RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
I move, That the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Law and Order Committee. The purpose of this bill is to address serious crimes being committed by young offenders and to provide a deterrent to younger people becoming involved in serious crime, which inevitably and almost certainly results in their becoming adult criminals and moving on to populate our corrections facilities.
Young offenders, and in some cases only children, have been responsible for a recent spate of very serious and shocking crimes. That was included in the explanatory note of the bill when it was written 4 years ago. The tragedy is that, 4 years on from then, the situation has got worse. There is also a clear perception amongst New Zealanders that the youth justice system is too lenient towards such offenders, and that the system we have in place is simply not working. Beyond a certain point, I believe that society has a responsibility to take control of the situation and to enact measures and procedures that deter young people from such acts. We believe that at a certain point—regardless of other circumstances, and regardless of the situations that may have contributed to or are contributing to that young person’s life and the way in which they are offending—society must draw a line and say: “Beyond here, you go no further.”
Justice now requires that a different balance be struck in respect of serious offending by young persons. This bill proposes that young offenders who commit serious crimes should be accountable for their crimes in more or less the same way adult offenders are. New Zealand First has long advocated a review of the youth justice system. Part of our policy, promulgated in election manifesto after election manifesto, is designed to improve the youth justice system. Our position incorporates a longstanding policy to reduce the age of criminal responsibility.
Another part of New Zealand First’s law and order policy in the area of youth justice is the implementation of a “three strikes and you’re out” policy. Most New Zealanders do understand that after the third warning that is their lot. We need to enshrine this principal in law and use it to enable us to guide and mentor young people who are at risk.
Both these policies are dealt with in this bill. By supporting this bill to the select committee other political parties can see these policies enacted in law. Having this bill brought before the select committee will—more important—give the New Zealand public and those charged with the responsibility for administering the youth justice system an opportunity to discuss this issue, to air openly, once and for all, the problems they encounter and give us a chance to improve the law to help them administer the system. More important, it will give us a chance to save the lives and the futures of hundreds of at-risk young children.
I would like to address a couple of misconceptions that have been circulating regarding this bill. Firstly, this bill was drafted over 4 years ago and has been sitting in the ballot waiting for that lucky lotto number to be drawn. When I drafted the bill I made it clear that we were seeking to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 10. Tonight I confirm, particularly to the National Party, that that is not now the intention. We will adjust this bill in the select committee to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 12—the target is 12, not 10. Members will have noted that clause 12 in Part 2 is entitled “Children between 10 and 14”. That is the clause we will amend.
Secondly, I would like to address some misconceived views that are being bandied about by some opposing parties. Some members have attempted to claim that the passing of this bill will result in more young people in prison. Let me make it clear that this bill does not remove the Youth Court. It does not attempt to change the Family Court. It does not remove family group conferences. It does not change in any way by any iota the youth justice services that are available to young people today. After this bill is enacted those services will continue—and, I hope, in a far better fashion and to greater effect. Above and beyond anything, this bill helps people who deal with youth offenders in the field and are sick and tired of young people considering themselves at the age of 13 or 14 to be 10 feet tall and bulletproof.
I have travelled the country during the 10 years I have been in Parliament—and I think I am the longest-serving Law and Order Committee member, spokesperson, and advocate in this House. When I ask police officers—Māori, Pākehā, men, women, superintendents, inspectors, commissioners, and right down to the lowest levels—what one law Parliament could change tomorrow to help them deal with their problems on the street and help reduce youth offending, they all say the same thing: if we change the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act and the Crimes Act to lower the age of criminal responsibility and remove from these young people the feeling that they cannot be charged, imprisoned, or held to account, youth offending will plummet. It will do so for two reasons. First and foremost, the mere fact that they can be charged and held accountable is in itself for most young people, who are just pushing the limits and testing things, a deterrent. Second, the gangs and insidious creeps who prey on our children and use them to commit crimes because they know those children can never be charged will be put out of business immediately, because that protection will be removed. That will help stop gangs using kids to burgle homes to order and get goods that they then fence off, repaying the kids with tinnies. That is the sort of scourge we have on our streets.
If there is one aspect of this bill I am passionate about it is that I do not want to see young people going to jail as a result of it. I do not want to see one more child in a youth detention centre. Let me make that clear. Some members have said that this bill will put young children in jails. Before those members get on their feet to make speeches on that and mislead the House, I tell them that this bill will not do that. I want to see young people saved by being given the realisation that there is a limit beyond which their offending will not be tolerated. They will enjoy the benefits of the existing youth justice system. Let us be clear about that—even though it ain’t exactly successful. For all the hoopla and talk that I hear about how effective the family group conferences are, how effective the youth justice system is, and how effective Child, Youth and Family Services is—well, that is so effective it has been disbanded. How is that for effectiveness? How is that for credibility? Finally, even the Labour Government has given up on Child, Youth and Family Services.
I will leave the House with one name and one thought to ponder. Had a more appropriate intervention or warning been available for young Bailey Kurariki, would he today be in a youth detention facility serving a sentence for manslaughter? I will argue to my grave that he would not. I will argue to my grave that had proper interventions taken place and had the deterrent existed at an earlier stage young Bailey would never have been involved in that act of manslaughter. Another point to ponder is that if Michael Choy had survived that vicious and mean attack, the law as it currently stands would not have allowed the police to charge Bailey with what he did. The really serious crime is that kids can commit serious crime today and get away with it. This bill seeks to change that. I look forward to the other speeches, to my speech in reply, and to the opportunity to discuss this bill in the wider forum provided by the select committee.
KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
Speaking on this bill, which National supports going to the Law and Order Committee, it is useful to reiterate what it does and what its rationale is.
To a certain extent, I agree with Mr Mark’s comments. The age of criminal responsibility is somewhat contentious. At present, under the Crimes Act, the age of criminal responsibility is 10, but a young person under 14 cannot be prosecuted for any offence except murder or manslaughter unless it can be established that the child knew what he or she was doing and knew that it was wrong—hence Bailey Junior Kurariki became the country’s youngest convicted killer at 13 when he was sentenced for murdering Michael Choy. The irony of the matter is that if Mr Choy had been only injured or wounded, then Kurariki could not legally have been charged at all.
This bill allows those young people aged 12 and over who are charged with serious offences to be tried in the general courts rather than the Youth Court. It keeps the current age of criminal responsibility for murder and manslaughter at 10, but introduces a new category of serious offences for anyone aged 12 or over.
Youth crime is certainly one of our most urgent problems. An overwhelming number of prison inmates began their criminal careers as young offenders. Young people aged between 10 and 16 are responsible for a quarter of the crime in New Zealand. Youth offending has been quoted as being 21 percent of all offending. We do need to get at-risk children off the conveyor belt to crime, and locking them up simply will not do that. And, yes, a person 10 years of age—or 12 years of age for that matter—is still a child.
As an aside, it is interesting that under the bill to increase the minimum legal purchasing age for alcohol, which is now set at 18 years of age, a person 18 years of age is also defined as a child. Yet, here, we are looking at treating a 12-year-old as an adult. So an 18-year-old is a child, and a 12-year-old is an adult.
Although many young people offend at some stage when they are growing up, under the present system some attend the youth justice family group conferences that Mr Mark referred to, and that is all. Others get recycled once, twice, three times, or even more through these conferences, but they keep reoffending. Research has shown that two-thirds of the 15 to 16-year-olds dealt with by family group conferences reoffend, and one in five ends up behind bars within 3 years.
Very successful. Although total apprehensions of children under 13 have dropped, it is apparent, and it is concerning, that violent crime has actually increased. We need to consider the hard-core youngsters who repeat offend again and again. Some of these youngsters are committing very serious crimes—and very serious adult crimes. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility alone is not enough. It will not see these 12-year-olds convicted of serious crimes being locked up in adult prisons. We have four youth justice facilities with a total of only about 102 beds.
There is certainly an argument that if an adult crime is committed then adult time is done. Although members on this side of the House and New Zealand First certainly take the issue of young offenders very, very seriously, it is obvious from the retorts of members on the other side that they do not consider it a serious matter for our society.
These young people are not treated completely as adults. It is a sad indictment on our society when we have to protect our community from children under 12 years of age who have committed vicious crimes. This bill is the band-aid; it is certainly not the cure. But part of our duty as members of Parliament is the protection of society, and if that means incarcerating young people who commit adult crimes, then so be it. It is unacceptable for a youth to commit rape at the age of 13, but we must wait until he turns 14 and commits rape again before society is protected from him.
It is also interesting to compare the age of criminal responsibility in the bill with that in other jurisdictions. In North Carolina, the age of criminal responsibility is 6. In England, Wales, and Australia it is 10. In Canada and Ireland it is 12. So the age of criminal responsibility being suggested by this bill is certainly not out of kilter.
If a child aged 12 and over commits a serious offence under this bill, then we must look at exactly what is a serious offence. Under this bill it is defined as: “any offence—(a) for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term of not less than 3 months or a fine of not less than $2,000;”. One may be so bold as to suggest that this should, in fact, be a minimum and not a maximum. However, that is an issue that the select committee can certainly duly debate and discuss.
These children may be children, but they are committing very adult crimes. Society deserves to be protected, but, most important, these children need to be saved from a life of crime. They need the protection of a more structured justice system. Incarcerating them in a youth justice facility for a period of, say, 3 months—and I understand the average stay is only 61 days—is simply not enough. It is not enough time to enable any effective rehabilitation of that young criminal. This bill does not go far enough, but perhaps a select committee is the forum to put some more teeth into it.
We suggest that judges need the power to help these children. Locking these children away will not help them. Giving judges more power to help them may actually assist in rehabilitation to keep them away from crime and to get them off that conveyor belt to crime. Judges need the power to help the parents of these children and to make sure that there are steps put in place for, say, curfews, and to deal with the parents perhaps by way of parenting orders—not as a punishment but as a positive development that is consistent with parental responsibility. After all, these children are very, very young, but they can also be very, very violent.
The judges need power to order effective rehabilitation. Locking the children up in a youth justice facility with no further action than that will not go a long way to rehabilitating them. We want these children rehabilitated and back leading a normal life in society. We need the judges to have more power to provide the resources to get these kids off the conveyor belt to crime.
National supports this bill going to a select committee, with the proviso that we feel that it certainly does not go far enough. There is the hope that the scrutiny of the select committee will give this bill some more teeth and make it more effective in keeping these children out of a life of crime, and off the conveyor belt to crime, and getting them back into society.
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The Government will support select committee consideration of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. The bill raises important issues about how we respond to children and young people who break the law. I may not agree with everything that the member who has just resumed her seat said, but I think her serious contribution underscores that this is a matter that Parliament must take seriously, and I think this bill attempts to do that.
