Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just before we start, I know that military-style academies is a topic that people want to hear about, and I want to be able to answer questions, but I just want to reiterate that I didn’t come to this place to do more harm to kids who have already been through enough. Instead, I am doing everything I can—

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: It’s not working.

Hold on. Can you just be respectful?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just let the Minister make her contribution, please.

I’m doing everything I can to give them the opportunity to turn their lives around and to be the best versions of themselves. There are young people’s lives here—who have put themselves forward to be part of the pilot programmes. That took courage, to try to do something different to change their behaviours, but I just want to reiterate that we must protect these young people from the pressure of public scrutiny by maintaining their privacy. Therefore, I will not be commenting today on any individual circumstances. I’ve made this clear in the past, and I am just making it clear again.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s important that we do now turn to the boot camps, or the military-style academies. I thank the Minister for Children for her opening comments. We can get the personal factors from Radio New Zealand, rather from her, it appears.

One of the overarching themes that comes out of this is that I don’t actually understand what “military-style academies” means. Whilst I’ve got a whole lot of tabled amendments that are prompts for debate, I would like to introduce this part by saying that we aren’t clear what the military aspect is. Oranga Tamariki already has the ability to detain young people in secure facilities and already has the ability to provide intensive social support, and the other supports that these young people need, so I am very keen to understand why legislation is needed to give additional powers and what the military aspect of it is. I’d be interested to see the Minister’s response to that. We do have concerns. Defence is an important part of the New Zealand Government, but it is an institution that is fundamentally based on the use of force. That is what defence and the military is. Why you would want to take that kaupapa and put it into a young person’s corrective training, we are yet to understand.

With that introduction, I will turn to the tabled amendments, and, basically, we’re just going through the Labour bundle consecutively. I am looking at the second one on this Subpart 4, in the name of Willow-Jean Prime. It’s about the—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got the time stamp?

It’s 7.05.53.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It’s just so that we can find it; that’s all.

It’s really about the basis upon which people enter the military-style academies.

I accept that the Minister has said this is compulsory—you can’t choose to get in; you can’t choose to get out—but, in terms of dealing with young people, one of the underlying principles is that you should always take the views of that young person into account when making a decision in respect of that young person. That doesn’t mean you have to do what they ask, but it does strike me that it’s quite a gap, when the judicial officer is considering whether to make an order of this nature, that there is no obligation to check in with that young person and say, “There’s a whole lot of orders I can make. One that I am thinking of is a military-style academy, and I’m leaning in favour of it, because I think that it might have some real benefits for you, but I’d like to talk to you about that. What do you think?” The proposal in this tabled amendment is to say that the Youth Court must have regard to the views of the young person, including the young person’s willingness or unwillingness to take part in that programme.

Of course, if a young person just rails against it and, for whatever reason, says, “The military-style academy is not for me. I will not cooperate”, you could put them in there anyway, but the chances of it being effective are relatively low. It also opens the door for the court to—“negotiate” is probably the wrong word—be a bit more persuasive than coercive and say, “Look, this is an option. We’d like to engage you and explain to you what it might mean, so that you can indicate your preference or strength of feeling about it.” That’s the first amendment, and it’s a principled amendment because it engages with a fundamental principle of the rights of the child, which is that the views of the child should be taken into account, given the age of the child and their ability to engage, in questions concerning their own future.

Committee of the whole House

In regards to tabled amendment 7.05.53, 5 August, I won’t be supporting this, because, like all custodial orders, they’re not dependent on a young person’s willingness to participate in them.

Committee of the whole House

It’s really interesting that that is the Minister for Children’s position when you look at the review that was done of the Government’s pilot and the point of the pilot was supposed to be about determining whether these work and whether this is something that the Government should be continuing with and putting into law.

One of the things we know about, say, the Limited Service Volunteer (LSV) programme—which I know the Government was keen on and which has influenced how they have come up with these military-style academies—one of the key factors of that, is the fact that the “V” in that is “voluntary”. This isn’t going to be voluntary. The Minister just talked about the pilots 1.0 and 2.0 being voluntary and these young people volunteering themselves into it, but, in the case of the second military-style academy, two of them voluntarily withdrew themselves from that programme, as well. Now the Minister is saying that she doesn’t believe there should be any ability for it to be voluntary, yet that is one of the key things that we learnt through all of this in the past.

The other thing that I think is important here, when we look at the military-style academy orders—and I am talking to new section 320S, which is around the duration of the military-style academy order—something else that came out of the review on the first pilot programme, and possibly one of the important lessons that the Government should be taking from it, was how important it is to have a stable cohort. I want to know from the Minister how this legislation provides for a stable cohort.

In fact, in the royal commission’s inquiry into abuse in State care, one of the things we learnt from that is, with new people constantly coming in and entering youth justice facilities and programmes like this, unfortunately, there is a thing that happens in terms of determining hierarchy and compliance amongst the young people, which led to all sorts of terrible abuse: initiations, those that are trying to assert themselves—terrible abuse occurred in that. That is one of the issues of having people coming and going at any time that the court may sentence them to it.

They also have an opportunity here around whether it’s for three months or not more than 12 months. We know in the pilot programme it was three months; we know in MSA 2.0 it was a longer in-residence phase. Given the findings of that review of the first pilot about the importance of a stable cohort, can the Minister talk to new section 320S and how that is going to work practically if there is any young person who qualifies for this order, the judge is considering it and makes that—will they be put on hold until there is enough of a cohort to run a programme, or will they be just coming and going according to different time frames and lengths of sentences and so on? What does that do to the stability of a cohort?

Committee of the whole House

In answer to the Hon Duncan Webb’s questions around what is a military-style academy and what are military-style activities, the military-style activities make up one part of the academy programme. They’re not defined in the bill. In the design stage for the military-style academy pilot, Oranga Tamariki consulted with the New Zealand Defence Force and other Government agencies and community to inform itself on appropriate activities. The Limited Service Volunteer programme was used as an example of a youth orientated programme with military-style activities including marching, forming up, outdoor exercise such as confidence courses. The activities are defined by structure, routine, and overall physical and mental wellbeing.

In answer to Willow-Jean around stable cohorts, the bill provides sufficient flexibility operationally to manage different types and sizes of cohorts, and those would be operational decisions.

Committee of the whole House

Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. Look, thank you for the reply in respect of what is military about military-style academies. The interesting thing about that response in terms of structured routines and what have you is that there’s nothing military about it. It could’ve equally been an outdoor education centre or any other framing, and for that reason I want to skip ahead one amendment to an amendment which is stamped 7.05.55, because I think if you’re going to call something a military-style academy, it’s going to give it a military flavour, right, and I don’t just mean, you know, wearing camo pants. I want to suggest that we should be very clear that there are aspects of the military that are not part of this framework, and given the reports that there was recently an incident where a young person was beaten by walking the line when they left one of these pilots, that kind of violent overtone is something we want to avoid.

So in Dan Rosewarne’s amendment—a man who knows a lot about military style—his amendment sets out what exactly military-style activities are and what they aren’t, and I think it’s what they aren’t that’s really important. Structured military-style activities: the suggestion has been structured, non-combat activities designed to promote discipline, teamwork, physical fitness, and personal development and can include activities such as physical training, outdoor education, and structured routines. But this is the important point, right: if you go to a military-style academy, I would half expect them to be like one of these young military academies in the United States where they do, for example, weapons drills, right, or do the parade ground holding dummy weapons.

