Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill

I move, That the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

The primary purpose of this omnibus bill is to give full effect to the policy to expand the youth justice jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds. This policy would be enacted by the Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017. The bill will ensure that the intent of the expanded youth justice jurisdiction is applied consistently across all criminal justice processes from 1 July 2019 through changes that are consistent with or consequential to that policy, and ensures urgent interim court orders related to custody, guardianship, or restraint are made in line with intended and established processes which will serve the best interests of the child. Minor legislative errors are also addressed through the bill. The bill makes technical and consequential amendments to 11 Acts and a related set of regulations, including the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, the Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017, the Bail Act 2000, the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The bill will come into force on 1 July 2019.

I would like to acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee for its thorough consideration of this bill. I also want to acknowledge the shortened select committee time, but the implementation date and original legislation was put in place by the previous Government, so this truncated select committee was required to meet that deadline as set by the previous Government.

The first and most substantial set of changes recommended by the committee is managing the process for related charges for 17-year-olds. From 1 July 2019, 17-year-olds charged with serious offences listed in Schedule 1A of the Oranga Tamariki Act will have these charges transferred to an adult court at first appearance. Schedule 1A comprises a list of offences which carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment or more. There is a technical issue where a 17-year-old has been charged with both a specific serious offence as well as a less serious offence. Often, these charges will be related to the same incident or series of incidents. Therefore, it makes sense for the charges to be heard together, consistent with the standard criminal procedure.

The committee made changes to the bill to ensure that related less serious charges can be heard together with the serious Schedule 1A charge in the adult court. This change keeps the interests of the young person, complainants, and witnesses at the centre of the process. It will also reduce costs by avoiding inefficiencies in the legal system and wasting court time and resources. If this change was not made, there may have been two separate proceedings to deal with alleged offending that occurred at the same time or as part of the same series of events. This could see one proceeding in the adult court for the serious charge and another in the Youth Court for the less serious charge. This would mean that complainants and witnesses may need to give evidence in two separate proceedings related to the same incident. The changes align with broad criminal procedure and allow the court to consider the full context of the alleged offending.

The committee also recommended changes to the bill that specifically provide a definition of related charges, a process to transfer the less serious charge to the adult court so it can be heard together with a related more serious charge, a process to ensure that family group conferences happen at the appropriate time, rules to prioritise the interests of children and other young people who are jointly charged with a young person who is alleged to have committed a Schedule 1A offence, appropriate management of charges where a 17-year-old has different pleas for the Schedule 1A offence and the less serious charges, and a process to ensure that if a 17-year-old is found not guilty of the serious charge, the less serious charge can be transferred back to the Youth Court for resolution. These are necessary changes to the bill. They are consistent with the policy enacted in 2017 and will improve the bill’s workability, taking into account the many different situations that may arise.

The committee recommended two changes related to the transactional provisions of the bill, and these are linked to the related charges matters I’ve just set out. The first transactional change relates to 17-year-olds with proceedings under way in the adult court on 1 July 2019. The change clarifies what happens where further charges are filed against them on or after 1 July 2019 in relation to the same incident or series of incidents. In line with the approach for related charges, the committee recommended that where the new charges are related to the same incident or series of incidents, they are joined to the charges already under way in the adult court.

The second transitional change expands the existing transitional provisions to include 18-year-olds who committed offences as 17-year-olds before 1 July 2019 but the proceedings for that offence have not started until after 1 July 2019. This change is consistent with the existing transitional provisions in the bill. These require that, where possible, 17-year-olds are given the full benefit of the extended youth justice jurisdiction if their proceedings have not started before 1 July 2019, even when their offending happened before that date.

I intend to move technical amendments via Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House stage. These amendments will further clarify language to improve both the certainty and the workability of the law for related charges. As I outlined in my first reading speech, the bill clarifies the operation of urgent interim orders that may be required in court proceedings under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. The bill also fixes drafting errors in the 2017 changes and a cross-referencing error in the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003.

This bill ensures that the expansion of the youth justice jurisdiction to include most 17-year-olds is implemented effectively and efficiently. This bill will support the judiciary, the New Zealand Police, and other key stakeholders to treat 17-year-olds consistently through all parts of the youth justice jurisdiction. The changes made to the bill following the select committee’s consideration further support these objectives, and I thank them again. I commend the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill to the House.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you. I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill, and at the outset, I want to indicate that from National, we will be supporting this bill. Firstly, we want to commend the Minister, the Hon Tracey Martin, for the work that she has conducted in regards to continuing on the work previously under the Hon Anne Tolley as well. As she has rightly indicated, it’s a work that was much needed. It was a transformation of the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act and hence on to the Oranga Tamariki Act as well.

I can remember being in the meetings at the Dingle trust over in Dilworth where a number of young people talked about extending the age of care but also the age within the youth jurisdiction and in the youth justice jurisdiction and the importance of that to include 17-year-olds up until the age of 18. So it’s been consistent in that process. As we did previously, we’ve extended the age of care up through from 17 to 18, and it was only right that we also then extend that age threshold up to the age of 18 in youth justice as well. So this bill is consistent with, though, that intent, and that’s critically important.

The key aspect of this bill is to tighten up the legislation, particularly around the procedures and processes relating to 17-year-olds within this youth justice jurisdiction. As I indicated previously, under a National-led Government, it transformed the outlook for children, and that was quite critically important, as we’ve heard as well. Many of the children talked about the need to still have support in that process of transition, and we’ll talk a bit more about that transition process as well. Also too, it’s finishing off the work to be completed by 1 July, as the Minister has indicated.