The bill raises important issues about how we respond to children and young people who break the law. These issues will be of interest, of course, not only to members of the House but to many people, and should be given careful consideration. It is important that the bill be considered in the context of what we know about youth crime and what the Government is doing to address the problem.
Police statistics indicate that the level of child and youth offending has remained relatively stable over the last decade, and we should provide a backdrop to the debate here with these facts, although there has been a small increase in violent offending. In the last year youth offending actually fell by 10 percent, and I am optimistic that this downward trend can continue.
The Government’s approach to tackling child and youth offending is set out in our Youth Offending Strategy. The strategy is a comprehensive plan of action that focuses on—among other things—improved leadership and coordination of agencies, early intervention, and new measures to deal with serious and recidivist offenders. The Government has invested heavily in early intervention as the most effective way to achieve long-term reductions in crime and, ultimately, to address the vexing problem of the burgeoning prison population. We have, for example, increased participation in early childhood education, increased health checks for preschool children, extended the Family Start programme, and increased services to children who witness family violence.
Many of the recommendations in the Youth Offending Strategy have been implemented in the 4 years since it was launched. Notable achievements include establishing 30 youth offending teams around the country, training police and Child, Youth and Family Services staff on how to work together, the introduction of health and education assessments for many young offenders, and new programmes to address serious and repeat offending.
The Government is also taking steps to improve the legislative framework for dealing with youth offending by introducing the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4), which requires that victims’ needs are considered properly and are recognised when dealing with youth offending.
I turn briefly to the objectives of the member’s bill. I agree that when young people break the law, we must respond quickly and firmly. Young people must understand the consequences of their actions and be held accountable for them. However, this does not logically support the principle in the bill of adult punishment for adult crimes. Young people are not little adults. But they certainly do need our guidance and support if they are to lead law-abiding and socially useful lives. Incarcerating large numbers of young people will not in itself address the causes of their offending or improve community safety.
The bill addresses the difficult issue of the age at which children and young people should be held responsible for their offending. Currently, the age of criminal responsibility is 10, and the age of prosecution is 14 years—except in cases of murder and manslaughter, where the age is 10. Accordingly, at 14, a young person can be prosecuted for the full range of offences, and his or her offending is dealt with in the Youth Court. Between the ages of 10 and 13, children’s offending is dealt with in the Family Court, principally as a matter relating to their care and protection. When it is established that the child committed the offence and knew that his or her behaviour was wrong or contrary to the law, the Family Court currently has a wide range of orders at its disposal.
It simply is not true, as some would claim, that the current law is without remedies when it comes to dealing with child offending. The bill purports to lower the age of criminal responsibility for a wide range of offences, from 14 to 12 years, and to remove the requirement of establishing that the child knew the offending was wrong. I make the point that that confuses the distinction between the age of criminal responsibility and the age of prosecution. As previously stated, the age of criminal responsibility in New Zealand is 10, and the age of prosecution, except for murder or manslaughter, is 14.
This bill, which addresses victims’ rights and how best to reduce the likelihood of reoffending—and therefore improve community safety—is an important bill. Although there may be serious debate about some of the measures within it, there is no doubt that select committee consideration and wider public debate of these important matters are desirable. Therefore, Labour is happy to support the referral of this member’s bill to the Law and Order Committee.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
The Green Party is opposing the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. Although we recognise the importance of members’ bills and how difficult they are to get out of the ballot—let alone get to a select committee—the policy implications of the bill are so serious and so contrary to our principles and values that we simply cannot support it at all—even to go to a select committee. In our view, the current law is working sufficiently well. It was good to hear Minister Burton set out what the current law is so that it is clear for those in the community that Ron Mark’s bill does not add any value at all to the current legal situation. All the bill does is impose even greater penalties on those who are least capable of understanding the importance of those penalties, and least capable of extracting any value from increased punishment.
The Greens are very disappointed to hear that Labour is supporting this bill, because of the serious implications this has for children. Children, like adults, do very stupid, very dangerous, and sometimes very violent things. The reasons are complex and involve economic—
I take a great deal of offence at the use of those kinds of inflammatory comments, because they detract from the fact that we are talking in this bill about children—about 12-year-olds. I urge members to think about their own 12-year-olds. We talk in this House about one particular 12-year-old, Bailey Kurariki, as some kind of horrifying “Chucky”—some evil little thing—who is roaming around the country doing heinous things. I urge members in this House to think about their own kids getting themselves into a situation at age 12—where they have no control and when they are around bigger kids—that they cannot get themselves out of. Members should realise that their kids or my kids could be subject to this kind of legislation—this kind of punishment—because they do not have the skills, the experience, the maturity, and the judgment to figure their way out of it at age 12. That is what we are talking about here.
A number of complex and serious implications and impacts surround the child, especially one who is in the process of committing a crime. We talk about economic, cultural, and poverty issues that have huge impacts on adults in respect of criminal offending, let alone children. Those are incredibly acute issues that need to be dealt with in a practical and reasonable way—not in a way that simply punishes and locks these kids away. We must not treat and punish children in the same way that we do adults. Children cannot be expected to exercise the same judgment, common sense, or restraint that we expect from adults. They have an inherent reduced capacity, and they are at a particular reduced developmental stage that must be taken into account when dealing with them. We are talking here about 12-year-olds. I want to refer briefly to my own child, who is 13—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take extreme offence to Ron Mark making that kind of statement about my child. I seek an apology from him right now.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Thank you. That is the end of the matter. The member has withdrawn and apologised. I do not want any more interjections from the cross benches.