Subclause (3) says, “does not include the use of any weapon”, so we don’t have them training how to use swords or Japanese kendo sticks or anything like that. That is a military-style thing, but we don’t want it. It doesn’t include any form of combat training, including martial arts, weapons training, or simulated combat. We don’t want these kids learning karate or judo, because that’s actually teaching them how to fight, and we want to do the opposite: we want to teach them how to not fight. That’s another thing that really should be precluded, and we should preclude any activity that includes violence or the simulation of violence. I find it strange that you’re going to have a military-style academy that has no kind of defence-style training. Now, I don’t want to see that, but it’s not really military.

Let’s make it clear that when someone’s being asked to run one of these military-style academies, they don’t give dummy rifles and say, “OK, on to the parade ground. We’re going to teach you how to salute with your rifles.” or “Come on, get into the gym. I’m going to teach you how to do boxing.” or “I’m going to teach you how to do unarmed combat.”, which is a classic military-style thing you do. Now, if it’s “I want to take you on a hike and show you how to light a fire from scratch and be self-sufficient.”, I can see what you’re trying to achieve, but let’s be very clear that this has no aspect of the force and violence which necessarily underpins what our Defence Force does. That is the backstop of defence: force is actually what defence is about. Let’s make sure that teaching young people how to use force is not part of a military-style academy, and it’s in fact the opposite: it’s teaching them how to avoid the use of force, how to solve problems in a way that doesn’t include physical confrontation and violence. That’s a really deep and fundamental concern, and I think that that amendment’s one that’s well worthy of serious consideration by the Minister.

Committee of the whole House

Just in response, there is absolutely no intention that young people are given access to weapons or combat training The purpose and requirements of the military-style academy programme are already clearly set out in new section 320S, and I note that there are already existing laws relating to access and use of firearms and weapons that would apply.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I also have a series of questions for the Minister for new section 330S. I want to start by 330S(1)(b), and this is also similar to the kind of question I have for new section 320T, which is that the young serious—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Did you say 320S or 330S?

320S, yes—new section 320S(1)(b), so this is page 44, line 34 I’m looking at. I just want to check, with the “serious offender in the custody of the chief executive”—I do want to know the extent of what custody potentially means. Does it also mean, for example, taking over the legal guardianship? I’m seeing, for example, 320T talks about the day-to-day care, but, for example, let’s say, you know, in an event where a child needs to be going to the hospital, is the chief executive in that position considered the next of kin? You know, are they able to make certain life or death decisions around the child because the child is in the chief executive’s custody? I do want to kind of check whether custody—does custody have the same connotations as legal guardianship, that being my first question.

I think the question around the definition for military-style academy programme—so this is new subsection (5); paragraphs (b) and (c) are the two I want to check with the Minister for Children.

We talked a little bit about disability before. We also know that there are a lot of disabilities that are undiagnosed, etc., as young people are going through this—fetal alcohol spectrum disorder being a good example. I want to check: before they are undertaking military-style activities or following a tailored programme of learning, is there any requirement for them to also be assessed for neurodivergence or for them to be assessed for certain things to determine what is actually the most appropriate tailored programme for them? Maybe there is an underlying condition they have that means they may not be able to undertake certain forms of activities. I’m hoping that the framing of “to support their health, learning, and wellbeing” means that there would be some form of diagnosis happening as a part of this tailored programme.

Now, with subsection 5(c) of new section 320S, inserted by clause 40, “tailored programme of learning to further their education, vocational, and training needs”, I want to check who, then, is quality-assuring any sort of educational programme. Who is going to be doing that? Will they receive unit standards as a result? How is, for example, the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority involved in some of that training programme—or is it just simply work experience? For those who are doing better, would they potentially be doing anything with the current Curriculum, or is it mainly vocational? I just want to check a few questions with the Minister for Children, and then, depending on the Minister’s response, I may have a few follow-ups.

Committee of the whole House

As far as the tailored programmes for learning and further educational, vocational, and training needs go, that’s standard. Some of them may be in school. Within residence, education is part of the programme. In some residences, we do have a contract with an actual school that comes into the residence, but the contracts for education are done where there are qualified teachers. It could be New Zealand Qualifications Authority level 1, 2, and 3, but it could also be things such as carpentry and things like that. It depends on the young person, and it’ll be tailored around the young person.

In regards to the support around health and learning, the member may not have been here the past few times that I’ve spoken to this bill, or also in the House at question time, around this. This has been a topic that I’ve answered quite a few times, but I’ll answer it again because I think it is important that you have an understanding. Part of the military-style academy (MSA) was done because this behaviour didn’t start when I became the Minister. These young persons’ behaviours haven’t just happened overnight; it’s happened over a very long time, where, obviously, the supports have not been put in place for these young people and things that we’ve tried in the past haven’t worked.

There are special clinical teams within the MSA that will be assessing the young person and their needs so that we can meet their needs and also make sure that we’re wrapping around them. They will not be asked to do anything that they are either not physically capable of or mentally capable of.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do worry that we do not have enough clarity around what the military-style activities actually are. I took the opportunity to go back to some information that was released under the Official Information Act when the programme was being designed, and the Government was looking particularly closely at the Limited Service Volunteer (LSV) programme.

One of the things that the defence force said in response is that young offenders’ military-style academies are not comparable with the LSV programme for the following reasons. The LSV personnel are adults, and, in this case, we are talking about children. As I said before, it’s a volunteer programme, whereas this will be a sentencing decision. In the LSV, and this is important to the conversation that we’re having, and the issue was raised by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, they were dealing with low numbers—that is less than 30 percent—in the cohort with complex needs. But, with the military-style academy, we are actually talking about a 100 percent complex cohort, meaning there are major differences in their needs and also security. The military-style activities that are undertaken in LSV are for a cohort where less than 30 percent have complex needs, but the MSA, in this legislation, is for children—not volunteers into the programme—in a 100 percent complex cohort. Also, the difference is that the LSV is eight weeks, and this is potentially up to 12 weeks of residential detention.

I have listened to the questions and the answers, but what I do not have clarity on is what exactly the military-style activities are, then, that young people will be doing when they are sentenced to a military-style academy order. Have those activities—we’ve had two pilots now—been assessed against the 100 percent complex needs of these cohorts? Now, we know the majority of them are Māori, the majority of them have suffered trauma, the majority of them have also had identified physical abuse in recent times, and there are significant mental health issues. That is the reason why the defence force basically said you are not comparing like programmes and cohorts here. Can the Minister please tell the House, so we can have in the Hansard, what exactly are the military-style activities that the young people are undertaking in the military-style academy?

Committee of the whole House

I’ll read it again in case the Hon Willow-Jean Prime didn’t hear it just a few minutes ago. They include marching, forming up, outdoor exercise, such as an outdoor gym, and confidence courses.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. The title clauses are far away, but given the Minister for Children’s response then, I think we can just strike out “military-style” from the title, because there’s nothing military about this, if that’s the case. The fact that we have to call this “military-style” so that we can—

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sound tough.

Yeah, so we can placate a portion of that Minister’s electorate is a little sad, given that it’s children we’re dealing with. On that point, I want to discuss the tabled amendment in the name of Helen White, which is time stamped 7.05.54.

