Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I move, That the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill be now read a second time. It has been a rather long and torturous road to reach this point, and I fear that the indications from the Law and Order Committee report and from discussions I have had with members of the National Party team are such that some of us in this House will be presented with a bit of a disappointment.

I want to take a moment to remind the House why we brought this bill to the House. I guess, tragically, that we need look no further than this morning’s New Zealand Herald headline: “Grandfather dies after bus stop bashing”. Once again, we are seeing another case that has all the hallmarks of youth offending written all over it. As I look at this headline and read the story, having heard Morning Report this morning, I think that the great tragedy is that we will probably find, with regard to the offenders who committed this horrendous crime and killed Graham Wallace Arcus while he was walking home from church, the same litany of reasons and excuses, and we will hear the same calls from the same quarters asking for more social justice, more consideration, more care, and more understanding. I have no doubt that they will be labelled as brown and from a broken home. That will be the catchcry that will require us all to look at our shoes and wonder how those poor young men could have ever fallen to such a level that they would kill an innocent elderly man walking home from church. That is the fear I have, and I guess time will tell over the next few months as to whether my assessment and the assessment of other MPs in the House is accurate.

The fact is that for decades—since 1989—we have had a youth justice system that has been touted, lauded, and applauded as world-leading and something that is envied all over the world. It is said that it has reduced youth offending. Well, the facts are quite the opposite. The facts are—and members will see it in the select committee report—that violent offending by young people has gone up by 47 percent. In the interdepartmental reports that we had an opportunity to examine at the select committee, we learnt that privately and confidentially behind closed doors officials are writing to each other and expressing grave concern about the ferocity and the increasing frequency of extreme violent crime.

Yet these same officials have the audacity to tell the public, members of the House, the select committee, and Ministers that it is all under control, that the youth justice system is working, and that we are envied all around the world. I ask those people to take me to a country where they envy a 47 percent increase in violent vicious crime and where they envy the fact that 43 percent of all apprehensions for all crimes committed across all categories in all age groups involve people aged 10 to 20. Forty-three percent was the figure we were given. We were told that one of the four mitigating factors that are considered when allocating the extra 1,250 police is the youth density within a population in a community and the amount of time police spend with youth crime. Twenty-four percent of all police time is spent dealing with youth offending. Members should remember that in court the legal definition of “youth” is a person aged 14 to 16.

I said right from the outset that this bill, which has had a lot of criticism, was drafted for New Zealand First by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. There were a lot of rather interesting comments by some learned people about the quality of the drafting. I am not a lawyer. I do not write these things myself. I got people who do know how to write law to write it for us. But we made it clear at the time this bill was drafted that a number of the things had happened that had astounded and appalled the public. Michael Choy and Kenneth Pigott were both murdered by young offenders, and it was not the issue of the unaccountability for murder that was raising the public’s concern. Rather, it was the fact that, had Michael Choy survived the horrendous beating, Bailey Kurariki would have walked away because he could not have been charged for causing grievous bodily harm and he could not have been dealt with in the way that he was. So we raised this bill. It took 4 years to come out of the lotto, and when it finally got here we made it clear to the House that we were no longer seeking to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 10; we were seeking to lower it to 12.

The title of the bill is important to us. The title is the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill, not the “Youth Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill”, and there is a clear reason for that. The term “youth” narrows the mind to those aged 14 to 16. We are interested in young offenders aged 10 to 20, because that is where 43 percent of apprehensions for crimes lay—nationwide, in all categories and in all age groups. I have explained the reason for that, and, sadly, there is more evidence in the newspaper today for the need for such legislation. As for the purpose of the bill, it was proposed that beyond a certain point society needed to be able to take stronger measures to protect itself against these top-end offenders, and that young offenders who commit serious offences should be held accountable for their crimes more in the same way as adult offenders are. The intention was to target the top-end serious repeat offenders, not Cindy Kiro’s Moro bar stealer. That was a ridiculous analogy by that woman. The means by which the bill sought to achieve these aims was to change the legal position in respect of the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years; to broaden the circumstances in which young offenders could be sentenced to incarceration to include cases where offenders were convicted of serious offences, and we went on to define that; to move children and young people aged 10 and over who commit serious crimes and offences to the same category and jurisdiction as those who commit murder and manslaughter—the District Court—and to define a serious offence as any offence 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. In our innocence we thought that if someone went to jail for 3 months that person had committed a serious crime. However, it appears that people in this House do not think that.