I will take a moment to feel a bit of parental pride and tell members that I think my daughter is a particularly bright and smart child, and she is very, very capable. Despite the fact that she is so fantastic, there is no way that she could be expected to exercise the sufficient judgment and restraint that would be expected of adults if she got herself into a difficult situation. That is why she has parents, and that is why I as a parent am legally responsible for her. She is in my care so that I can care for her and manage her through her developmental stages.
The principle behind Ron Mark’s bill leads to the idea that somehow at 12 years old children do not need parenting, and that they are at such a developmental capacity that they do not need to have adults around them to help guide them into the future. It is a bizarre concept and one that this House should disregard completely and entirely. We are completely opposed in the Green Party to the “three strikes and you’re out” approach. It completely fails to deter offenders anywhere in the world, and one needs only to look at the US statistics to see that all it does is lead to even more imprisonment. We simply cannot allow that for our own children.
We need more support for young offenders. We need more residential beds. There are only 126 residential beds and youth units in this country; there are twice that number in youth prison units. We simply need to have more resources put into children, rather than locking them up and throwing away the key.
This bill does nothing for victims and nothing for these young people. Ron Mark said in his speech: “Beyond here you go no further.” That actually means that that person is useless rubbish and to be discarded. The Greens will not support that evil principle.
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
I am sorry to hear that the two major parties are supporting this bill. [ Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Could we please not have any interjections across the benches. The speakers just cannot be heard.
After an hour of family conferencing, I stood before a hardened offender who had a rap sheet as long as one’s arm. He was angry, violent, and unrepentant. I asked him whether he cared about what he had done. He shouted: “Go to hell!”. Then, in a flash of inspiration, I said: “What about your mother?”. At this point his mother rushed forward and began hitting her son with an umbrella, with tears rolling down her face. She said: “You shame me! All my life and your life you shame me! I pray for you and you let me down.” That adult man stood bolt upright and began to cry: “I’m sorry, Mum.” Those are the words that began his rehabilitation and healing. He went on to lead a productive life within society after three terms in prison and convictions for 25 offences. Restorative justice can work.
The Māori tribunal restorative justice programme began some 30 years ago, by chance. A school principal rang up and said: “Another six of your kids are in trouble. They stole from a dairy and pinched a Pākehā kid’s coat. Are you going to do something about this, or should I ring the police?”. I said: “No, we will handle it.” Without knowing what we were doing, we called a hui for all six kids, their parents, and the victims—the family of the boy whose coat was stolen and the dairy owner.
We all gathered, we had a prayer to open, and then we had the customary Māori greetings to each parent and family. We then sat the six kids up in front, and each of us had a turn at talking to them, saying: “Jimmy, what are you doing? Last year you were the haka leader, now you are a thief.”, and so on. There were hard words and kind words. At the end we gave the parents a cup of tea and we decided that the kids should work at the pensioners’ village for four Saturday mornings, supervised by us.
It worked that first time, the second time, and the third time. The schools started sending cases to us, then the police sent cases. Then Judge Mick Brown heard of it and he started referring cases of serious offending from the courts.
The family conferences worked because the offenders were made to be responsible to the members of their own community. They admitted guilt and had remorse. It worked because their parents and loved ones were there, and officials from departments were either absent or their numbers were kept at a minimum. Judge Brown used those experiences when he designed and wrote the programme for family group conferences for our courts. Now Australia has adopted the programme.
I cannot support a bill that sends 12-year-olds to prison. I have spent much time in my life working with those who are behind bars—in youth institutions, men’s prisons, women’s prisons, maximum security prisons, medium security prisons, old prisons, and new prisons, and with D Block inmates. I have been part of several initiatives that have set up programmes for rehabilitation and learning, and many of those are still running today.
Prisons do not work; they do not rehabilitate. There are alternatives, which I intend to talk about at some length at a later opportunity. But I will just say tonight that the culture of our prisons directly conflicts with programmes of healing and rehabilitation. There exists in men’s prisons a set of relationships that dominates every inmate’s activities, especially at times of conflict or incident. Nobody is outside that matrix. In women’s prisons the structure is even more rigid, with mother, or “Kingpin”, and her attendants ruling the roost and governing behaviour amongst all inmates.
The Māori Party has no interest in the industry of creating schools for baby crims, of teaching our teenagers how to incite terror in their communities, or of adding further to the painful programme of punishment this Government seeks to hand out. We believe in the potential for good. We believe that whānau are best able to determine their own solutions. We are committed to a system based on justice that heals rather than on justice that hammers—a system that must celebrate and actively engage all members in the pursuit of collectively owning the people and the problems daily life can bring.
So, in thinking through the implications of a children’s prison, it would seem that having jail for 12-year-olds will just create schools of crime where young, fertile minds are exploited and the rules and rigid roles of the game are used as training programmes for crime. The Māori Party says that that system is wrong. This bill is wrong. It is, as Children’s Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, has stated, “knee-jerk lawmaking”. Instead of looking to target the people whom Ron here describes as young thugs who bash people in the street, we must look at ways to reduce the offending, to rehabilitate youth, and to not set them on a life of crime.
I will, in the next bill.
The Māori Party believes that the family group conference may need a review, but with the correct persons present it is still a positive plan for saving young people and for safeguarding our communities. We must work together to make communities take responsibility for their offending youth. The Māori Party does not support this bill.