As I see the legislation, there’s not a lot of guidance to the Youth Court, and I think it’s section 320S(4), inserted by clause 40, which simply says, “The Youth Court may make a military-style academy order”, without really giving a lot of guidance as to what it should take into account. My colleague Willow-Jean Prime has just pointed out that these young people are, by definition, complex cases and people with extremely high needs. My concern is that, if we don’t give a good amount of guidance to the Youth Court as to the kinds of things they should take into account, we’re going to find people in youth academies who are not well suited. We know that people who find themselves in these situations are often neurodiverse, have fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, are mentally unwell, and can have a whole raft of issues, which, because they haven’t been identified and appropriately addressed, manifest themselves in entirely inappropriate behaviours. That’s what we’re looking at.

This tabled amendment actually just gives what I think is really appropriate guidance to say, “OK, when you are contemplating making this, please take these things into account. Have regard to them.” Whilst the personal circumstances of the young person are kind of a global reference, there are some in there that are really important, such as whether that person has or is suspected of having fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or whether there is any evidence of neurodiversity, cognitive impairment, or learning disabilities.

As I see it, there’s a good chance that if we get these people with cognitive impairment, this is not the place for them, unless the Minister can assure us otherwise. Perhaps even if that is the case, if it’s perfectly designed for a cohort of people who have this cognitive impairment, or fetal alcohol syndrome, then one cohort can be specifically designed to address that. But what we do need to have is more than just “Well, if a Youth Court judge thinks it’s a good idea, put them in this military-style academy.” We need to put some parameters around that.

And, of course, it’s the matching, right? Once the programme is developed, and it appears that at the moment it is still under development, we can then say, “OK, this is the programme that exists, these are the professionals who are on the ground there, these are the services they can deliver, these are the resources they have. Here is a young person, and if they will benefit from the resources available, all well and good. But if, in fact, given their personal circumstances, their health situation and so on, that’s not the best place, and the best place is over there in some other provision of services that Oranga Tamariki is doing, then let’s put them there.” But, at the moment, there’s just no requirement to do that matching exercise.

The tabled amendment in the name of Helen White does exactly that. It says, “OK, look at the nature of the child, look at what services can and will be provided. Is this a good thing?” In doing that, I think it will be a real step forward, so I’d appreciate the Minister giving serious attention to that Amendment Paper.

Committee of the whole House

Just in response to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around what is custody, this is a custodial order, like a standard supervision with residence order. The broader powers, duties, and principles in the Oranga Tamariki Act apply, as they do to any custodial order. It is not legal guardianship.

In response to the Hon Duncan Webb around the amendment from 7.05.54, the Oranga Tamariki Act already provides for these matters to be put before the Youth Court through the section 334 social worker’s report and section 335 plan, which is provided to support the court’s decision making. The court can undertake further assessments under section 333, if it so chooses.

I’d just like to reiterate again, from what we had to what we’re trying to do. I could have continued as Minister for Children, sitting back and doing absolutely nothing, and allowing the system to be exactly how it was when I because children’s Minister. What that looked like was: these young people would commit a crime, they would be put into a youth justice facility, with no rehabilitation, no support, no thought about their welfare, which is why I wish those members standing up today cared as much when they were in Government as they do now about the safety and wellbeing of children.

What happened was, they’d then be released out into the same environment that they came from, with the previous Government, and Governments before, expecting a different result, until they ended up in Corrections. What this is is a circuit breaker, or a final opportunity for these young people to avoid going to a custodial sentence to Corrections.

I can’t force them to change, but I can put the opportunities in front of them that they’ve never had before, where they will have specialised services wrapped around them to meet their needs, and to try everything we possibly can to put the tools in their hands so that they don’t end up in Corrections. You know what? I have sat here, and I have listened to some of the questions, and some of the comments around the “walk the line” and issues like that. Does that member truly want the public and the people in this House to believe that that happened overnight, since I’ve become children’s Minister?

Seriously, we heard about green-lighting, we heard about fight clubs that were happening within these youth justice facilities, we had regular occurrences of fight clubs being overseen by staff members, we had regular rooftop incidents that weren’t dealt with, so just be careful that you are not trying to set the impression that these young people’s behaviour happened overnight. Their behaviour is a consequence of years and years and years of the youth justice system being ignored, and their needs not being met.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Interesting tirade by the Minister there, and not particularly relevant to the bill in front of us, but nothing unusual there.

One of the comments that the Minister did make was that this is incarceration. One of the concerns I have, when you’re going to have this kind of academy that’s not really military-style but it’s an academy where they’re going to have activities, is that it falls below the standards of incarceration, not only that would be required under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but also the United Nations convention on incarceration more generally, which is generally known as the Mandela Rules.

The amendment that I’m looking at now, in the name of Helen White, time-stamped at 7.05.56, touches on some of those things. In particular, it’s a very well-established principle that you cannot require an incarcerated person to undertake forced labour, and, in fact, any forced activity is problematic—a route march. If we think about it, it’s like looking at some 1950s movie. If you’ve got children who are required to go on some march, or to march around the parade ground, and they’re forcing them into these activities which are intended, presumably, to make them simply compliant—there’s a number of amendments here, but the one I’m looking at now is to clause 40, new sections 320T, and inserts “the chief executive must ensure that no activity required under a military-style”—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got the time-stamp of the amendment?

It’s 7.05.56. I did touch on that, but that’s all right. It proposes two amendments, one in new section 320S, which is the description of military-style academies, and it says that they mustn’t require the young person to undertake any form of forced or compulsory labour, or any work or service that is extracted from the young person under threat of penalty. Of course, that’s the point of forced labour. For example, if it’s roast dinner on Friday night for everyone, but not for you because you didn’t do this activity, that’s forced labour. So we’ve got to be really careful that it’s not just under threat of violence, or something like that. The removal of privileges that they would otherwise get is also forced labour.

Also, in terms of the participation, obviously it doesn’t include going to your counselling session, or whatever that might be, and also tidying your room, and stuff that would be age-appropriate for that young person. I think we’ve got to be careful, because you wouldn’t necessarily expect a 14- or 15-year-old to peel potatoes for 40 people. In a prison you could, because that’s part of the normal prison framework of preparing food for the prison generally, but I think we’ve got to make sure it’s age-appropriate. I think we’ve got to be careful, so we don’t say, “OK, military-style academy means around here you pull your weight. Mop the floor of the gymnasium.”

I can see how it would be an easy step to go there, but that would be really troubling, because it would be requiring them to do work which is forced servitude. There’s actually a fine line, and perhaps this is the point about the military style, because it’s the whole idea that you can order people to do stuff. I get that you can order people to engage in their rehabilitative programmes, but as soon as you start ordering them to do stuff which is, essentially, a kind of labour, we’re getting into troubling territory, and that is kind of what I see as the military-style aspect of it being: “Go and mop out the bathrooms.”

I’d be interested to know where and how, even if you don’t accept this tabled amendment, operationally you will make sure that there is a clear division between engaging in appropriate activity and not requiring servitude from these young people.

Committee of the whole House

Look, forced or compulsory labour is already unlawful under existing New Zealand law.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just ask the Minister for Children: the list that she read out, which she gave in an earlier answer—is that a particular section in the legislation that you read that out from?

Committee of the whole House

I have spoken to this many times in this House and under questioning, and also on advice that has been given to me.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sorry, Mr Chair?

It was upon advice that was given to me.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I just wanted that clarification—that that is not actually outlined in the law.

Once again, we have a situation, because we had this last night when I sought clarification and assurances from the Minister for Children about what sorts of compassionate grounds might apply for somebody wanting to leave the programme. I put some particular scenarios to the Minister, because the section has things that it includes, but it doesn’t say, “but is not limited to”. Now we are expected to attach—staple to this bill—the Hansard so that, when it is before a court, they can read the Hansard and read the bill, which doesn’t stipulate these things, to understand it. We have a similar situation here with what those activities actually are.