In time we accepted some of the criticisms—and I will cover that—and we indicated a desire to take an amendment. The advice of the officials highlighted a number of consequences in respect of the bill’s impact on the Youth Court and lower level offenders, and indications are that if the bill were to proceed in its current form neither of the two major parties represented at the Law and Order Committee would support it at its second reading—it is something they have said they will not do. New Zealand First has always said that its intention is to improve and enhance the youth justice system as it applies to young persons and to better equip the New Zealand Police so that they can intervene more effectively with persistent and serious young offenders. New Zealand First wishes to preserve those aspects of the youth justice system that are proving effective, but to amend those that we believe are not effective.

It was my intention to read out this letter, which was tabled at the Law and Order Committee and clearly lays out all of the amendments that we were prepared to accept. I will seek leave to table the letter so that the House can see precisely the extent of amendment that we were prepared to accept at the select committee and in the Committee stage to achieve some of the things that, notably, Mr John Key said in his latest speech that he wants to achieve, such as widening the jurisdiction of the Youth Court and widening the sentencing range available. I will also seek leave to table the document I have here. It is the revision-tracked version drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to achieve these amendments. It is an amendment that could have been passed by the select committee and brought to this Table as an amended bill. One of the select committee members said to me: “But, Ron, this guts your bill.” My answer to him was: “I left my ego outside the door. The aim is to improve the youth justice system.”

It saddens New Zealand First greatly that the opportunity to take these amendments, put them into the bill, and present the newly amended bill to this Table has been thwarted by the refusal of National and Labour to accept the amendments drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. We think that is a perversion of the democratic process and of the select committee process, and we are not happy. I will seek leave to table this document. Let us be clear that these amendments, produced at the select committee, would have achieved everything that Mr Key says he wants to achieve. They would widen the jurisdiction of the Youth Court, not shrink it; enhance the sentencing options available to the Youth Court judge, not restrict them; broaden the definition of serious offending and make it stronger and more acceptable to the two major parties; and ensure that young offenders do not go to jail but go to a youth detention facility. We were saddened by that. I seek the leave of the House to table PCO s7176/3, the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill proposed amendments for the consideration of the select committee.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I want to start by acknowledging the comments made by Mr Mark in the first half of his contribution this evening. On this side of the House we are in no doubt that Mr Mark was well intentioned in his desire to deal with what is, quite frankly, an appalling state of affairs in respect of youth violent crime. Mr Mark made clear tonight the course he wished to take, and we acknowledge that his attempts to achieve this end through the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill were intentions that were well placed.

The bill and the submissions we heard during the course of its consideration enabled the Law and Order Committee to hear evidence from a wide range of people. It soon became clear that there were grave concerns about the rate of violent youth crime in New Zealand. Mr Mark is quite right when he says that since 1999 violent youth crime has risen 43 percent. The problem, though, is that this bill will not do what it needs to do in order to address those issues.

To say that the criticism of the bill was strong would be to understate the case. It is worth listening to what Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft had to say about the bill during the submission process. He said: “In short, it would effectively end our current youth justice system, it would abolish the way that we have acted for the last 19 years, and whatever … have been the intentions, it is clear that this bill, in my respectful view, is profoundly poorly drafted. One could even say it is abysmally drafted. And I would have to say that I am concerned that such an important issue, that is, youth justice and youth offending, has had to address such a poorly drafted piece of legislation.”

Judge Becroft went on to say: “Frankly it is a bill that would require massive amendment in its present form. It simply could not proceed in its present form.” The important point, though, about the judge’s submission was this: “If any amendment were contemplated of the degree that would be necessary it would really result in a whole new bill. … So in my submission it would be quite wrong to amend what is here, because that would deprive”—and this is an extremely important point, given the comments just made by Mr Mark—“the youth justice community and the public from making meaningful submissions to what would effectively be a whole fresh product.”

In other words, we would be starting again if the massive amount of work required to get the bill into a workable form had been undertaken, and the public would be denied the opportunity to make submissions on the amended version of the bill. That is a profoundly important point. The judge went on to say: “These are all, in my view, profound deficiencies in this bill. … I think this bill needs to be withdrawn and it needs to start again.” The Children’s Commissioner, although perhaps less focused on the legalities of the matter, made similar comments, as did the New Zealand Law Society and the Human Rights Commission.