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this
First of all, I want to congratulate Ron Mark on having his Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill drawn from the ballot. I look forward to following its progression through this Parliament.
I will begin, as I sometimes do in first readings, by standing back from the detail and looking at the climate that surrounds youth offending in this country. I was fortunate I think, with hindsight, to grow up in the 1950s when, due to a lot of parental guidance and also very good public relations by the police, we regarded policemen as our friends. We also had a very deep respect for the police, which included an element of fear related to their ability to put us in prison. I believe it was a very, very healthy thing in our society in those days.
I have seen that change quite dramatically during my lifetime. Now—and I hope it is still in the minority—there is a significant element amongst young people and indeed, as Metiria Turei describes them, children who flout the knowledge that the police cannot lay a hand on them. Indeed, that leads to a complete lack of respect—not only for the police but also for authority in general.
Tony Blair is in our country at the moment, or he may have just left. In the last election in Britain in 2005 this was a central issue. How do we avoid undue deference but get children and young people back to that basic value of respect, and that certainly includes respect for the police? I believe that we have swung the pendulum too far in this country, and therefore we will be supporting Ron’s bill.
It was also United Future’s policy in the last election to reduce the current age of criminal responsibility from 14 years to 10 years. We also had a policy to establish brat camps, run by the Army in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health, where persistent youth offenders would learn self-discipline and receive education, training, and counselling, as a last resort before prison; I make that point to Pita Sharples. I do not like the title “brat camps”. Personally I prefer boot camps. I think that is a better spin. In other words, we would be preparing these young people who have gone off the rails, to stay on the rails for the rest of their life. That is the aim, goal, and objective of this bill.
I think that those who jump straight to the conclusion that we are going to put kids in jail are really exaggerating what the bill sets out to do. We believe that it could work in conjunction with the young offenders legislation and be aimed at those people who commit a crime that falls just outside the definition of a serious crime—and that is the great majority of first-time offending by young people.
We were also to establish a three-strikes rule for youth offenders, whereby the number of family group conferences that youth offenders may face would be limited to three, before the third offence triggers a custodial sentence. I agree with Dr Pita Sharples that family group conferences are very, very worthwhile. I am strongly committed to them. But we also have to admit that for some particular types of personalities, the smart alec personality who is unrepentant, they are a flop. So we need to have something in place for that, and that parallels very closely the terms of this bill.
In respect of introducing tougher sentences, we think that sentences should more accurately reflect the nature of offending, the impact on victims, and reflect the social denunciation of crime. We do, as a society, undoubtedly need to send a strong message to our young people that there are consequences for actions. We so often, I believe, in our society today pretend that consequences do not flow from actions. In real life they do, and it is important that young people learn that principle very early on, in my opinion.
I would like to mention also that in England, for example, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years—in other words, it is 2 years lower than the 12 years promoted by this bill. So this bill is not radical. It brings us into line with other Western nations. It is United Future’s view that it has the potential to nip crime in the bud, and that is a worthwhile objective at the earliest relevant point in a child’s development. I would like to make this point. Children on average know right from wrong at 7 years of age. It is tested, I know, because the Catholic Church has that test before it lets children receive Holy Communion, and it works virtually every time. At 7 years of age a child knows what is right and what is wrong. Five years later, if that child is still committing crime we need to get serious.
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this
I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak to the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. ACT will be supporting this bill going to select committee. If passed, it will put in place many of the things that ACT has campaigned hard on during many elections, and it will help the police by giving them powers that at present they do not have when dealing with juvenile offending.
As ACT’s new national security spokesperson, I recently spent some time with the police. I spent a night shift with the Wellington police and a day shift with the Porirua police. When I asked them what the greatest difficulty was that confronted them, they said it was their inability and powerlessness to do anything productive with juvenile offenders. Anybody under the age of 17 presented them with severe difficulties. The only exception to that situation was where the juvenile was known to the police and to the Youth Court, and had breached bail provisions that were in place. In those circumstances the police were able to take young offenders who were in breach of their conditions of bail to try to deal with the situations, and some of the situations we encountered were quite nasty.
I think we should be under no illusions that we are talking about children, but they are children who know their rights and who are very well acquainted with the law. We are not talking just about first offenders. When I was out with the police, we came across several young offenders who, according to the police computer system, had a string of charges, but nothing had been able to be done about them. Several of those young offenders had been before the Youth Court many times and had been given any number of chances, yet their behaviour had continued to deteriorate and their offending continued to worsen as time went on.
There are three difficulties, all of which are addressed in Ron Mark’s bill, and I applaud the initiative he has put forward. The first difficulty is the inability of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act to deal adequately with this situation, which is preventing the police from doing their job adequately. So the amendments in Part 1 of this bill to amend that Act are long overdue. Part 2, obviously, amends the Crimes Act, and Part 3 amends the Sentencing Act in relation to offenders under 17 years. These are important initiatives that must be discussed at the select committee.
I do not know whether what Ron Mark has put forward in his bill is the full answer, but the bill is a great opportunity to actually deal with youth offending in this country and to try to help those young people where we can. It is important that we send it to a select committee, get expert advice from a wide range of places, and discuss its initiatives properly. ACT is very pleased to support this great opportunity to do that. Youth offending is a great problem. Certainly it is an escalating one, and the police are recognising this.
I do take what the Māori Party speaker said to heart, though. He made some very valid points, and I think this bill does not preclude the opportunities that can exist for various communities to help deal with members of their own communities.