It was a genuine question to the Minister. In which section of the Act is that list provided, so that we can know, in the future, if we hear there are new military-style activities, where that was—we didn’t talk about the possibility of those things in the House. I’m not sure whether the Minister has received further advice on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I think the Minister is going to respond.

Committee of the whole House

New section 320S(5) is where the elements of the military-style academies are listed.

Committee of the whole House

I am looking at that, and I can’t see the list that you outlined in there—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): 320S(5).

Is that the list you read when you were responding to my question earlier?

Committee of the whole House

The list that I read was from advice that was given to me. You asked where the elements of the military-style academies were listed. I just gave you the section.

Committee of the whole House

I’m still not clear, and I am not trifling with the Minister or with the Chair. Maybe you could read that list again and you could point me to subsection (5) so that I can compare that they are exactly worded like that in here, so that we are using the same things. Or is it that that is additional advice, and examples of it, and that it’s not in the legislation and we’re to staple the Hansard to the legislation? That is a genuine question. [Pause] I’m not sure whether the Minister just doesn’t want to answer that or whether she needs more time to get that advice.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We can give it more time. Maybe just move on to something else.

It is a genuine question. Thank you.

I am just wanting to pick up on the points that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb was making about our tabled amendments. He has spoken to the voluntary or involuntary labour aspect of it. I have a few concerns about that, because I have heard of situations where young people lose the benefits that they might have in youth justice facilities for behavioural reasons, for not complying with whatever the staff are expecting of them in order to receive those benefits. An example I have heard is that they were going to have their gym entitlements taken away from them. I just wonder if similar approaches and strategies will be used to achieve compliance in these military-style academies (MSA).

Actually, one of the concerning things I heard about the MSA pilot 1.0 was that when the young people went back into the community, some of the mentors had an understanding—perhaps a misunderstanding—of what the military-style academy and bootcamp was and were strictly trying to enforce wake-up times and coming to programmes, running it in a way that they were bootcamp-ing this thing, and that caused conflict and tension between young people and their mentors. I don’t think it’s clear enough for everybody, whether it’s in-residence or in-community, what “military-style” actually means. I know the Minister doesn’t like us using the term “bootcamp”, but for a lot of people, that’s what they think, and then they have these ideas of what it means we are asking young people to do.

There is a lot in that for the Minister. I am keen to get that clarification on the earlier point that I asked, and also in terms of these benefits that they get that may be taken away because they are not following orders.

Committee of the whole House

That’s called life. As a child, if you behave well, sometimes you get nice things. As a parent, if your child misbehaves, sometimes you take things away from them when they misbehave. As a parent, you get your children to wake up in the morning and get out of bed in the morning and go to school and do the activities that are expected of them. That’s called life.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I want to return again to minimum standards of incarceration, and it’s something that, in the Justice Committee, we’ve been very focused on.

Whilst I haven’t had the opportunity to go through the facility that is being used, I am interested to understand whether these young people will be given the minimum rights that are expected—either by adoption of tabled amendment 7.05.58, which talks about minimum standards. For example, one of the standards that’s well recognised is that a room that’s given—in a prison, it’d be called a “cell”, but here it’s just a “room”—should be at least six square metres, and, also, that the rooms should not really be shared. I mean, one of my questions is: is there going to be double-bunking, or does each young person have their own private space?

The other thing is this: does the young person have minimum visiting hours? If you’re incarcerated in a prison, you have a weekly entitlement to visiting hours and you have a daily entitlement to exercise. Minister, these are things that you can’t get taken away because you don’t comply.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, but that’s life!

Exactly, Willow-Jean Prime. These are baseline entitlements, and whilst the Minister might say, “You’re not playing computer games tonight, because I’m going to switch the internet off”—that’s one thing—to say, “You can’t have exercise today, because you haven’t done what I have asked” is actually a breach of fundamental rights. The other one, of course, is telephone calls. In prison, you get a weekly allowance of telephone calls regardless, and they’re absolute minimum entitlements. Corrections, in fact, often talks about how they desperately try to give over the entitlement but always try to achieve the minimum.

I’m really interested in things like that, in terms of outdoor exercise, telephone calls, visiting rights, and also a room of an appropriate size that is used by only one person. They’re pretty well listed there on the tabled amendment in front of the Minister, so I’d be very interested to understand that. Of course, the appropriate standards are drawn straight out of the United Nations’ standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. Now, these are not prisoners; these are children, so, in fact, you’d hope that the quality of these rights—visiting, telephone, exercise—would be higher than for adult prisoners. I’m asking: if we pick the lowest possible baseline, the treatment of prisoners under the Mandela rules, will these young people be treated at a minimum as well as incarcerated prisoners under those rules?

Committee of the whole House

The residential care regulations and national care standards regulations apply to the young people on the military-style academy order. All young people within a youth justice residence have their own room and space. There is no double bunking. There is none of the issues that that member has just raised. They are not locked inside their room like in a Corrections environment, and they’re actually in an open-plan environment most of the day. They are entitled to support whenever they would like it. They have oversight of the Ombudsman, the Children’s Commissioner, the Independent Children’s Monitor, grievance panels, their lawyers, their parents, and their social worker, so, actually, they have a higher standard of care.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to what the Minister said there in that big long list of things that are supposed to be there to ensure that, I have heard examples of where their ability to access the gym is being threatened to be taken away because they are not complying with whatever it is that the kaimahi are expecting of them in the youth justice facilities. Is that an entitlement or a reward system? The Minister said, “Well, this is life.” These children, the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki is their parent, and their homes are these youth justice facilities, and we have heard a number of cases of where there have been issues with kaimahi in these youth justice facilities.

Committee of the whole House

As I’ve said, these issues with kaimahi within youth justice facilities haven’t happened overnight. There is a lot of work to do to change the culture, and lots of work has happened to professionalise that workforce—work that had never been done before within our youth justice residences. If that member wants to stand up and pretend like that has never happened in the past and that she’s going to come and save them all, I can assure members of the public that when that member was in Government, she didn’t care as much as she cares now. But what I would say is a gym is a privilege. The gym has been set up as an extra activity. It is a privilege to be using it. This is life. There are consequences for young people in every household in this country. If you want to use something that has been given to you as a privilege, then you behave.

Committee of the whole House

Well, that was an interesting response from the Minister. When these military-style academies were introduced in the pilot before now being passed into law, questions were put to the Minister about the safety of our youth justice facilities, and she is rightly pointing to issues that have happened in our youth justice facilities both under previous Governments and under this Government. What she said at the time was that she was satisfied and confident that they are now safe—safe to be able to set up a military-style academy, put it into law, and sentence children to these military-style academies.

What we have seen the entire time is a number of serious incidents in our youth justice facilities. I use Korowai Manaaki as an example where that walk-the-line incident happened that we’ve been talking about recently. But there have been other incidents that have also occurred, including rooftop incidents and other harm caused to young people. I put the questions to the Minister, in Estimates and annual reviews, about her confidence in the management of Korowai Manaaki and our youth justice facilities. Once again, the Minister said that she was absolutely confident in the management. That was before we then had this walk-the-line incident. I’ve asked the Minister about a recent incident I understand happened at Te Maioha, another youth justice facility, where a young person, I understand, had to be taken to hospital after an assault occurred.

