model that has been successfully operating will come to a close in June, I have been told. Fresh Start is not designed to deliver on the needs of this group of seriously needy young people or service their families. I believe the Minister ought to explain how that will be done, and in some substantive way, not just by saying that the Government has tried a little of the boot camp model somewhere, and some of it works, or that the Minister attended a graduation of some sort, therefore it will work everywhere. I think trialling something like this on the vulnerable lives of our children requires a lot more thought and a lot more time. We need some assurances that, indeed, that development time will allowed for. Therefore this particular commencement date is inadequate, because it is not easy to bring a model together; unless it is brought together carefully, it will not work.

I move, That the question be now put.

I move, That the report be adopted.