The purpose of the changes in 2017, obviously, was to ensure vulnerable children and young people have the best chance to have a safe, stable, and loving home, which will help them grow into successful, independent adults. I think that’s critically important. So while the changes and amendments are technical, the underlying principle is that we want them to have that stability. I know, previously, when we’ve had the expert advisory panel and when they talked about this, one of the critical issues under Whakarongo Mai and that the rangatahi that had been through this process, both in care and in youth justice, actually talked about was having a stable process to help transition them through their life journey. I think this is critically important, and we mustn’t forget that, as well.

A majority of the reforms of the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act under the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill do come into force and include related charges for those 17-year-olds within the youth justice jurisdiction.

I do want to again indicate, as the Minister said, this was to take effect on 1 July 2019. I however do have to—and we’ve always said this; I know the Minister’s smiling there—say it’s just about the timing. And you sure know this. It’s in our departmental report and also too in the Social Services and Community Committee report. We were just a bit disappointed, to say the least, about the fact that it’s legislation we would have supported anyway—and we still are—but we just sort of wondered, with the time frame that we had, with such important legislation, why does it take so long? I’m not going to overstate it, but I’m just going to keep putting it back on the record. I just think—and I know the Minister would agree as well—we just needed to get on with it and get it done, but now we’re having to rush that process.

I do want to say, though, this is becoming a bit of a trend in other bits of legislation. So I thought, well, hang on, just pause for a moment. Let’s just have a see whether this legislation is a trend with other parts. So the average process—most people in the House will know—is around about six months. That’s 182.5 days. That’s the average process. Now, it can differ in there. So the average of that would be around 130-140 days. But it is disappointing that we are seeing a trend here—that we are seeing a trend.

If I think about the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill, which was for just cause, that was six days. The Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill—now, that had to be rushed through; why, because there was a drafting error last year—20 days. Let’s look at the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill—29 days; Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill—33 days; Families Commission Act Repeal Bill—51 days.

I can go on—I won’t, because then you’ll tell me that I’m going outside of the scope. I just want to make a point that this is becoming a little bit shoddy, and I just want to say to the members of the House they’d be saying exactly the same thing to us. If there is a pattern that’s emerging, then that’s actually important, because you have to give trust and confidence to the people that are out there who have actually elected us into roles of responsibilities. I’m not going to labour the point—sorry for the pun, Mr Assistant Speaker—but I will say that I just think it’s really important, if it is significant pieces of legislation like this, then let’s just get it done in time. You wouldn’t have had any arguments from this side. We would have supported it absolutely through the whole process. The only one key point that we just had a point of contention with is why did it have to be rushed in such a short time frame?

In the time that I have, I just want to point out a few of the technical areas that I think are really important—and especially for those who are out there in voter land that will be listening on their TVs tonight—about the significance of this bill and the importance of it. So I look forward to the committee of the whole House, where the Supplementary Order Paper 247 will be put on to the Table, just to clarify some of the technical and minor changes as well. I won’t go through those, because they’ll be in the committee stage.

I do want to talk about what comes out of the select committee report. There were some proposed amendments, which I think are critically important and I just want to state for the listeners that are out there. So the 2017 Act differentiates between two types of offences for 17-year-olds: Schedule 1A, which is specific serious offences, and non - Schedule 1A, less serious offences. Now, this is an important point, because a number of the submitters talked about this. If there were offences for those that were minors—those were youth and young people—were they still going to be able to go through an appropriate process to have a judicial process? So the answer is yes. For those offences that are Schedule 1A, which would have a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, then those offences will be then elevated to an adult court as well, in that process.

Where some of the challenges are that I think are really important are where in some cases there are complexities where there are both Schedule 1A and non - Schedule 1A offences. Again, according to the bill, it’s been amended so that it will allow for both of those charges to be taken up and heard in one court hearing, which will be in the adult court, which means that, again, it actually has greater efficiencies that we think are critically important as well.

The Oranga Tamariki Act will not consistently allow related charges for 17-year-olds to be heard with a Schedule 1A charge in the adult courts. This means there was a risk that two separate processes would be required to deal with the alleged offending that occurred at the same time as a series of related incidences or against the same person. The committee does not believe that it is in the best interests of the young person and complainants or witnesses to undergo a separate court proceeding for the same incident or of serious incidences as well.

We are looking forward to the committee stage. We do support this bill through its process and into its completion. We look forward to its implementation. I want to say that the one thing that will be the role and responsibility of being in Opposition is ensuring that there is the capacity and capability to deal with those changes. I know we’ve had some reassurances on the other side. We look forward to them. The only reason we’d be holding that to account is because we don’t want to have the unintended consequences of young people falling through the cracks, falling through the system, and the very intent that we’ve talked about in this bill, which is to provide an appropriate transition process, a safe and stable environment, we think that’s critically important. So it’s to that end we will support this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. The very nature of this particular bill is very technical. I want to touch on a particular kaupapa. In the last 12 months, I attended a kaupapa on the marae in Kaikohe, which was a partnership between Oranga Tamariki, the Department of Corrections, and the Ngāpuhi rūnanga. It was a significant initiative because it actually looked at ways that we work with young offenders to make sure that they don’t fall into the recidivist pattern of offending. This particular legislation actually brings all of those facets into line. It has been tricky. It’s been running alongside a significant review of the judicial system, more broadly speaking. But, in particular with the age group that we’re talking about in this bill, it is very technical in nature, and we want to make sure—as Mr Ngaro has already mentioned in the House—that those young people and their families have the best opportunity to make sure that they can lead fulfilling lives, and that is the ultimate underpinning of this particular bill.

So the technical nature has already been touched on by the Minister. She covered it quite clear with Schedule 1A and around the convictions. We have to understand that this amends 11 Acts and related sets of regulations, including the Oranga Tamariki Act, the Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act, the Bail Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. That, by definition, is technical. So to bring it all in line to align with the policies that we have for our young people to give them the best chance is important.

