Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a short question around commencement. Now, we know that the pilot is sort of happening right now, but I’m just wondering, the commencement is the day after Royal assent—is there anything, from a Minister’s perspective, that is in this bill that does actually make changes to what is existing in that pilot programme that actually potentially will take time to implement that won’t be immediately implemented, despite the Royal assent being given the day after?
I’ll make sure I’ve understood that correctly, sorry. There’s nothing retrospective. Like, the pilot programme will continue as it is. Nothing will change because of this law change within the pilot programme. Is that kind of what you’re asking?
The question is: is there anything in this bill that changes the existing programme that then will require a different way to implement? Probably not.
No.
Just another quick question on commencement. One thing I was wondering when this came back for the committee of the whole House stage a month ago was if the Minister for Children could explain why there was such a big lag between the end of the select committee process when the bill was reported back to the House and the second reading.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think that’s more a question for the Leader of the House rather than this Minister.
Is it?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think in terms of commencement, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan raises a good point. I’m also curious as to whether the courts—because this will go before the courts. It commences immediately on Royal assent and the judges will be expected to be able to make decisions on this straight away. I’d be interested to know whether there’s been a programme of kind of education for judges and for lawyers as well—youth advocates—who will be expected to stand up in court and be able to argue the merits or otherwise of these young serious offender orders. In fact, there are two Amendment Papers that the Labour Party has put in around commencement. One is to kind of, I think, kick it down the road by six months, which would seem appropriate for those kinds of things, because all of a sudden we have a compulsion. It’s not just about the pilot; it’s about all of the machinery that makes it a compulsory framework.
I do want to talk about the title as well, because “young serious offender” is a real label. I’m just curious as to why we didn’t just call it a—in one of my Amendment Papers, in fact, in my name, we could have called it the “intensive youth intervention regime”. That would have been a much less confronting title than “young serious offender”. Also by saying, “You are receiving intensive assistance.”, rather than “You are a young serious offender.”, you’re not labelling them. You’re saying, “Well, this is what is going on.”, but you’re not saying, “You’re the worst of the worst.”, which is what “young serious offender” essentially does.
Of course, then there are a few other amendments which I’m looking forward to the votes on, such as perhaps we should just call this the “Oranga Tamariki (Fast, Tough, and Slightly Less Effective Than the Last Time we Tried This) Amendment Act”.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I thought the member was on such a serious topic when he mentioned the first title. The first title was a genuine—[Interruption] Quiet on the other side, please. I’m just saying that the first title was a genuine opportunity.
Well, no, it was, but we like to lighten it up. I’m not used to being heckled by the Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This Chair, apart from working in compartments, actually has a dislike of silly titles.
Well, no, you can say that, Madam Chair, and—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I did.
—take a call if you want to, but these are making a point, and I get it, but humour in the Chamber is there for a reason. The fact of the matter is that this is boot camps 3.0 now, isn’t it? They’ve been proven, time and again, not to do anything. Whilst I know that that amendment, as with any other amendments I put forward today, is not going to pass this committee, it does make a point. But you’re right. The serious point is this: young serious offender labels are deeply problematic. The fact is that we all agree that intensive intervention is needed. The last Government started some programmes that this Government has continued, but it’s labelling of people as being the trigger rather than their needs being the trigger.
The military-style academies point as well is an important one. We’re calling these military-style academies and yet the Minister for Children has stood up and actually said quite clearly that there’s no combat, there are no weapons, there’s actually nothing military about it, and yet we’ve insisted on calling this a military-style academy, which brings to mind boot camps and the kinds of terrible kind of TV show boot camps that you see. Whereas, in fact, if it was an intensive supervision residence, that’s an entirely different thing.
Let’s call it what it is. It would have been a lot easier to engage meaningfully and constructively if we had been talking about intensive rehabilitative frameworks, which is what one of the proposed titles actually talks about. The “Youth Justice (Escalation) Amendment Act” is another title. We could have just called it that, rather than saying military-style academies, which is—and I think the Minister knows this—just playing to a section of the community. She’s trying to get the headlines over here, whilst perhaps some of the stuff she’s doing is good work, but calling them “military-style academies” doesn’t do it, so we should have retitled that as well.
Just in response to whether we should delay the commencement due to concerns of whether the training has happened, I’ve been advised that the training has happened and everybody is ready to go, so there’s no need to delay the commencement.
Just on that, that was actually sort of going towards what I was going to ask about in terms of the date of commencement and the date of Royal assent on the bill. The funding that was set aside by the Minister for Children to run the pilots was quite high. I fully believe that those young people are worth every cent. I’m not disputing that, but I just want to ask, since this bill takes effect fairly soon: has the Minister provided for that within her Estimates so that that level of funding will be provided for any new young people who are declared young serious offenders once this bill comes into effect? Yeah, I’m just interested in whether those Estimates are set aside.
Yeah. The funding is in place and the funding was over a four-year period. That was to include the in-residence and the out-of-residence, and that includes all the clinical support, mentors, and teams. The funding is there.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to make a less serious contribution, but I won’t do that—I won’t do that—because I do actually want to just pick up on the point that Tamatha Paul has raised about what has been appropriated for this. Can the Minister for Children just tell me, according to this law once it’s passed, once it gets Royal assent, when will the first formal through-sentencing military-style academy (MSA) be expected to be stood up? My understanding—and the Minister can correct me if I’m wrong or provide further clarification—is it actually going to take some time before any young person qualifies according to this legislation.
What modelling has been done around the number of young people who are going to be captured in it? The first formal—not voluntary, not further pilot; formal—one under this. Further to that, does the Minister have any intention of running, in the interim, any voluntary style MSAs—like MSA 3.0—while that takes the time to kick in.
No decisions have been made in regards to whether there will be another voluntary programme. We’re open to all options, but no formal decisions have been made.
As far as when the first one will happen: I don’t have a crystal ball, I don’t know when someone’s going to go out and commit a crime or when a judge is actually going to order this. That will be up to the circumstances of the future.
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 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Responding to Serious Youth Offending)” with “(Labelling Young People)” 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Responding to Serious Youth Offending)” with “(Coercive Youth Interventions)” 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Responding to Serious Youth Offending)” with “(Intensive Youth Intervention Regime)” 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Responding to Serious Youth Offending)” with “(Youth Justice Escalation)” 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Responding to Serious Youth Offending)” with “(Punitive Youth Response)” 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Responding to Serious Youth Offending)” with “(Restricted Youth Justice Process)” 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What!
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You heard me. The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Responding to Serious Youth Offending)” with “(Boot Camps Return)” 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.
The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Responding to Serious Youth Offending)” with “(Enhanced Intervention Orders)” 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Responding to Serious Youth Offending)” with “(Two Strikes)” 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.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 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.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 2 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 2 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 2 is out of order as creating an uncertain commencement.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 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.
Clause 2 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 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.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.
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.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately. However, it is now time to break for lunch. The House will resume at 2 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 2 p.m.
🗣️ Spoke in this debate (6)
- Karen Chhour (ACT New Zealand — List Member)
- Katie Nimon (New Zealand National Party — Member for Napier)
- Tamatha Paul (Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand — Member for Wellington Central)
- Willow-Jean Prime (New Zealand Labour Party — List Member)
- Dr Duncan Webb (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Christchurch Central)
- Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan (Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand — List Member)