When National put together its minority view on this bill—although we supported the recommendation of the select committee—we wanted these comments recorded. There were, as Mr Mark rightly points out, contrasting views—from the practitioners who thought that the youth justice system was working well, and from the lay people who ran up against it and repeatedly expressed their lack of confidence. That meant that a discussion about the youth justice system was timely and warranted. However, it became clear during the submission process, after objections from the Principal Youth Court Judge, the Children’s Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission, the New Zealand Law Society, and the advisers to the committee, that the bill was flawed.

In spite of that, and despite the impression that may have been given, the committee did work in good faith to try to resuscitate the bill with targeted amendments. National viewed the lack of progress in this regard as a lost opportunity. But I return to the judge’s comments, which were, in effect, that had the massive amount of amendments been made to the bill that were required to make it operational and workable, the public would be denied the opportunity to have another say on the new bill.

In effect, the bill in its original form wiped out the jurisdiction of the Youth Court. In effect, it abolished the police diversion scheme. All of these are big steps to take. Despite what Mr Mark has just expressed to the House, National Party policy in this area is quite the opposite. Our policy is to extend the jurisdiction of the Youth Court in a downward fashion to capture younger offenders, not to abolish the jurisdiction of the Youth Court, as this bill would have done. In fact, in our submission, any attempt to abolish the police diversion scheme would be the wrong step to take.

All that having been said, there remains a serious problem in New Zealand society around violent youth crime. Mr Mark is quite right when he says that it has increased by 43 percent since 1999. This is an issue that will not go away. This is an issue that the Parliament will have to address in some shape or form. Unfortunately, this bill was not capable of addressing that issue in a coherent and workable way.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) Link to this

I am pleased to take a relatively short call in opposition to the bill, but I do so because the bill canvasses very important issues, and issues that are very important for our community. Like the previous speaker, Mr Power, I join the New Zealand Law Society; Unicef New Zealand; the Human Rights Commission; the National Council of Women; Women’s Refuge; the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society; the Child Abuse Prevention Services; Activate, which is the Ministry of Youth Development’s advisory group; the Youth Justice Independent Advisory Group; the Wellington Community Law Centre; the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand; the Office of the Children’s Commissioner; the Churches’ Agency on Social Issues; and the Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, in opposing the bill.

It is not often that anyone can stand in this House and list support that is so comprehensive in terms of rejecting legislation like this. I will come back to the comments that Judge Becroft made, because some of those comments that Mr Power alluded to have a degree of details to them that should be shared with the House and written into the public record.

As members know, and as the community knows, the bill seeks to change a procedure for young offenders who commit crimes, and although no one would object to that, I think most people would acknowledge that crime in all its facets at all age groups is an extremely complex issue, as is social policy of any kind, and the dividend that is to be reaped from social policy changes and social policy funding is one that people wait for, for quite a considerable time, and I will come back to that point later on in my comments.

The attitude the House, and communities, should reasonably take about issues of this kind is that a number of broad-ranging interventions are more likely to be effective than a more Draconian response to those issues, as is advocated by some of the less moderate in our communities. The debate we had yesterday around the Government’s programme Stop Tagging Our Place and the bill that was read a second time in this House last evening about tagging and graffiti vandalism, are part of that suite of initiatives that will turn round attitudes.

As Mr Power has already commented, Judge Becroft was very damning in his comments about the draft legislation but he was not the only one. Those individuals and groups that I itemised earlier, who have a huge amount of experience in working with young people, asked that the bill be not proceeded with, or else be rewritten. The bill suggests changes to the process for dealing with 10 to 13-year-olds, and one of the most telling things in the advice I have is the comment from Judge Becroft: “If this bill were passed, it would, in one stroke, end the family group conference as we know it, in its entirety.” Now, I am not standing here and saying the family group conference is without problems, but I do believe that the family group conference is one of the elements of the European approach to social policy, and the judiciary, that have been extraordinarily successful here.