The bill will ensure the intent of the expanded youth justice jurisdiction, which Mr Ngaro touched on very briefly. It applies across all criminal justice processes from 1 July 2019, and we might consider that. As Mr Ngaro has said, he talked about some six months or so before this particular bill has come here and other ones have gone through in a truncated process. I think, actually—and I want to commend the Minister, Minister Martin, for her work in lining up all of these ducks—it has been difficult, it has been challenging, but she’s driven by the purpose of making sure that this works for all the people that it’s intended to, which is why this is a significant policy move, and I want to acknowledge the Minister and the work she’s done on this.

The urgent interim court orders related to custody, guardianship, or restraint are made in line with intended and established processes which will serve the best interests of the child. That’s where we must always remember, as Minister for Whānau Ora, putting whānau and the children at the forefront of policy decision-making like this is how we should be operating. I too look forward to the progression of this bill right to its completion and once again thank the Minister for leading this particular piece of work, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. As my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro has said, this was a piece of work that was started in the previous Government and is being continued by the Minister for Children, the Hon Tracey Martin. So National members will be supporting this legislation in the second reading, but I want to just reinforce some of the points that my colleague made about the timing. Part of it is, you know, it’s been signalled for a very long time that these significant changes to Oranga Tamariki in a whole range of areas come into force on 1 July this year. It’s 11 June, and we’re on the second reading of a piece of legislation that will be enacted and comes into force on 1 July, which is pretty concerning.

I was actually just listening to the speaker before me, the Hon Peeni Henare, who talked about the fact that this legislation that we are discussing today amends 11 pieces of legislation and the related regulations, so it is particularly complex. To have a situation where the process through the House is a shortened one makes it that much more challenging to ensure that we fulfil our responsibility as legislators and put good legislation into the House. So I don’t accept the Hon Tracey Martin’s comment that it was the previous Government’s fault that this is a shortened report back. When she became a Minister, when she came into office in 2017, this time frame for 1 July 2019 was well known. So in terms of getting legislation ready in a timely manner and into the House to enable a select committee process, to enable sufficient scrutiny of the legislation, I actually don’t think is too much to ask for. So I do want to put that criticism to the House.

My colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro actually went through a number of examples to demonstrate that this is now becoming quite a repeated exercise for the Government in their legislative programme. You know, I accept that some of the other pieces of legislation weren’t quite as complex as this one, but what really struck me in the select committee process for this particular piece of legislation is the number of changes that were recommended in the select committee process by officials. For those people who are watching the debate or listening to it who perhaps might not have been party to what happens in a select committee process, the legislation is drafted, then, based on submissions that the public make, the bill can be amended or improved, which is good news. In this case, though, a significant number of changes come from officials themselves, and the concern that I and other members had with that on our side of the House is, actually, why hadn’t this work been done earlier, and why had those recommendations been kind of left to what feels like, on 11 June, the 11th hour?

So we’re not debating the merit of this piece of legislation and the policy behind it, which, of course, we introduced, which basically means that the age is lifted for those who are before the youth justice system. That’s fantastic—basically, you know, significant changes around procedures and processes related to 17-year-olds within the youth justice jurisdiction. But where the concern is is the number of changes so late in the piece, and I do hope—I do hope—that we’ve got it all right, for two big reasons. A lot of this focus is around the young people themselves and their experience in the justice system. But, actually, I also want to make sure that for the victims of the crimes that these young people committed, it is now right—that in the 11 pieces of legislation that we have amended and that we are on the second reading for today, we got it right. I sincerely hope, given the time pressures involved for the victims of those acts, that there isn’t a gap, there isn’t a mistake. That’s why process is important. That’s why the ability for scrutiny of the legislation, not in a rushed time frame, is so important.

Some of the areas of change that we talked about—the Minister went through some of them—were around the process of joint charges with another person, for example. You know, it sounds all very technical. The word being used—that this is, you know, “technical” changes—actually, I disagree with; some of these are quite significant. So, basically, the Oranga Tamariki Act currently allows children and young people to be tried jointly with adults. Part of it is making sure that children and young people are dealt with in the Youth Court as much as possible. The intention is to keep the proceedings in the Youth Court when none of the co-defendants choose trial by jury, and that includes the adults who have been charged with an offence equivalent to an offence listed in Schedule 1A, which is the serious offending. But the point I want to be clear about is, you know, for most people, the process of how the justice system works and the joint charges with another person—whether it’s a family group conference that can be suspended, whether it’s one trial or two—at the end of the day, yes, it has to serve the young person that’s before the justice system, but we have to make sure that every single process is concluded so that we don’t ever have a situation where the victim of that crime feels as if they’re the one that’s been hard done by.

It’s been really interesting, because just in the last week the Government has been talking about the fact that the justice system is failing victims. So, you know, when we have a process that’s rushed, with legislation like this Oranga Tamariki legislation, it is a concern, and I think it’s important to note, that we do get it right. You know, the Minister’s gone through a lot of the changes and talked about how important they are for the young people themselves—I agree with that, which is why we introduced the policy change in the first place. But the justice system equally has to work for the victims of that crime. That’s where all of the changes that occurred in the select committee process—and just referring to the departmental report that the select committee worked off. Twelve of the recommendations are completely new ones—completely new recommendations that came from officials. That’s actually a lot in a select committee process. So it is important that the ability for—well, actually, the public don’t get to scrutinise those because it happens after the bill was originally drafted. Those changes weren’t in the original bill, so the public don’t get to make a submission on that. Had there been more work done in the original piece of legislation, we perhaps wouldn’t be in this position.