The Minister is standing up in the House and saying all of these things, casting things on to me about this. It is my job to ask these questions of the Minister. She gave us assurances that there were no safety issues anymore, that they had been sorted, and that she had absolute confidence in Korowai Manaaki, and yet we have more incidents occurring. I’m not imagining this. This is not a hypothetical situation. We had assaults occurring in the military-style academy 2.0. Two young people have left. So would the Minister, please, speak to those issues?

Committee of the whole House

I have never stood in this Chamber and guaranteed that no harm would come to young people. I have actually said on multiple occasions that I cannot guarantee that no harm will ever happen. But what I can guarantee is that we have worked really hard over the last three years since I’ve been in Government to put in place safety mechanisms to make those youth justice facilities the safest they’ve been in a really long time, where we’ve had the first drop in history of a 14 percent reduction in harm in our residences because we have put professionalisation of the workforce ahead of everything else. I cannot guarantee that nothing is ever going to happen within a youth justice facility. I have never stood in this Chamber and stated that nothing is ever going to happen. I’ve actually said the opposite.

But what I will say is that when harm does occur, we will do everything within the law, the power of the law, to hold those people to account and make sure that the culture changes within these spaces. That does not change the fact that these young people have committed serious offences, offences that would give them a sentence of 10 years or more, and we have to take into account the safety of the community and the safety of these young people and make sure we put something in place and try and help them to turn their lives around. Whether they take up their opportunity or not is up to them. I cannot force them to change their behaviours, and if they don’t, unfortunately, what will happen is they will end up in our correction system. But at least I can stand here and say I did everything I possibly could to put things in front of them to stop that from happening.

Committee of the whole House

Look, I was really concerned to hear that the Minister thinks it’s OK to take exercise rights away from a young person who’s being detained, because exercise is a privilege. I don’t think it is.

💬 Hon Karen Chhour: Point of order, Mr Chair.

No, no, sorry, I’ve got the call.

💬 Hon Karen Chhour: Point of order, Mr Chair. I have never said I’ll take the right of exercise away from young people. They may take the right of a gym away, but that’s not taking their right of exercise away.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Would the Minister sit down please. I don’t think that’s a point of order. I take the Minister’s point, but that’s not a point of order. I will ask the Hon Dr Duncan Webb to continue. However, before we do that, there is engagement happening here. The Minister is addressing issues that are being raised. I understand that the Opposition MPs don’t like the way that the Minister has been addressing those issues, but the point is: they are being addressed. I do want to be able to note that, and also I am taking note that once these issues are being addressed—clearly not to the satisfaction of all members—then we should move on to other issues that members might have that need to be addressed. Let’s continue, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, Minister, using a point of order to argue the point as to whether removing the right to a gym is removing the right to exercise, I think, is dancing on the head of a pin there, but I want to move on to the use of violence within these facilities, because—and I can’t understand why—the legislation enables the use of force on these young people.

The Minister has time and again pointed out that these young people have been engaged with very serious offending, and some of that will be violent offending and, therefore, there will be instances where it’s necessary to use force. If they’re being disruptive or posing risks to other people, it will be necessary to use force, and that’s touched on in the tabled amendment in the name of Dan Rosewarne at 7.05.59.

This is about legislation. The Minister has referred to rules and regulations on a number of occasions, but the framing around the use of force needs to be very careful. Now, in the corrections framework, the Department of Corrections can actually use weapons, right, and a Taser is a really good example. Let’s just remember one thing: Tasers can be lethal. There are recorded instances of people dying by the use of Tasers, and, in fact, in the Corrections Act, they were referred to as non-lethal weapons and that was removed. The name was changed to “less-lethal” because they’re not intended to kill, obviously. They’re intended to disable, but they’re very dangerous things.

The proposed amendment recognises that physical force is authorised, but it says that it doesn’t include any weapon so that the supervisors, or the people who are in charge of these young people—yes, they may have to restrain them and they may have to put them in a room where they are kept safe from themselves and others are kept safe from them. But I just want to make it clear that the use of things like conducted electrical weapons—that is, Tasers—or other devices designed to inflict pain or incapacitate beyond reasonable physical contact—and batons are another example. In times gone by, the use of batons was commonplace.

I’d be interested to understand from the Minister whether she agrees with the fact that no weapons should be used against these children, or, if she is not of that view and doesn’t want to adopt this amendment, what weapons are used and are permissible, and does she approve of the use of them in these facilities? Given, of course, that for many of these children violence has become a hallmark of their lives, both in the home and outside of home, and it’s kind of now become learnt behaviour, I’d be very interested to understand the Government’s view as to the use of force and, in particular, the use of weapons against the young people who are in these facilities.

Committee of the whole House

Just remember that these are young people still under the Oranga Tamariki Act provisions, and no physical restraints are acceptable. I can assure the member that staff do not carry Tasers or batons, and I can assure the public that no staff member will have those items that he has referred to and that safeguards relating to the use of force have been taken into consideration.

The training has been put in place across, not just the military-style academy, but across the youth justice system as a whole to require de-escalation techniques to be learnt. These must be used first in all cases of reasonable use of force, and then also when it is noted that an incident has happened, there must be a health professional check after each use of force.

I do not feel that this amendment is necessary, because other laws such as the Arms Act place adequate restrictions on possession of weapons, such as firearms and Tasers. Any use of force by Oranga Tamariki providers must be reasonably necessary.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following up on that, I have got the Oranga Tamariki Act here before me, as well as this amendment, and I’m interested whether the Minister could just explain, because the next amendment in the bundle, which is time-stamped at 7.06.00, actually talks about the recording of the use of force and it sets out some frameworks around that. I do think that legislation is the place for that to be.

Now, the Minister seems to have alluded to the fact that use of force is recorded and disclosed, and if that’s the case, I think that’s a good thing and I’d be keen for the Minister to just explain how that happens. I do think, though, that the amendment—which, essentially, says that the chief executive and their delegates are going to have to record uses of force in detail and why it was used, and also annually report that in the annual report of Oranga Tamariki so that we can track how this is going. Now, if in fact the Minister is saying that that happens already, I’d be interested to understand whether that happens already because of an internal practice of Oranga Tamariki, or whether there is a legislative requirement in the Act that somehow I’ve missed—which is, of course, entirely possible as it’s a pretty comprehensive Act.

I guess the other thing is whether the recording includes injuries to young people because—you know, I get it: we talk about young people, but that’s not to say that they’re not large people, and they can be pretty difficult to restrain when they’re elevated. I’d be interested to understand whether there’s a legislative or a regulatory framework for reporting already and, if not, whether this amendment would be contemplated, and, in terms of the reporting that does occur, what the extent and detail of that reporting is.

Committee of the whole House

It would be regulations. The bill already provides for safeguards relating to the use of force, and further safeguards will be provided for within the regulations.

Across our youth justice facilities, it is standard practice that if there is any incident where any form of harm has occurred or any injury has occurred, it is recorded and it is followed up by either the nurses or, if need be, other health professionals. From the report, some of the injuries recorded were sunburn, a cut finger, and a slip in a shower. They’re very thorough about what they record because we need to make sure that we are following up if any hurt or harm has happened.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in terms of that, though, Minister, I am worried: how can we be sure that everything is actually being reported? That’s fine if it is being reported, but I have exposed instances where these things haven’t been reported, and there is no record of them.

If we go back to the walking-the-line incident at Korowai Manaaki, that happened back in March, I think it was, and it wasn’t actually brought forward until July or August—July, I think it was. It was in late July, maybe, and so it didn’t get reported, it wasn’t accounted for at the time, and the young person wasn’t examined when the incident happened. That was, I understand, caught on CCTV footage, and so this still relies on staff actually reporting when things occur.