As Mr Mark said, we should welcome that. We should invite it and welcome it in the spirit in which it is intended. Frequently in this House I stand up and lament the loss of the private prison, the Auckland Central Remand Prison. It did great things, particularly for Māori and Pacific Island communities. Now that the State has taken over that prison again, we hear there are difficulties there. That is a great shame, because very good work was happening there. I think we have much to learn from the memorandum of understanding that was developed between the Māori iwi groups and the Pacific Island community and from the very good work that went on there. That good work was allowed to happen because people took off their ideological blinkers and saw beyond the notion that the area of corrections could be dealt with only by the State. There is much to learn from our rich diversity of cultures, and it is now well known and well established that it is the communities themselves—the whānau and the Pacific Island communities—that are often best able to deal with those problems.
I think this bill will go to a select committee and I welcome that, but I would like to see as part of the discussions a broad range of submissions coming forward from all communities in New Zealand. So ACT will be supporting this bill and we look forward to its progress through the House.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
Let me start by clearing the air quite strongly. I do not know anybody at all who is keener and more determined than my colleague Ron Mark to see young people get a good start to their lives and to live fulfilled, decent, worthwhile lives. I have known Ron for a number of years now. I have listened to him on many occasions when he has talked about crime and youth crime, and I can tell this House he is absolutely determined to give young people a fair go at the start of their lives.
But this bill is not about that; this bill is about bringing in a new method to address the concerns we have about young people committing crimes. Its purpose is outlined in the opening sentences of the explanatory note, which I think it is very worthwhile to read to members: “The purpose of this Bill is to address the serious crimes being committed by young offenders. Young offenders, in some cases only children, have been responsible for a recent spate of very serious and shocking crimes.” If anybody doubts that, he or she should look at the crime figures in this country, and at the violent crime figures. I looked at them earlier on this afternoon. In 1990 I think there were 20,000 violent offences, or thereabouts. In the latest figures available, there were 45,000. That is a huge increase in violent offences.
I talked some time ago to a young police officer. She said many offenders start when they are young people—it is a sad fact of life that they start young. [Interruption] Madam Assistant Speaker, you ruled a little while ago that the interchange across the benches should stop. New Zealand First respected that ruling. I ask you to—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Yes. Please, I do not want any interjections across the benches. It is disturbing for the speaker.
A little while ago I talked to a young female police officer in the Auckland area, and she told me about the incidents she had to deal with. On more than one occasion she would pick up a young person late at night, take that person to the police station in order to contact somebody about that person, and before the end of her shift she would have picked up the same person again. Those young people are back out, committing crimes. They have gone wherever the police were able to take them under the scope of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, and they are back out and being picked up for committing crime again.
If an incident was to make me realise just how serious this crime wave is, it was the time when I went home late one night, at 10 o’clock, to find my house had been burgled. It had been ransacked. Burglars had got in and had ransacked everything, everywhere. Drawers had been pulled out, beds had been turned up, and things had been stolen. I immediately called the police. The police came—one officer. He found what he thought were fingerprints. The police sent a fingerprint expert the following morning and the expert did, in fact, find fingerprints. A small hand, a quarter the size of mine, was fingerprinted in more than one place in that house.
I asked the officer whether that meant the crime had been committed by a kiddie. He said it meant there had at least been a child in the house, pulling everything apart. I asked what he could do when he caught the child. He said he could do nothing now, probably, but he did tell me that, in all probability, those fingerprints would turn up 10 years from now with a bigger handprint—and then the police would be able to do something. But meanwhile, the police officer told me, that young person would get away, effectively with impunity, with going from house to house as he or she dares, taking whatever he or she wants. On that occasion the burglar took a number of valuables. Nothing was returned, but I can tell members that the feeling one gets upon walking in and seeing that that has been done to one’s home is absolutely the pits.
It is with huge regret that New Zealand First believes we have to promote this bill, but there is a problem out there. It is a real problem, and by sending this bill to a select committee—as I think members of the House will do—we will at least give New Zealanders the chance to air their views and their concerns. I am fully supportive of my colleague, as all New Zealand First members are.
NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this
Having listened to the speeches in the House over the last hour, I cannot help but think that the breakdown of the family unit is what leads juveniles to commit offences. In part, I believe, that is due to the social agenda the Labour Government has been pushing down society’s throat. The guardianship legislation has enabled people in de facto relationships to take over parenting, the Civil Union Act has been rammed down people’s throat, and family values in this country have been eroded. That breakdown in society causes juveniles to commit crimes. Some of the offences that are being committed are extremely dangerous.
Last year, in the election campaign, I was privileged to bring Celia Lashlie in to talk to groups that were willing to listen to her. She has a lot of experience in relation to the Good Man project and talked about how extremely important it is to have male role models in families. It is unfortunate that family units that have broken down often do not have a male role model. They therefore have to target one, whether it is the next-door neighbour, the after-school sports coach, or a male teacher.
Celia Lashlie talked about how very important it is for children, particularly boys aged around 10 to 12 years, to have parameters in their lives. She likened it to a square-shaped electric fence that children could see through and know where the boundaries were, because if they touched it they would get a zap. Unfortunately, when family relationships break down and there is no male role model, mothers are left very susceptible when it comes to bringing up boys. That, I think, is what drives the real issue we have in society today.