As I said, the bill comes in on 1 July. We’re sitting at 11 June, so there’s not many days, and there’s a significant—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Whose legislation was it originally?

—Supplementary Order Paper in the name of—well, actually, this Government’s been in place for, what, 20 months now? Plenty of time to be able to work on the legislation, make sure it’s correct, bring it to the House in a timely manner, and not reduce the opportunity for public scrutiny. But they don’t like hearing that. It’s really unfortunate. Time and time again, the Government arrogantly jams legislation through the House with either no select committee process or a minor one—which, actually, is poor, poor practice—and doesn’t allow sufficient public scrutiny. I’m hoping we’re not back here in a few months’ time to fix yet another piece of legislation.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to make a contribution at the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. I just want to begin my contribution by addressing a few points made by the member who’s just resumed her seat, Hon Louise Upston, who talked about the poor process, the rushed process, and she said—and I quote—“It’s important to note that we do get it right.” I just want to remind the member that this process has resulted because that member’s Government—the previous Government—brought in a law with absolutely no regard to the implications that that law would have on a number of pieces of legislation. So, if that member stands up—and to her colleagues who have stood up in the House and talked about poor process—I say to them on that side of the House: practise what you preach. You should have got it right in the first place.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Don’t bring me into the debate.

They should have got it right in the first place, and then we wouldn’t be here having to fix this before a law that they enacted has to come into play on 1 July. So it’s just a little bit rich when members opposite stand up and talk about the lack of process around this piece of legislation.

However—and I say this for those who may be watching—by and large the process that we undertook in select committee was actually robust. It was constructive, and I’ve got to thank, at this point, officials because there were quite a few technical pieces to this bill. I want to thank officials for their patience in going through all those little bits with us so that we could actually fulfil our responsibilities, which members on the other side of the House have alluded to.

Now, the decision to raise the upper age of the youth justice jurisdiction was already made; that was made by a piece of legislation that was passed in 2017. As my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare said in his contribution as well, we must bear in mind that, at the heart of this omnibus bill, which gives full effect to that policy to expand the youth justice jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds, is young offenders and the fact that all of us in this House want to make sure that the policy that relates to them is consistently applied. That is the crux of the bill that has just gone through the select committee process and that we are here debating at its second reading.

As I mentioned previously, there are a few technical points to this bill as well, and I just want to go into the changes that were recommended by the select committee, because, of course, this is a second reading and that’s what the focus should be on. There were some specific changes to the bill that were suggested and that the select committee report includes as well, just so that this policy can actually operate in the smoothest possible way. One issue that we spent quite a bit of time discussing at select committee was the technical issue where a 17-year-old has been charged with both a specified serious offence as well as a less serious offence. Actually, we went through quite a few different permutations and combinations of the various types of charges, the various scenarios, the different ages of people, the different people who might be involved in the same incident or same series of incidents as well.

Often, charges will be related, as I mentioned, to the same incident or same group of incidents, and so there was a lot of thought that was put into ensuring that there was a consistent or a standard criminal justice process procedure that resulted. That reduces costs by avoiding inefficiencies within the legal system so that we don’t waste court time and resources as well, but also ensures that complainants and witnesses who ordinarily may need to give evidence in two separate proceedings related to the same incident would no longer need to. So, as I mentioned previously, lots of different permutations and combinations that we went through—transitional provisions and changes related to that, which were discussed through the select committee process as well.

I also just want to thank the submitters who put in some written submissions to this bill. As with many bills around Oranga Tamariki or the broader social development space, many people who submit actually talk about their personal stories and their experiences. Sometimes it’s a little bit outside the scope of the bill, but I still want to thank those who took the time and made the effort to actually share with us stories that were very personal to them as well.

Many points have been made about the technical changes to this bill. All I want to do is commend the Minister and, once again, the officials of Oranga Tamariki for their time and their patience with us. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak to the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill tonight at its second reading. Back in 2017, the then National-led Government introduced and passed the Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. That was a truly transformational piece of work, and this bill simply follows on from that work that was set in place. It’s an omnibus bill and, by its very nature, impacts on several other Acts—we’ve heard tonight 11 or 12 of those other Acts and some regulations. The minor changes to those other Acts are mainly because of the references to the term “young persons” or “young person” as it appears in those other Acts—as well as also amending some of the references around bail, the taking of and retaining of bodily samples, plus some transitional provisions about the jurisdiction that will apply depending on the date that this bill is enacted.

For instance, for a 17-year-old with proceedings under way in a District Court on 1 July 2019—next month—proceedings will continue in that court, including for any related charges that may be brought or filed on or after that date. So, for instance, if this is an offence that has being referred to the District Court now and other charges are laid in relation to that offence, they will continue to be heard in the District Court or the High Court.

The purpose of this bill is to bring 17-year-olds into the youth justice system, and that, as we’ve heard tonight, is something that’s very non-contentious across this House—in fact, is supported by the National Party. The direction of travel was in fact strongly recommended by Judge Andrew Becroft, our now Children’s Commissioner, and it aligns also very well with UNROC, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, who referred in our report back to UNROC in 2016 that this was in fact a very suitable move for New Zealand to be taking. This work, as I’ve said, is a continuation of the work of the National-led Government back in 2017, when we did make those massive changes to the way that we deal with our young people, and those changes now see us with Oranga Tamariki, the organisation that’s responsible for the wellbeing of our children, especially our children that are at risk, our youth offenders, and children in State care.

It’s very pleasing to see this legislation being put in place now to ensure that our under-18s—our 17-year-olds—are no longer being dealt with in the adult criminal justice system but are now being dealt with in the youth justice system. By dealing with them within the youth justice system, it does give the system another opportunity to wrap around the services and the support that these young people need. It gives them another chance at changing the direction of their lives, because it is not a very healthy outcome for them to be dealt with in the adult court system and, indeed, in the prison system.