Now, when we look at the military-style academy 2.0, two assaults occurred. Were they reported at the time that they occurred? Were the young people given medical examinations and support at the time that they happened? Was that a use-of-force situation, or are we talking about young people on young people?

I think the Hon Dr Duncan Webb asks a good question about this: is that a matter of practice, or is that legislated for? I’m concerned that some of these things are being left to regulations, so we haven’t even had the opportunity to look at what those regulations are.

The point I would make about that too, Minister, is that this bill has actually taken a really long time to come through Parliament. Those things could have been drafted in order for us to be talking about what is actually going into the regulations for this. I just put those real-life scenarios to the Minister and I seek some understanding and assurance that what she’s saying, on the one hand, with the reporting and recording versus what’s actually happening in practice isn’t going to be a problem for us with military-style academies.

Committee of the whole House

I just want to be very careful with how I respond to this, because I won’t be speaking to individual employment matters within this space—that’s not fair on the staff or the young people that have been mentioned just before. I did make this statement when I first stood up today—that I wouldn’t be responding to individual matters.

In an overall matter, if an issue has been missed or overlooked, and nobody has reported it when that incident happened, my expectation is if somebody raises that issue—whether it be days, weeks, or months after that has happened—that a process is under way, that we listen to whoever has raised that issue, that staff and young people can feel they have the confidence to be listened to, that the process is in place as soon as somebody speaks up and says, “This happened to me and it may have been a while ago.”, that an investigation does start, that a report does happen, that the person who reported that harm may have come to them is spoken to. We may not be able to examine for physical injuries further along the pathway, but we can still have conversations with them about what had happened and investigate it.

Not everything is going to be picked up, and I wish it was, to be honest. Nothing like this should happen. But when it does and when somebody does speak up, my expectation is that investigations happen, employment law is followed, and we do everything that we possibly can to protect the young people.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for Children for those answers. I just wonder what more the Minister could do. I appreciate she is not talking to the specific examples that I have given, and I understand her reasons for that, but I want to know what more the Minister could be doing, because we have examples of where it isn’t being reported.

Now, it is a very serious situation when we’re talking about the use of force. I invite the Minister to talk about what more could perhaps happen, given that we have live examples of it happening in wider youth justice and also in the military-style academies? Obviously, what’s been done to date in terms of resets and training and so on is still resulting in an under-reporting of actual physical assaults and harm that is happening within youth justice.

Committee of the whole House

I understand the concerns. What more can I do? Well, honestly, I have put every single effort I possibly can into professionalising the workforce, which means that there is no escape of saying that they don’t understand their obligations when using force. Before, there were never really any standard operating practices within our youth justice facilities, so staff didn’t really have an understanding of the expectations of their behaviours or the consequences of their behaviours, and there was really no accountability for poor culture within youth justice. By implementing the standard operating practices within our youth justice residences, putting training in place around the use of force provisions, it sets the expectations upon those staff of what is acceptable and not acceptable, but also it allows us a stronger response in our consequences if they do cross the line in their behaviour with our young people. If they do—if their use of force is unacceptable—there is no pleading ignorance, because they have actually had that training, and we can have a heavier hand with the accountability.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, and it will be over to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, I appreciate the engagement from members to date, particularly on this section here, but I do note that Subpart 4 there is quite wide-ranging, so there might be other issues that members might be interested in canvassing. I’ll go to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I just also note that the Minister has been addressing questions—I appreciate that it might not be to the satisfaction of members, but I’ll go to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah, happy to move on. Subpart 4 is globally about, obviously, the military-style academies. I’m happy to move on to another aspect of it, in particular new section 320ZC, inserted by clause 40. This is actually a bit of a mirror section of a section that deals with our young serious offenders. I’m just concerned, because this is an ability to cancel or vary a military-style academy order or plan on compassionate grounds. I’m just, again, concerned that whilst—and it’s new section 320ZC(2), which sets out the grounds upon which an application may be made.

It’s interesting—it’s a strange way to phrase it. It says, “The only grounds on which an application may be made under subsection (1) are compassionate grounds, including that—”. Firstly, “only … compassionate” is a little odd as well. Now, I’m not going to try and imagine grounds which are not compassionate but are still compelling, but I would have thought that there could be grounds which are not compassionate grounds but are nevertheless compelling.

Then we have this very narrow framing of what a compassionate ground is. There’s a statutory interpretation device—the Latin is noscitur a sociis. That is to say: when you look at the words that are associated with it and you get the flavour of what compassionate means by that set of words. It’s actually a really high threshold. A judge looking at this will say, “Well, OK, it’s not one of the listed things, but is it something similar that meets a threshold that is that high?”

An “eligible young serious offender … is expected soon to give birth, to a child”—it might be that the young person has just got pregnant but they’re suffering from terrible morning sickness. Again, a “young serious offender is seriously ill and unlikely to recover;”—they have to be dying, which seems extraordinary. The idea that you’ve got someone who is seriously ill but they’ve got a pathway across six months to recover, but you’re going to keep them in—and, of course, if that’s the situation, it falls squarely within this framing. It’s not a compassionate ground, because the compassionate ground requires that you are unlikely to recover. Seriously, a “parent or guardian … is … ill and unlikely to recover.”, but not their sibling. You could have a loved sister who is ill and you want to be by their bedside, but you can’t, because it says it’s a parent or guardian. That kind of tells you what the family connection needs to be, because if it had meant family member, they would have said “family member” or “close family member” or “extended whānau” or something like that.

I really think there are problems around the way in which this is framed. That’s why the amendment 7.05.01 sets out—firstly, it lowers the bar on all of those things: they are pregnant, they are seriously ill. But also you really do need a catch-all. I’m surprised—well, perhaps I’m not surprised that these kinds of changes weren’t made earlier, because the Minister doesn’t seem to be interested in them, but any other circumstances where, in the opinion of the court, continuation of the order would be unjust or inappropriate, having regard to the wellbeing of the young person.

It’s actually a really boring suggestion, because it’s kind of obvious. Yet I can see judges—they’ve got one of two options, right: either declining an order they know they want to grant, or making an order allowing them to leave, but doing so in a way which is stretching the law beyond breaking point. Neither of those are good options. It would be much better if we just drafted a good law here and now that doesn’t put judicial officers in a terrible situation to decide and children stuck in camps in situations where any compassionate person would know they should be sent home.

Committee of the whole House

We covered this section extensively last night.

Committee of the whole House

Maybe the Minister for Children doesn’t understand her own legislation. Section 320Q, inserted by clause 4, is in terms of the young serious offender order; section 320ZC, inserted by clause 40, is actually in terms of the military-style academy order, so it’s a different section.

Committee of the whole House

The compassionate grounds as drafted in section 320ZC, inserted by clause 4, reflect my intention exactly the same as in section 320Q, inserted by clause 4: that the military-style academy order will only be cancelled in very limited circumstances. I covered that yesterday. Compassionate leave, in both instances, should be in very limited circumstances.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Should we then take that part of the Hansard where you gave an explanation and assurances about other things that may or not be compassionate and staple it to this section as well? I think that’s what the Minister for Children is saying—because they are actually two different sections.

Sorry, Mr Chair, I do want to go back, but it is a new point on the use of force. We’ve talked here, so far, about the use of force in residences. There’s an important provision in here where they’re actually extending the use of force to outside of residences. When you think about the military-style academy programme, we have a component of it in residence, and then we have a component of it in community. Possibly even in residence, they could go out into the community on programmes and overnight stays, for example. What section 320W(1)(b) inserted by clause 40, does is it extends those use-of-force powers that Oranga Tamariki staff currently—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Section 320-what, sorry?

