Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just starting off where we left off previously, I’m just going to speak to Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment that he was speaking to in our last session. I think it is tabled amendment 7.05.30, and it was around clarity around the time and place a young person must be when receiving a statement explaining their youth serious offender declaration. I didn’t answer the Hon Duncan Webb that night because I could hear the rationale behind what he was speaking to in that tabled amendment, so I went away and asked for further advice on whether there was some work to do and whether to accept that amendment. On further advice, I just want to agree with the need for clarity on where and when a young person may be directed to remain at the court. This is important both for the court process and for a young person’s experience in being in court. Regarding the use of the term “court”, I’m satisfied that the term, as currently used, already captures the intended scope and allows for any place in the court. This is consistent with all other legislation which refers to the court as a place. In practice, a judge will direct that the young person should wait to receive the written statement. This will depend on the individual circumstances of the young person, where they are to wait, whether they are subject to an order authorising detention, and other operational factors relating to the administration of court facilities or other proceedings.

On the issue of timing, I consider that this is sufficiently clear from existing drafting in section 320L. As noted in section 320L(1), the timing is clearly identified as one hour after the time at which the court makes the young serious offender declaration, and for these reasons, while I agree with the intent and purpose of the amendment, I do not consider it necessary to achieve the stated aim.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to acknowledge that the Minister for Children took the opportunity to go away and take further advice on that particular tabled amendment from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I just wonder if the Minister bothered to do that for any of the other tabled amendments. I can’t make eye contact with the Minister to confirm that—

Hon Karen Chhour: You’re still talking.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: OK. Yep, that’s a question, so—well, I’ll give the Minister a moment or two to consider whether she’s going to answer that one, after just signalling for me to sit down so she could answer it and then not answering it. So while we do that, I would like to take the Minister to my tabled amendment, time-stamped 5 August, 7.05.33. This is an amendment to clause 320M and a proposal that we reduce it from two years to one year, with the provision of up to another year. In terms of clause 320M, it’s talking about the duration of the youth serious offender (YSO) declaration. It says that it “continues in force for a term of 2 years from the date it is made unless 1 of the following occurs first:”, and there’s a list there, but I’m proposing that we replace that. In particular, the point in (f) that the declaration is renewed by the court for a further period not exceeding one year or such lesser period as the court thinks fit. As it’s currently drafted, it provides for a two-year duration as the standard period for a YSO declaration.

Now, these are serious declarations that are being introduced through law, powers given to the court with a lot of direction to the court in terms of what to do for these young people, and it says that it should be a duration of two years. So, given the significant impact of such a declaration on a young person, we believe that a shorter default period better reflects the principle that interventions should be proportionate and no more restrictive than necessary.

This amendment ensures that the declaration remains in force for only as long as it is justified by requiring any continuation beyond a year to be actively renewed by the court. It introduces an additional safeguard and promotes regular judicial reconsideration of the young person’s circumstances and progress. I want to ask the Minister questions about this because, as I understand it, from military-style academy 2.0, we have two young people who have voluntarily left the in-residence component of the military-style academy. Now, under this law, there is no ability for a young person to voluntarily leave a military-style academy. Did those young people have to go back to the court in order to be able to voluntarily withdraw from the second military-style academy? Can the Minister answer that question?

Committee of the whole House

In regards to the Amendment Paper date-stamped 5 August 7.05.33, I’ve already responded to this amendment, and I’m not going to go through the reasons why again—just to say I do not support this amendment.

Committee of the whole House

OK, I understand that the Minister won’t support this amendment. My question to the Minister is: in the example that I have given the Minister, which is a real-life example of the second military-style academy, where two young people voluntarily left the in-residence component, did those young people have to go back to the court in order to be able to withdraw voluntarily from that programme? And can the Minister confirm whether young people, in the future, once this law passes, will be able to do that as well; if not, what advice has the Minister received about that, given they have had a real-life example of this in their pilot programmes?

Committee of the whole House

They were able to leave voluntarily because they volunteered to be on the programme. Under the new law, they’re not volunteering to be on the programme, so, no, they won’t be able to voluntarily leave.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister for her consideration of my amendment, which was tabled on 18 August 2026 at 16.40.01.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Could you just repeat that amendment please, Ms Paul.

TAMATHA PAUL: So that’s 18 August 2026, and that’s at 16.40.01—so the first tabled amendment in that set, which is in regards to clause 4.

Just continuing on that line of questioning from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, around the length of time that the young serious offender (YSO) declaration is enforced and what this amendment is asking. I wanted to ask the Minister whether she would consider parents, guardians, or caregivers being able to make an application to the Youth Court to suspend or reduce the amount of time that a young person spends with that YSO declaration assigned to their name. The reason for that is basically because—I won’t repeat what the previous speaker said—but two years is a really, really long period of time, particularly when we know that in that time between birth and 18 years old, the brain is developing rapidly. A person, especially a young person, as I’m sure the Minister can appreciate, can really transform in just two years’ time, so I wondered whether she might consider the ability for that young person’s parents or guardian—seeing that change in that young person—to make that application to the court so that that young person can continue turning their life around, unimpeded by carrying that declaration to their name.

Committee of the whole House

Just speaking to the Amendment Paper, 18 August, 16.40.01—I won’t be supporting this amendment. I just want to make it clear—that it’s important to make it very clear—that there are knowable points where declarations can be reviewed. Allowing reviews at any time has the potential to be abused, and risks using significant court resource. For this reason, the bill does provide that applications can be made to reduce the term of declaration, including by parents and guardians, after 12 months and 18 months.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the Minister for making the point that the first pilot, and then military-style academy 2.0, were voluntary programmes, and the difference between those and what we have here is that they will be in legislation. They are no longer voluntary, so they cannot volunteer themselves in, and they cannot voluntarily withdraw. My question to the Minister is, in a situation where a young person may have been assaulted by other young people in the programme, or by staff members in the programme, or possibly have assaulted a staff member in the programme—are those young people able to withdraw from the programme, or are they going to be forced to stay in these military-style academies from anywhere between three months to 12 months, when a situation like that has taken place?

Committee of the whole House

That would be an operational decision, not my decision to make, and it will be on a case-by-case basis.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): No, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. Madam Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration on the next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.