The Social Services and Community Committee received 13 submissions and, as we heard from the previous speaker, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, almost half of those were out of scope. Even for the ones within scope, some of the comments that were made in those submissions were out of scope. But, as the previous speaker has mentioned, it was an opportunity for people to voice their thoughts and provide their feedback, and we certainly value the contribution that they did make.

We’ve heard articulated very well by the Hon Louise Upston earlier about the number of changes that were made to the bill during the select committee process. And as we saw, the departmental report produced and delivered to the select committee—I did take note that it was a truly collaborative effort and cross-agency and I thought that was very indicative of the philosophy behind Oranga Tamariki, that it is indeed cross-agency. So we saw the Ministry of Justice and the New Zealand Police working with Oranga Tamariki in preparing the final report to the select committee.

One of the issues that I did have with this process and the changeover to the new system, which was questioned during the select committee process, was the capability and capacity of the system to cope with the extra workload that is coming on 1 July. We were given absolute assurance—in fact, “absolutely” was the word that was used when I asked the question. So we have faith that the system is well prepared to take on the extra workload that will be coming as a result of this law change on 1 July.

But it has brought up the questions around the legislative programme of this Government and why it is that we are constantly dealing with truncated processes, when, in fact, at any time over the last 20 months this piece of legislation could have been debated in this House, but here we are with the implementation date only three weeks away and we are still only in the second reading. So we were given good assurance that the system will be ready to cope.

There were some technical parts of this bill that did receive a lot of attention from the select committee members. And, as we heard from the Hon Alfred Ngaro earlier, the Schedule 1 offences, being at the high end of offending and those that would normally attract a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment—so at the very high end of offending. Now, some members of the public may have thought that by bringing 17-year-olds into the youth justice system, this may have been a way of being soft on crime. But, actually, those Schedule 1 offences will still be heard if they are committed by a 17-year-old. They will still be heard in the District Court or perhaps the High Court.

There is an exception to that Schedule 1A offending if it’s committed by a 17-year-old and they are jointly charged with a young person or child. We did have to give some consideration to how those two cases should be dealt with, and it was agreed that the proceeding remain in the Youth Court should the 17-year-old be jointly charged with a Schedule 1A offence. The reason was that in that scenario it would save the duplication of effort in running two separate courts, the Youth Court and the District or High Court, but it was also better that we had the defendants and we had the witnesses also only having to be involved in one process. So if the offender does commit other related offences to the Schedule 1A offence—so, for instance, they’re charged with a Schedule 1A offence and then other minor charges—those minor charges will also be heard at the same time in the District Court or High Court. So there is no separation of the charges where a Schedule 1A offence is involved.

I thought it would be relevant to mention a report that was done by Judge Andrew Becroft, the Children’s Commissioner. Out of his report I note the following, and I quote, “To be involved in the Youth Court is daily to confront young offenders, almost all of whom are not part of the education system. … anecdotally it is thought that up to 65-70% of offenders in the Youth Court (and only the most serious 20% of offending results in Youth Court charges) are not formally ‘engaged’ with the education system. … Technically, many are not truants, because they are not meaningfully enrolled at a secondary school to be a truant from. They are simply not in the formal education system. They are drifting. They are between schools. They may have been excluded, are not now enrolled elsewhere, or are awaiting placement in alternative education. Or they have drifted out of alternative education and are waiting for a course, seeking employment, or sadly, and too often, simply doing nothing”.

This bill is only one piece of a much bigger puzzle, but it does give these 17-year-olds another chance, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m grateful for the opportunity to stand on behalf of the Green Party to support the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill, to offer a short speech. Most of the changes have been canvassed by members across the House tonight. But I think it’s important, as the only Green Party speech, to be clear, firstly and briefly, that the proposed legislation is to fix three main issues, in the large: firstly, to fix legislative errors related to interim orders in the Oranga Tamariki legislation; secondly, consequential amendments that were missed when previous changes were made to raise the upper range of the youth justice jurisdiction to 17 years old; and, thirdly, to address some minor drafting errors in the 2017 Act and the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003.

Putting that up front, I did also think that I would acknowledge one of the main Social Services and Community Committee’s changes that came through from submissions that were made, which included an instance or a hypothetical where, from 1 July 2019, 17-year-olds charged with serious offences—listed in Schedule 1A of the Oranga Tamariki Act—will have these charges transferred to an adult court at first appearance. The committee made changes to the bill to ensure that related less serious charges can be heard together, and that’s just about consistency and efficiency.

There was some earlier comment, which I thought I would include in my contribution to offer perhaps a perspective that hasn’t quite been put up yet, about wanting to make sure that we keep the impact on victims at the centre of this good justice process, and I completely agree. Ensuring efficient and consistent processes is also ensuring easier streamlined processes for victims and their families as well. So the Greens do stand specifically in support of those select committee changes that came through.

I did want to add to my contribution that in actual fact this Government was long, shall I say, chastised by the United Nations for not having 17-year-olds included in the youth justice definition. So this is actually long past time that we are finally putting this into place. We had been on notice continuously, reporting period after reporting period, for this being the case, so I’m glad to see that. But research into cognitive and emotional intelligence abilities actually says that that development continues right into the 20s. So I think I’m just adding a point of difference flavour for the Green Party—that we acknowledge that in actual fact the same amount of close support that is offered to the youth justice people appearing before the youth justice system could actually go further, just to make sure that we are providing good support for people in that cognitive, emotional development phase.