Section 320W(1)(b), which is about extending the use of force, says, “the use of such physical force is reasonably necessary to prevent the eligible young serious offender who is subject to the order from being harmed, harming themselves, or harming another: (b) an approved worker of a qualifying provider”.

Now, we had a lot of submissions on this in the Social Services and Community Committee, and we had a lot of conversation about this. The Minister, in her answers to previous contributions and sections, has talked about all of the guidelines, I think she said, being there for staff, as well as the training that they are receiving, but it is envisaged in this legislation that the programmes can take place outside of youth justice facilities and outside of Oranga Tamariki provision, and that it could be whoever these qualifying providers are, and they are going to be given use-of-force powers.

We do have to take a moment to reflect on what we learned from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, about what happened Te Whakapakari and other boot camps, academies, corrective training, and borstals that existed. Where qualifying providers are going to be given use-of-force powers, what safeguards—and I understand that a lot of this is being left to regulation, and I’ve already noted I have a concern that these are significant things that are happening in this legislation, and so much of it is being left to regulation. We have not had the benefit of actually seeing any of that detailed for us.

I want to ask the Minister what confidence and assurances she can give us that qualifying providers are going to use those use-of-force powers appropriately. How is that going to be monitored? Who is going to oversee that? You only have to look at what happened in Te Whakapakari and other cases like that, where that oversight was not there and terrible, terrible abuse and harm occurred.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in regards to that, a lot of the pushback that I’ve been hearing today around the military-style academy is that members maybe don’t necessarily feel that a programme being run behind a youth justice facility is an appropriate environment for these young people.

The provisions in clause 40 actually set up the ability for providers to offer a different environment for the military-style academy to be run outside of youth justice residences. I feel it’s entirely appropriate that this is to happen, because part of my focus since I’ve become Minister is actually getting community, hapū, and iwi up and down the country a bigger say and a bigger voice in what happens to young people within their communities. This is something that members on the opposite side of the House have also been asking for, so I’m kind of a little bit confused as to why the member would be against allowing iwi, hapū, and community organisations to step up and actually provide an environment which in those members’ minds is better than behind a youth justice facility, which we can’t do under current law. This will change that and give us the ability to allow other providers to step in and help these young people.

Qualifying providers will have an important role in the delivery of these programmes, and that’s why the flexibility of these programmes is so important—to make sure that we can have providers to be able to put together a programme specific to the needs of that young person within their community. They’ll be able to offer a variety of programmes to young people outside of that setting—for example, on marae or within iwi or hapū, and this will enhance the support and experiences available to those young people.

Qualifying providers will need to be approved and go through a process to become approved. They will have the same expectations upon them as would the youth justice residence that is running the programme, and they will also have the same oversight. They will have the oversight of the Ombudsman; they will have the oversight of the Independent Children’s Monitor; they’ll have the oversight of their social worker; they’ll have the oversight of their lawyer; they’ll have the oversight of their grievance panels. They will have the same oversight, but a much better environment.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Minister for Children, my questions were specifically about the extension of the use-of-force powers to those qualifying providers.

As she was describing the types of groups that might become one of those qualifying providers—like, for example, iwi, hapū, and they might do this on the marae—I had these thoughts about—is the expectation, in extending the use of force, to qualify that if a young person were trying to abscond from the marae, their Māori provider would run and tackle them, restrain them, and physically stop them from absconding or leaving? They can’t currently do that, but this is giving them now the ability to do that.

I want to understand what the Government is asking these providers to do in the delivery of their military-style academy. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that? Well, we know what can go wrong with that; we had a whole royal commission into abuse in State care. There is an expectation that they will use reasonable force on young people to stop them from absconding, being harmed, harming themselves, or harming another.

Committee of the whole House

Yes, because reasonable use of force is to protect a young person from hurting or harming somebody else or hurting or harming themselves. That’s entirely appropriate. This is giving the ability for those organisations to put their hands up to provide a service. They must qualify to provide that service. The same training will be put in place and the same expectations will be in place. No one is forcing a community provider to do this, but this is about opening up opportunities for providers to put their hands up and work in this space.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I’d just note that I do think that there was one aspect of that question that the Minister for Children didn’t address, because the question of use of force to protect the young person or somebody else is a well-established threshold. The bit of the question that didn’t get answered was whether the use of force by a contractor was appropriate where someone was absconding, so if the Minister could address that. I think that was the right question.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Yeah, that’s right, and, I mean, we had one of those in the pilot.

That would be good for the record to understand that.

I actually wanted to touch on something that’s a little bit technical, but I think it’s quite important, because there have been instances when people have been incarcerated and they’ve been kept incarcerated for too long, or, worse, I’ve seen situations where they’ve been released early and then gone and been retrieved. This is new section 320ZE, inserted by clause 40, and it’s about when a military-style academy order ceases to have effect. One of the challenges here is that it appears that you get this day called a “release day”, and it’s unclear when on that day they’re released.

The amendment, in fact, in my name—this one—time stamped 07.06.02, suggests that you should actually have a time of day where it’s the latest time of day you can release someone. That’s my first point, and I suggest that it be 3 p.m. so that there’s time for that person to arrange transport, because the last thing you want is for this person to be released at 6 o’clock or 9 o’clock at night. That just makes it really clear that “release day” means release on or before 3 p.m. I’d be interested in the Minister’s comments on that. It’s partly administrative, but I think it’s important as well.

The other one is this idea of there being non-release days. I just want to make sure I’ve got this right, because you’ve got these non-release days—and I understand what they are: weekends, public holidays, and also the interesting one is a day in the period commencing with 25 December and then up to 15 January, so that’s a period of over three weeks. I think subsection (2) says that you’ve got to release the young person before the non-release days. If the release day would have fallen on 15 January, then you’ve got to release them on 24 December; but if 24 December is a Sunday, then you’ve got to release them on 22 December, which will be a Friday, which means, essentially, that their period in the youth academy is cut short by nearly a month.

Now, I guess my question is: have I got that right, and is that the intention of the legislation? It does strike me as odd that you’ll have judges who will be looking at it thinking, “Oh, well, we can’t have it expiring on 15 January, so we’ll have it expiring on 16 January.”, and making strange decisions like that.

I’m interested in, firstly, my amendment, which suggests a release time so that we have real clarity around that, and, secondly, just an explanation around these non-release days and the idea that you’ve got this non-release period that could be for almost up to a month.

Committee of the whole House

In regards to non-release days, this is consistent with current supervision with residence orders. This is the way it is currently done, so it aligns with that. In regards to the 07.06.02 amendment, the bill is already clear enough. I’ve been advised as to when the order ceases. This level of specificity is out of step with the way other orders in the Act are currently treated.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was listening carefully and I don’t believe the Minister for Children answered or addressed the question that we put around the use of force for absconding, because what we have here is, “from being harmed, harming themselves, or harming another:” person.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Which clause is that?

That is new section 320W, inserted by clause 40. I believe the Minister has just got some advice there, so that would be helpful, because I do recall the situation in the first military-style academy pilot where rangatahi, I understand, attended the tangi, sadly, of one of the participants, and one or more of those rangatahi absconded from the tangi. Is that the type of situation the Minister envisages where they will be able to use force to stop those young people absconding outside of a youth justice facility?