I say to Ron Mark that National will support the referral of his bill to the select committee, because we recognise that juvenile offending is a huge problem in our country. We believe—and I was pleased to hear Mr Mark say this—that the age of 10 years is a little too young. It is a little too extreme. At the select committee we will support reducing the age from 14 years down to 12 years for serious offences. We know that those young children—those teenagers—know when they break the law. We know that and they know that, and all that happens is they are slapped around with a wet bus ticket. They know when they break the law. We need to be tougher on those people, because the issue is a huge one in our society.
Also, it is interesting to note that if we are to get tougher on people who break the law in respect of gangs, then we need to have more police. We need to have more front-line police.
Darren HughesI am surprised that Mr Hughes is even in the House tonight. I would have thought that at quarter past nine tonight he would be out there trying to get a bigger majority. He has the slimmest majority in the country, and that is in the Otaki electorate, which is where I am from. It is very important that we have more front-line police in order to get to the heart of the gang problem. Mr Mark can take his hat off for being part of increasing the numbers of front-line police by 1,000. That will help get to the heart of that issue.
To sum up, I think this measure is a good move. It is a moderate one and is in line with what happens in countries such as Canada and Ireland. The young people who offend will not be sent to jail. We have four youth justice facilities in this country.
Tariana TuriaI will. I would like to look through that facility with our law and order spokesperson, Simon Power, who is doing a fantastic job. We support this bill going to the select committee. Society has a real problem in the area of juvenile offending, and it starts with the breakdown of the family unit.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
When this Parliament is at its best, it debates issues in good spirit and recognises members’ day. In debating the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill, I was hoping, until the last speech, that we would avoid some of the petty point-scoring that has been occurring.
I say to a member opposite, Nathan Guy, that he should not dare lecture me about family values. If he wants to have a bit of a chat about family values, then he should not lecture me about adultery, infidelity, and things like that. We need to be really careful if we want to go down that path. I have had a gutsful of those people opposite who have cynically gone on about the family unit. That member may laugh, but if we want to go there, we should step a bit further. For the benefit of those who are listening to Parliament tonight, that man actually said that New Zealanders who are in some form of civil union have no family values whatsoever and are terrible people. Effectively, that member and other members opposite have said that the National Party does not want to know people who are, for whatever circumstance, in a de facto relationship. I am really sad that the previous speaker stooped to some opportunistic, low-down point-scoring.
I want to come back to the purpose of this bill and the opportunity it gives us. I will not say anything about the attack on the family unit that the National Government in the 1990s was responsible for—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been timing this member. He is now 3 minutes into his speech. He has not addressed this bill, at all. I ask you to bring him to order, please.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member has come back to the point, and I think he was addressing points that were made by the previous speaker, too.
I thank my good friend and colleague Brian Connell for bringing me back to the bill, because he has reminded me that time is running out.
The bill is to be referred to the Law and Order Committee, and as the chair of that committee I am certainly looking forward to receiving it. I hope the committee can have a detached discussion on it, look at all the issues, and address some of the very, very important issues that Ron Mark and others in the House have raised. I really hope we do not get into some kind of political posturing, and that was my concern about the previous speech. With due respect to the previous speaker, I think he detracted from what has been a very valuable and considered debate in the House tonight.
I also hope the select committee will take the opportunity to hear some of the good-news stories that are happening in this country in respect of youth offending. I come from a city that has youth offending teams that are doing some really fantastic work. A number of programmes out there are trying to address the problem, and we want to take the opportunity to look at which of them are working. Certainly, I concur with Ron Mark, the sponsor of the bill, that there are issues of serious concern—and I have struck these in my own city and my electorate, Hamilton West—relating to youth offending and appropriate penalties. For example, I was talking to my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, the good MP for Waimakariri—an incredibly hard-working MP. He told me about the Turn Your Life Around programme, by Mr John Banks—not the John Banks of Auckland fame—which is very, very victim oriented. I understand that at any time the victim can pull the plug on that particular programme.
It is really important in the context of this debate that we look at some of the rafts of positive measures that are happening. I will also be very interested—and I think Mr Mark alluded to it; certainly he did in my discussions with him—in overseas examples in relation to the age of criminal responsibility. Also, in terms of the discussion on the family unit, it is obviously up to us all to do what we can. That is why I am such a passionate believer in our Family Start programme, and I honour the people who are involved in it in my city, and who are trying to intervene at the very beginning of problems so that we do not have tragedies down the track.
Finally, I look forward to this bill coming to the Law and Order Committee, and to that committee giving it a very fair hearing. I also look forward to hearing the witnesses and the evidence. I think the exercise will be very constructive.
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) Link to this
Madam Assistant Speaker, I seek leave of the House to make a contribution to this debate. I understand that the National Party speaking slots have expired.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Leave is sought for the member to speak. Is there any objection? There is not. The member has 5 minutes. Is that what the House wants? It is—Mr Connell has 5 minutes.
I thank members of the House for allowing me to make a contribution. I start by congratulating Ron Mark on having the courage to come to this House with this type of legislation. I am sure he did not arrive at that position easily. The basis of the genesis of his argument is simply that if our kids engage in adult crime, then they must do adult time. Do I take any comfort out of that? Absolutely not. It is a sad day for New Zealand that we are debating this type of legislation, but the reality is that this country has changed so much that we are now forced into this situation.