Lastly, I wanted to acknowledge that this bill is technical. It has a narrower focus, picking up on those three main things that I’ve already outlined, but I did want to put on notice that even as of today, after having spoken to the Minister, other issues around the work of Oranga Tamariki and particularly the wellbeing of tamariki Māori is happening alongside legislative changes, and it came through in ministerial commitments to the Budget as well as her commitments in terms of practice, and I am continuing to support her in that work as well. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

It’s with pleasure that I rise to take this call in the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. This is a good example of cross-party support for issues that often transcend our political colours, and this one is one of them. I’m pleased to say that National started the process of social welfare reform alongside the Māori Party in the last term, and the result was a shift to focus on the most valuable, the most vulnerable members of our society—our children, our tamariki.

The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017 was a comprehensive piece of legislation that took the focus away from welfare and moved it to a care-based approach focused on the wellbeing of our children, because oranga—wellbeing—is what we sought. Our view was to move the power of decision making back to those that were best placed to make good decisions for our at-risk whānau and tamariki, and that is, of course, whānau—the family-focused approach. Too often, the subtlety is lost on those seeking to make political gain on the back of our most vulnerable whānau. We sought to move from a dependency model to an empowered model. That approach would include better measurements of outcomes, stronger input from whānau, and a greater focus on positive outcomes for tamariki.

The Act also focused on the less pleasant things with our tamariki—our children—and that is criminal offending. Even in these situations, we are dealing with vulnerable young people. This bill tightens up legislation, particularly around procedures and processes relating to 17-year-olds within the youth justice jurisdiction. It is a sad fact that our dependency-based approach to family wellbeing has led to dissociation, disillusionment, and a sense of hopelessness amongst our youth. This is reflected in the sad statistics we have around youth offending, and it is necessary that we address youth offending, both from a restorative perspective and an accountability perspective.

Supplementary Order Paper 247, in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin, which is before us today, deals with accountability for youth who find themselves in the criminal justice system. It looks specifically at managing criminal charges for 17-year-old youth. Where a youth has committed a Schedule 1A offence punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment or more, the Oranga Tamariki Act does not easily allow related charges—for example, non - Schedule 1A offences—for 17-year-olds to be heard alongside the very serious Schedule 1A offences. These Schedule 1A offences are automatically transferred from the Youth Court to the District Court or the High Court, yet less serious related charges may still have to be heard at the Youth Court. This sees the untenable situation arise where a youth may face two separate hearings for a related series of charges.

The Social Services and Community Committee does not believe that it is in the best interests of the young person, complainants, or witnesses to undergo separate court proceedings for the same incident or series of incidents. Hearing charges separately could also substantially affect court time and resources.

Proposed amendments will allow the Youth Court to send related charges to the adult courts to be heard alongside any Schedule 1A charges, and it will, equally, allow adult courts to refer charges back to the Youth Court, where appropriate. The proposed new section 276AA(6) in new clause 4G assists greatly in defining related charges. The proposed amendments also suspend family group conferences, should Schedule 1A charges apply. At first glance, this may seem harsh or counter to what we all hope to achieve by having family group conferences for our youth—namely, better accountability and buy-in from all affected parties—but the proposal is sensible. The hearing of Schedule 1A charges and related non - schedule charges will be determined by an adult court where family group conferences do not apply.

It would not seem sensible to try family group conferences where outcomes from them would be superseded by the adult court’s findings in relation to the more serious charges a youth faces. Therefore, inserting new clause 4B, which inserts new section 247A to specify when family group conferences would have to be suspended or would not be required is a pragmatic enhancement to the Act. There is also greater clarity where a youth is found not guilty of a Schedule 1A charge but pleads guilty to lesser, non - schedule charges. The proposed new clause 4H, amending new section 276A, allows greater ease. Where charges have a guilty plea or verdict, they can be transferred back to the Youth Court, where it is in the interests of justice for this to occur.

Overall, this gives full effect to aspects of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017 by seeking to ensure that the benefits of the policy to include 17-year-olds in the youth justice jurisdiction are fully realised. It does this by amending legislation to ensure that the extended youth justice jurisdiction is applied consistently across the justice system. The inclusion of 17-year-olds in the youth jurisdiction will take effect on 1 July 2019. It addresses drafting errors in the 2017 Act, including unintentional provisions relating to interim court orders, and it does this by making a consequential amendment to the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003 to correct a cross-referencing error. All these matters require enactment before 1 July 2019 to ensure amendments made by the 2017 Act are consistent with the policy intent.

On this side of the House, given it’s a very technical bill, we would have preferred more time to scrutinise this through the select committee process and to have allowed more time for members of our community to make submissions and to have had their voices heard on this very technical bill. But, ultimately, this is the direction that the National Party was moving in to, and we would not want to hinder this. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call. I call Greg O’Connor—five minutes.

I must compliment the previous speaker, Agnes Loheni, for pointing out, as she did, that this bill is fixing drafting errors from the 2017 changes. It’s good that someone on that side of the House has reminded those at home that this is actually a drafting error which is being fixed here today. Of course, being an irony-free zone over there, when there has been so much made of the odd drafting error made on this side of the House, it’s good to see that that irony-free zone-ness doesn’t preclude them from mentioning it; so, well done to that previous speaker.

The essence of this bill, of course, is around moving 17-year-olds into the youth jurisdiction. The debate at the time of the legislation was to ensure that this didn’t become an opportunity for adult offenders, particularly gangs, to do what they do with 16-year-olds now, which is to use 16-year-olds, knowing that the punishments around them and the regime around them will be lesser than for adult offenders. So that’s why it’s so important that when we look at the bill, that everything is done and that that doesn’t become the case. Particularly, I know the frustration in the past of dealing with offenders of different ages who were being dealt with in different jurisdictions and where they had lawyers who saw the advantages of being able to have two cases, witnesses, and being able to actually lay the blame off against a co-offender who might have been appearing in another jurisdiction. So that was why it became very important for those who didn’t quite understand what we’re doing here, that where there is an offender charged with a Schedule 1A offence, that that offence will be heard in the adult court despite whatever the age of the offender at the time. That’s very important, particularly for victims, because the last thing we want to do is have victims not only have to give evidence twice but also the possibility of, again, lawyers being able to lay blame off to other jurisdictions.