Committee of the whole House

The use of force to prevent absconding—yes, it does include absconding from, maybe, whatever residence that community provider is using, because they are on orders, so it will include absconding from their programme site.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Minister, for that. That really does concern me that it’s not just about a young person who may be harming themselves or harming somebody else—that’s what the section talks about using force for—but it actually could be somebody who is trying to run away from the programme. Now, we know from the royal commission into abuse in State care that many young people ran away from abuse that was occurring to them only to then be returned back to where that was happening. I worry about the use of force here, and isn’t it more appropriate that that is the police that do that, not potential iwi, hapū, Māori community third-party providers?

The Minister may have further to say on that, but I will move to another section, which is new section 320ZB, inserted by clause 40, which is, “Youth Court may … cancel or vary a military-style academy order, or … plan” if the eligible young serious offender absconds or fails to comply. Now, I think the situation that we had that I just described then is that they might have been in the in-community phase by then, so not in residence. I am also aware of a situation in military-style academy (MSA) 2.0 where reoffending has potentially occurred. Is that the type of situation where this section applies—where they are failing to comply with the military-style academy order?

In the first pilot, we had eight out of nine young people reoffend. I can’t remember what the number is of when that reoffending occurred during the in-community phase and then what has happened since the entire thing has finished. We are in the current in-community phase now of MSA 2.0, so can the Minister explain to me how new section 320ZB applies to a young person when they fail to comply with the military-style academy order and they’re in community? Does that mean they’re going to be brought back into residence, and do they continue on the military-style academy or do they just go back into the youth justice system? How do they get back out into the in-community phase, or does it just end there? We know that reoffending is occurring. These orders are up to three years, I think, in total. They could have them if they’re extended. I just want to understand how this section works with examples that we have actually seen through the pilot and 2.0 version.

Committee of the whole House

I can’t speak to decisions that are going to be made on individual cases. It will depend on the scenario, but it will also be a court decision, as to where the courts decide they want that young person to reside.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. OK, I accept that the Minister for Children can’t talk to those specific scenarios, but it actually doesn’t give me any understanding or clarification of how this section is intended to apply, in terms of the military-style academy orders, where a young person absconds or fails to comply. Could the Minister give us any explanation?

Committee of the whole House

It would be up to the courts to decide.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand that you have canvassed this part quite well, and I know that absconding would have been a big subject matter. I am going to start asking the question but, please, do interrupt me if it’s already been asked. It’s in relation to police chases upon absconding. Is that an area that has been covered yet?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Which clause are you speaking to?

I am actually speaking to my tabled amendment, which is 1 September 2026, 11.20.12 a.m., which deletes clause 63. The purpose of that is to remove the classification of absconding as a criminal offence, but it sort of fits into this section that we’re talking about, around absconding. I wanted to ask the Minister for Children particularly, before we move on from that topic, whether she might consider supporting this tabled amendment, because one of the really big points that submitters made during the select committee process was that young people do not abscond from places that meet all of their needs. This was a point that was repeated over and over again. That is a really important point: asking why.

One other thing I wanted to ask the Minister in relation to absconding in general, in relation to these clauses, is whether the Minister or her officials at Oranga Tamariki had a conversation with Police around how that takes place, in terms of the police following up a young person who is absconding. I understand that, in the past, the police have moved away from police chases, because they have been fatal in some cases. I was trying to look for it before I took the call, but I remember there was an incident a few years ago where a young person actually died—potentially multiple young people died—in a police chase. Those young people were absconding, and that led the police to reassess whether police chases in vehicles where someone is making an offence is—and this was actually in relation to young people who had stolen cars and were in the middle of dangerous and reckless driving. The police decided it was probably better off to not chase, because that can escalate the situation.

I just wanted to ask the Minister whether she has had some conversations with Police around how they might go about that, particularly if those young people are taking off in a vehicle, and whether she might consider my tabled amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Minister has indicated that she is prepared to answer this, but it is actually Part 2.

Committee of the whole House

I’m willing to answer the question because it is a fair and reasonable question. In regards to the tabled amendment at 11.20.12 on 1 September, absconding from a custodial sentence is a really serious matter. The purpose of this provision was to bring these cases of absconding into line with situations where children and young people abscond from custody while on remand pending a hearing. These children and young people can be charged with escaping lawful custody, and it is important to be consistent across the whole of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Police will have discretion about whether a young person who is being detained, for example, on a military-style academy order who escapes lawful custody should be prosecuted under the Crimes Act.

In regards to the way in which police may or may not look for that young person, that is an operational matter for Police. It is not my place, and it’s not within this bill.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 662 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 3A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to Part 1 replacing “YSO” and “serious youth offender” in each place be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320A, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing definitions in new section 320A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing paragraph (b) of new section 320A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320B, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 320B, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 deleting new section 320B(1)(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting paragraph (c) into new section 320B(1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320C, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320C, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 320C(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new sections 320C and 320D, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing “constable” in new section 320E(4) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320F, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320H, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting paragraph (k) into new section 320I be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320I, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320J, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320L, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320L, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 320LA be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new section 320LAA be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320M, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing “2 years” in new section 320M be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4 deleting new subsection 320O(6) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new paragraph (c) in new subsection 320O(8) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting paragraph (d) into new section 320P(2) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new subsection 320P(6), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320Q, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320R, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 320R, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 6 deleting new section 214AAA(1)(a) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting subsection (3) into new section 214AAA be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment deleting clause 11 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment deleting clauses 12 to 16 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment deleting clause 13 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, Tamatha Paul’s two tabled amendments to clause 15 proposing to delete subclause (1) and subclause (2) lend themselves to being grouped. I’ll put a single question on them unless members indicate they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s two tabled amendments to clause 15 proposing to delete subclause (1) and subclause (2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 15 inserting subsection (3) into new section 247 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 19 deleting new section 284(1AB)(e) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 19 inserting new section 284(1AB)(f) relating to disabilities be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 19 inserting new section 284(1AB)(f) relating to national and international evidence be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendments to clauses 21 and 25 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clauses 21 and 25, new sections 296J and 308AA, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendments to clauses 21 and 25 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clauses 22 and 25, new sections 296K and 308AB, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendments to clause 25, new section 308AA, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment deleting clause 27(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 34 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 37 deleting new section 296FF be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to delete Subpart 4 and all references in Part 1 to “military-style academy order” and “military-style academy programme” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment deleting clause 40 and Subpart 4 of Part 1 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment deleting clause 40 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to Part 1 to establish an intensive therapeutic rehabilitation programme order be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 320S, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 40 inserting new subsection (4A) in new section 320S be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 320S, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 320S, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new sections 320S and 320T, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 40 inserting new section 320SA be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 40 deleting new section 320T be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 320T, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 320T, inserting new paragraph (d) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 40 deleting new section 320W be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Tamatha Paul’s two tabled amendments to clause 40 inserting new section 320W(1)(c) are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 40 inserting paragraphs (c) and (d) into new section 320W(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 320W, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 320W, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 40 inserting subsection (4BA) into new section 320W be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 40 replacing subsection (5) of new section 320W be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 40 inserting new section 320X(3)(e) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 320ZC, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 320ZE, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment deleting clause 52 paragraph (b) and certain definitions is out of order as not being consistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment deleting clauses 53 to 58, clause 62, and references to “military-style academy orders” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 54 deleting new paragraph (na) of section 283 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Other amendments to principal Act, and the Schedule

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Tom Rutherford): Members, we now come Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 41 to 63, “Other amendments to principal Act”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.