It is an undeniable fact that so much of our violent crime now is being perpetrated by young people—kids—and we have to address that issue. We have to have the courage to address that issue. People in this country have the right to feel safe in their houses at night. We must take off the gloves, as Martin Gallagher invited me to do, stop being politically correct, and start addressing the issues. I say to my Māori Party colleagues in the House that you have to start lifting your game as well, because a lot of the kids who perpetrate the crimes are your people. I heard the leader of the Māori Party say that we need to sheet home some of the responsibility to parents. She is right, but she needs to take more of that responsibility.
Yes, we are taking that responsibility. Let us share that responsibility—that is the argument I am mounting—and let us stop burying our heads in the sand. Will putting our kids in prison serve a great purpose? No, it will not, and I accept that argument. What it will do, though, is give us time to address the ills of this country. They are severe. So we need to start introducing some policy that will break the nexus of the crime rate, which is spiralling out of control. In that regard, I think I share some of the aspirations of my colleagues in the Māori Party, and that is that we have to get people off welfare.
Clearly, there is a correlation between welfare dependency, low educational outcomes, and high crime rates. Unless we have the courage to break that nexus, then, unfortunately, we will see ourselves in a situation where we are putting more and more of our young kids in prison. It is an undeniable fact that so many of our young kids on welfare are Māori. We can put our heads in the sand tonight, but that is the reality. I am here trying to make a constructive contribution, because it is one of those things that we have determined not to argue about in the past, but we now have to address it.
So I come back to where I started, and I say again that I think Mr Mark is on the right track. It is a sad day that we are in the House discussing this issue, but the reality is that it has been forced on us. One has only to look at the crime statistics now to see who is engaging in violent crime. Unfortunately, it is our young people, as young as 10, 9, and 8 in some cases. I do not take any great pleasure in acknowledging that fact. I accept that, in some ways, a failure of our society has put us in that position. However, we do not address it by denying it. I look across at the member for Waimakariri and I think: “He’s going bald, he is without ideas, and his contribution thus far just demonstrates that he really is devoid of any constructive views whatsoever in this House.” Mr Mark has had the courage to put into the public debate the argument that forces us to address what is really happening in this country, which is that welfare dependency is spiralling out of control. We are now reaping as we have sowed.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Before I call Mr Mark, I just say to members that a number of speakers have brought the Speaker into the argument. I do not like to interrupt a member’s speech to tell him or her that. Members should know that.
RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
I am absolutely astounded that two of the people in this House who pride themselves on achieving academic accolades, on being able to be inclusive and consult people, and on seeking other views, and who pride themselves in debate, should show such high levels of intolerance and reject outright that this bill should be debated by the public in a select committee. I am disappointed in Dr Pita Sharples. One does not have to be brown, grow long hair, and have tattoos to understand that our Māori people are heavily engaged in crime. I may not have some of Dr Sharples’ attributes but my family, too, are as heavily engaged in crime. One of the reasons I am concerned about youth crime is because of my background as a ward of the State, growing up in a welfare system, with, I would guess, something like 50 percent, if not more, of my whanaunga, my immediate family, having ended up in prison. What a disaster.
I do not disagree with one word Dr Sharples has said about the appalling failures in the Department of Corrections, but where was he when its members were running riot with the “goon squad”? There is silence. I, Ron Mark, fought that issue, brought it to the House, and created a situation that led to the Duffy investigation, ably assisted by Mr Connell and other members who are no longer in this House. Do not presume that we do not share Mr Sharples’ concerns for the things of which he speaks, but please give us the opportunity to discuss these issues in a select committee, which is something he has ruled absolutely out of hand. As my whanaunga I tell him that I am disappointed in his decision.
How dare members of the Green Party stand up and tell us what is right and wrong in the youth justice system, while advocating that everyone should be able to smoke marijuana. One of that party has shareholdings in a company that sells party drugs. Let us talk about youth crime and its causes, the tragedy of wasted human capital, and the tragedy of the waste of human lives, but do not dare stand in this House and be so pious and preach to me about how their views are more substantive and more worthy than mine. Walk in my shoes with my whanaunga, see the damage that marijuana causes, and then come and talk to me.
I do not have to argue the need for this bill. Members can pick up any newspaper and read about an 8-year-old knife-wielding burglar locked up by Child, Youth and Family Services. The boy knew that the police were powerless to charge him for his criminal offences. This is not knee-jerk, this was not yesterday, this is not today; this was in August last year. Talk to me about a young man out of control in Masterton, who drove his car at speeds of 100 kilometres an hour through busy, populated streets where men, women, and children were walking. He did this not once, not twice, but dozens of time and laughed at the police, because they can do nothing with him. Do not talk to me about what the law can deliver. We know that a person under the age of 14 has to kill someone in order to be held to account. We know that to bash a woman with a hammer, to render her immobile for the rest of her life, and to cause serious brain damage that will prevent her from nurturing and caring for her children can go unpunished. There is no law that brings that young man to court, and members dare to tell me that they care more. We all care in this House. That is why we are here. The only one thing we can guarantee the people of this nation is that we will debate these issues. We will let victims and offenders jointly come to the select committee and air their views, and then we will make a considered decision. But for that considered decision to occur we must all vote this bill to select committee, and I beg each and every party in this House to do that now.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 111
- New Zealand Labour 50
- New Zealand National 48
- New Zealand First 7
- United Future 3
- ACT New Zealand 2
- Progressive 1
Noes 10
Bill read a first time.
RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting at this point, but during the debate some comments were made, and I actually was out of line with Metiria Turei. I do believe that she totally misunderstood what I said. But I just wish again to apologise to her for any offence caused.