The other part of the bill that is very important, of course, is what happened in the transition. When any law is passed or changed, there will always be necessary transition; what happened with an offender who was arrested for a crime and went into the system, when, in fact, that person is 18 and the offence was committed when they were 17. So it’s important that the 17-year-old will actually be given the benefit of being able to remain in the youth jurisdiction, where the proceedings only began when they were 17-year-olds. So, again, this is an important part of this bill, to ensure that everything does gel and that the implications of having 17-year-olds now remaining in the youth jurisdiction do, firstly, not become an opportunity but, secondly, results in fair treatment for all, particularly the victims. So I commend this bill to the House.

Mr Assistant Speaker, good evening, tēnā koe, magandang gabi. It’s a privilege to take a short call. This is my first time to speak. I express our support for the bill. The omnibus bill provides for a further definition, a finishing-off of the Oranga Tamariki legislation of 2017 by the National Party. At that time, the legislation was a major effort towards change, a programme that was built for a more child-centred and care and protection - focused system. The object was to prevent trauma and to provide early intervention as much as possible. This was part of the National Government - led programme and efforts to better understand the lives of the more vulnerable people, our young people.

This helps the Government to help change the lives of young people and help them with opportunities to improve. The honourable Minister Tracey Martin has done very good work on this and has already clearly read through the bill and the notes of the bill. It provides for a criteria and consistency for providing 17-year-olds with the opportunity to remain in the youth justice system, which is a big, big help for them. Instead of being pushed into charges in the adult courts, they are allowed to elect to stay within the youth justice system or elect to be tried by a jury—but it is still at their election, which is empowering to them.

I think that the bill is especially laudable and praiseworthy for the fact that not only does it prevent the risk of processes being done twice and all the persons involved—the complainant, the witnesses, the families of the complainant, and the accused themselves—to relive the processing of the offence.

As a formerly practising lawyer for many years, I do understand that oftentimes the damage that’s done of going through the process of the court system—while it is there for everyone’s betterment, the trauma that it does to everyone that goes through it is extreme, and that this bill seeks to avoid that is very, very good.

So apart from the fact that it does provide for efficiency, timing, declogs the courts, and all that, I would like to point out that the main valuable contribution that it does is really the fact that it avoids further trauma and provides our young people with the opportunity to have a bit of control over the destiny that they have and that they face. For these reasons, I happily support the bill and commend the bill to the House.

It’s an absolute privilege to stand in this House to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. I know in the very brief time that I have I’m going to keep it brief.

The youth justice principle is about holding the young person to account. This bill includes 17-year-olds. So when you first appear in court, if you are charged with a Schedule 1A offence, which I might note will only come into effect on 1 July, and if you have other less-serious charges, what the Youth Court does is (1) appoints a duty youth advocate, which is a lawyer, in the language of the Youth Court, and (2) Schedule 1A will transfer the charges to the District Court. On a lesser charge, if it was held today, it will remain in the Youth Court. What that means is that the court then adjourns that matter, if the young person does not deny the charge, to a family group conference for a later date. So now we are in two courts: we’re in the Youth Court and then we’re in the adult court; one lawyer there, one lawyer here, and different dates.

The young person goes that way with all its supports under the Youth Court and then he or she travels that journey in terms of the support with the adult court. It is a common-sense approach that the last Government did not put into practice. So, really, what this is is just to remind the House that youth justice is about holding young people to account but at the same time provide the support system to assist them not to reoffend. In that sense, I just want to say that Schedule 1A comes into effect on 1 July, and speeding up the process will make sure that due process and due accountability is supported and held for young people, whether they’re in the Youth Court or the District Court. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I’m delighted to take a call. Look, I was so hoping that the honourable member who’s just taken her seat would just elaborate a little bit further on why she personally was enthusiastic about the bill.

💬 Hon Member: Pronounce her name.

Anahila? Anahila’s great. Even though she might be on the other side of the House—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members should use the full name.

That is true—that is true.

💬 Hon Member: Do it.

No, no, actually, I won’t, not because of any disrespect for that member but because she might theoretically try to compete with me in Tāmaki. I can’t give her any advertising.

Now, look, this is a good bill. National is keen to support it—

Say her name.

—but there are a couple of aspects—[Interruption]. That’s right. There are a couple of aspects—I think a member on that other side, maybe of an eponymous name as myself, is having a bit of a moment or a turn.

This is a bill that this side of the House supports, but I think it’s important in the second reading that we, once again, put on the record our concern that this has been too fast.

I certainly acknowledge, as the speaker who has taken her seat has noted—with such an honourable name—that 1 July is when this has to come into effect. While this side of the House acknowledges this and will work, obviously, as we have done, our point of protest, for want of a better word, is that this could’ve been introduced to the House earlier. This piece of legislation is not new. National has always supported it. The changes that needed to be made, including those drafting errors which members have noted, we were already aware of. I suppose that’s our basic principle: this could have been introduced much earlier. It could’ve gone through a more rigorous select committee process.

It’s one of my concerns, particularly in this social services space—and I’m sorry it harps on to a theme of the past—we’ve seen many mistakes which have entered into social services legislation, and particularly in this Parliament, and we’ve had to come back and fix them. I’m more than happy to admit the mistakes that have come through the original drafting. When they are raced through to be amended in this fashion, there is a higher risk that either more mistakes will happen or we’ll have overlooked other mistakes.