I am not even suggesting it has been as well resourced as it might have been. I think most people who deal with family group conferences and the associated issues would acknowledge that, and that is an issue for our communities, but it is sad that it is one of the few parts of a much more effective series of interventions that European jurisdictions have developed around family issues—which are always fraught, and family and youth issues, equally—that have been extraordinarily successful. I hope we can strengthen the family group conference approach to matters, resource it better, and, in fact, continue a shift in the focus of our judiciary and our judicial system that moves much more towards that sort of European approach, rather than the highly adversarial system we inherited from our English forebears.

It is important also to note that Judge Becroft commented that there were around 1,000 to 3,000 persistent youth offenders, usually boys, and commented further to the Law and Order Committee that the real solution to that group is early intervention, and I will come back to that in a moment. But one of the most telling things he said is as follows: “Violent offending for 10 to 13-year-olds … the rate has dropped in 10 years from 47 individuals per 100,000 to 38 per 100,000. The rates for dishonesty offences for 10 to 13-year-olds’ apprehension … the rates have significantly fallen.” He simply made the point: where is the statistical evidence to suggest that offending by 10 to 13-year-olds is spiralling out of control?

It might be convenient for members of the House to quote wider figures, but if we are talking about that particular age cohort, would it not be nice to apply the facts to this argument? Those facts quite simply show, as Judge Becroft said to the select committee in his evidence, that the 10 to 13-year-old age group is the only age group where the violent offending rate is coming down. So why would any Parliament in its right mind proceed with more Draconian methods or with watering-down a very effective method for those people?

Judge Becroft made the point also that we send—to our shame and embarrassment, actually—too many people to prison, by international standards, and we know that. We also send about 60 under-17-year-olds to prison every year, and no one should think therefore that we are soft on crime in that area. But the key message I wish to share with the House is simply that early interventions, as I said earlier, are things that take a long time to flower, and that is why I am so proud that this Government has extensively continued, over the last 9 years—and will continue to do so after its success at the end of this year—to offer those interventions for young people.

Rather than responding by way of this bill to issues around youth behaviour, we need to continue with things like lower doctors’ fees and lower prescription charges; with B4 School checks and Well Child checks, because we all know that the children who are not fed, not monitored, not looked after, and not supported by their communities are the ones who cause these difficulties. We need to continue with programmes like 20 hours’ free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds, and we need to continue with good social policy like the Working for Families tax credits.

We know that this Government in recent times has responded also to a crying need—with large non-governmental organisations that provide a lot of the social service support in our community—for further funding, and I hope that will be able to be continued. We know that Schools Plus creates really good opportunities for our school-age children in the future, and anyone who was listening to question time in the House today would know that housing is a major issue, not just the affordability of housing but the problems that this community faces as a result of the sell-off of over 13,000 State houses by our predecessors in Government.

So I am afraid I cannot listen—[Interruption] I do not think very many members of the community who were watching television this afternoon have forgotten that many of the problems that have been created in our communities are ones that we are working hard, and working successfully, to correct.

As I said, no one has any doubt about the intent of the mover of this legislation. It was clearly canvassed at great length, and my colleague Martin Gallagher will speak about some of that further detail covered in the select committee. I believe that the approach we are taking—namely, a broad set of social initiatives to support and help young people and their families into more appropriate behaviour—is a much better way than the sort of reaction advocated by legislation of this kind. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

As impotent as it might make some politicians feel, the fact is that legislation cannot fix everything, and this legislation can certainly not fix the problems that my colleague Ron Mark, my whanaunga Ron Mark, has brought to the attention of the House. There are serious concerns and he has within him a legitimate concern that he wants dealt with. But this bill will not fix it; no bill will fix it. I am proud that the Green Party opposed this legislation from the beginning, continues to oppose it through this second reading, and looks forward to its failure in this House, because this is not the solution to deal with the very real concerns that Ron Mark has raised. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Last Sunday the Herald on Sunday ran a snoop story on Bailey Junior Kurariki. It talked up his home detention like he was in paradise when all it had was shots of a young man standing around talking on his cellphone, which he could already do in jail, and the fact that he had a birthday and got some presents too. Big deal; one can get that stuff in jail too—even the birthday cake. This young fellow will have it tough enough trying to make it on the outside as a man after spending all of his teenage years in jail, without a camera highlighting his every move and rednecks calling for his head every second day.