Look, this is an omnibus bill, as has been noted. I think it’s probably important particularly for Ruth Dyson to note what an omnibus bill encompasses around this, so I’m going to take my time for that honourable member. An omnibus bill, this one—obviously, the principal Act is the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. That’s a rename, of course. It used to be the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, but the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill 2017 renamed that. We have the Bail Act 2000, which was very memorable—not to me; I wasn’t here but, I’m sure, for some honourable members—and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017. Being an omnibus bill, it also is dealing with the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003, the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

While touching on some of these, and there are some others to come, why it’s particularly relevant, as has been heard by a number of other speakers, is that this is primarily a piece of legislation—sorry, a bill; it’s not legislation yet—that’s dealing with our 17-year-olds and how they will be dealt with in the criminal justice system. Importantly, the criminal justice system and the way it operates is not in a single piece of legislation; it moves across many. Through this particular omnibus bill, which I think is a very efficacious and effective way of dealing with things, we’re able to move changes throughout these bills.

The flip side to this—and I’m pleased we’ve avoided it and commend the Minister for this, otherwise we’d have had to go through and amend 12 or so pieces of individual legislation, and that would really slow down the House. As this speech clearly indicates, I’m really never keen to slow down important pieces of legislation.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015, the Sentencing Act 2002, the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act 2014—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: What does it do to that Act?

The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act? Again, it’s important on that one. It’s really good the Minister is asking what it does. I’m a bit concerned; the Minister proposing the bill should know. I’m disappointed. I have immense respect for that member. Fundamentally, of course, a victim’s order is that the person who’s been offended against has an opportunity, if you will, to speak to or against—depending on what word you want to use—the violent offender. So this, particularly when it comes to Schedule 1A, the delineation between what are serious and non-serious—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Excellent, well done!

Look, it is wonderful. I’m pleased the Minister is taking notes. That’s really good. The Sentencing Act 2002, the Victims’ Rights Act 2002—probably something that could’ve dealt with a little bit more discussion there, actually. It’s something I think all sides of this House are very much focused on, the rights of victims. We’re not going to get the chance—or maybe we will, in the committee of the whole House—to make sure that the rights of victims are not undermined in this way because we’ve moved a 17-year-old into the youth justice space. Finally, we’ve got the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Regulations 2004, and these themselves are building on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995.

So, look, it’s an enormous amount of legislation, and, yep, I read through them a little bit ad nauseam, but what’s important to illustrate is why it is important not to rush a select committee process. Each of these pieces of legislation have been amended in small—and in some cases, substantial—ways, and I’m always just a little nervous in this House that in order to fix the mistakes, rushing to do so will cause us problems down the line.

Obviously, the select committee took the little time it was given prudently—13 people and/or groups spoke and we now have, well, a changed bill in front of us and, importantly too, a fairly substantial Supplementary Order Paper No 247 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin.

Look, a number of colleagues have touched on what are the key aspects. Fundamentally, the principle at play here is that someone who is 17 should preferentially go through the youth justice system. I overall agree with that, I think it’s a prudent approach. I think it’s equally prudent that we’re separating out those very serious offences so that they remain in the adult court. But if I was to use a personal anecdote, having visited often, of my own free and voluntary will, the old Mt Eden prison, one of the things that always struck me, particularly working in the youth yards, was that young people would come in—yes, having committed crimes—to a fairly soulless place, a damaging place to them as individuals, and, importantly in this context, they were often then in touch with very professional career criminals. At the end of their particular sentence, at a young age, they would come out not only young—perhaps, arguably, more broken, maybe a little bit retrospect on the decisions they’d made—but, again, importantly for this context, they came out slightly more professional in their crimes than when they started.

So for me personally, the longer we can keep them out of the adult court and, in effect, the adult sentences, the better. So I think that’s an incredibly positive—look, separating out the nature of the offences is quite important. I don’t think New Zealanders at large would agree with a wholesale pass, if you will, of young people to the youth court for all offences, so I think that’s positive. Fundamentally, this was something that National, in the previous Government, was looking to exercise, so we’re not completely—well, we agree with primarily everything that’s here.

Suspending family group conferences, that’s prudent I think—quite practical, Minister. What’s happening there—again, if there’s an intention to charge then there’s an opportunity to actually suspend those conferences. Again, there’s a bit of delineation between whether the young person’s going to the adult court or to the youth court, and I think it’s maintaining a good equilibrium there. Look, elements around the joint charges with another person; that is, again, prudent. I suppose what it illustrates is that a lot of thought has been given to the variety of circumstances in which a young person’s going to find themselves. It’s very easy in this House to take the singular example of a single 17-year-old—single by number, not their relationship; the bill doesn’t deal with that. I’m sure that’s not going to be an issue moving forward. But a single person who actually—what we could be dealing with here is a young person who of their own right has committed a crime—or, as this section’s looking at, if they’ve committed a crime with someone else—how do you try both those people? An opportunity to make sure we’re not having the victims having to come forward first.

So I think I’ve covered most things; I suspect there’d be a lot more that I’d like to cover but I don’t think I’m going to achieve my final purpose, and the Hon Ruth Dyson knows it.

Can I commend the member who’s just resumed his seat, Simon O’Connor, on sharing his knowledge with us for an entire 10 minutes, which I found extraordinarily impressive. There are very few more important subjects than the issues of how to turn around the lives of young offenders, and it’s great to hear support across the House for the measures contained in this bill. On that note, I want to commend the leadership of the Hon Tracey Martin in this regard, and wish her all the best in what is going to be a huge amount of work going forward but one which I know she will find, as we will find as citizens, immensely satisfying.

Bill read a second time.