Today we consider this Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill, which aims to severely punish young offenders who commit serious crimes, as a means of deterring others, because somebody thinks that the youth justice system is too lenient and that we should be hitting young crims harder. To no one’s surprise, on analysing the statistics of those who are arrested most, prosecuted most, and convicted most, Māori youth get the prize three times more often than anyone else. The Māori Party thinks this bill is rubbish; it is another knee-jerk reaction to a problem in society that the Government does not know how to fix. And how do we know that severely punishing young offenders who commit serious crimes, as a means of deterring others, does not work? It is easy—because the Americans have been following that route for decades and they have thousands upon thousands of seriously violent criminals whom they are too scared to let out on the streets because they are 10 times worse than when they went into prison, and many of those started off as teenagers. That is how we know it will not work here, because it does not work anywhere.

Do members want to know another reason why it will not work? The reason is that the Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, says so. He has seen more of those cases than every single one of us will ever see—that is why. And who is this judge? He is the guy we have appointed to deal with all the seedy problems of our youth that we do not want to deal with—that is who he is. OK, so Judge Becroft is the guy who knows it all. What did he actually say about all of this youth offending? He reckons: “The over-representation of Māori in the youth justice system is probably the most pressing issue confronting all of those who are involved daily in our youth justice system in Aotearoa.

And what does he say about this bill? What is his opinion on this bill? Members will all want to hear what he says about this bill because he knows more about this stuff than all of us. He said that this bill was “profoundly, poorly drafted, in fact abysmally drafted”. “No, no”, I say to the judge, “do not try to spare our feelings. Tell us what you really think.” He said: “profoundly, poorly drafted, in fact abysmally drafted”. Judge Becroft has also spoken out previously about how biased the criminal justice system is against Māori kids, noting Ministry of Social Development research that suggests half the Māori population is under 19; there is an increased vigilance of Māori youth by police; Māori youth are highly visible in the youth justice system; Māori youth are more likely to end up in the Youth Court, where tougher sentences are handed out, than go to a family group conference; and Māori youth are likely to get more severe sentences than other kids.

With all this going against our kids, we knew that somebody had to make the safety and well-being of our rangatahi an absolute priority. Angeline Greensill, Māori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato reminded us that that is exactly what the Māori Party is here for: “to defend Māori rights, and to advance Māori interests, for the benefit of the whole nation.” That is an excellent philosophy, because it seems that the two major parties have become obsessed with trying to bash Māori kids into submission with tagging bills and youth offending bills, without any thought whatsoever to the consequences of continuing down the pathway of heavy sentencing. Even the New Zealand Law Society was heavily critical of this bill, and we could hardly say that that society is a puppet of the Māori Party. It said: “the Bill demonstrates a misunderstanding of New Zealand’s youth justice system, adult criminal justice system, and international obligations in respect of children and young persons”. We would go further. We would also say that the bill demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of New Zealand’s young people and their families.

But no, it seems that this bill simply does not accept the fact that a Government that shows scant respect for its youth is asking for trouble from those very ones it has discarded. A Government that allows rampant illiteracy must also accept the consequence of having so many disaffected people within society. A Government that would charge teenagers for an education that its members got for free can hardly expect respect from its youth. A Government that would ban the smacking of children, but reacts to the problems with teenagers by simply getting a bigger and bigger stick, is a Government destined for the Opposition benches.

Yes, crime violates people and, yes, serious crime is a crime upon society itself. But given how poorly prisons actually rehabilitate inmates, all we will actually achieve by fast tracking teenagers into serious offenders is leaving our kids a time bomb to deal with that we did not have the guts to deal with ourselves. Determining blame and administering pain is not the answer, and banging on about youth crime in election year is an ugly and pathetic way to get votes. Restorative justice has a far better success rate. It may take a little longer, and it certainly takes a lot more intelligence, but, as Nelson Mandela himself would say, if renewal is your game, then reconciliation beats retribution every day.

New Zealand’s ground-breaking Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act and the family group conference are not perfect by any means, but they are steps in the right direction. Families are actively encouraged to help address crimes committed by their young people, and the conferences are where whānau, hapū, and iwi can resolve disputes for the betterment of all parties. Locking people away simply does not work—again, ask Nelson Mandela. They locked him away for 25 years and they could not break his spirit. They could not get him to renounce his beloved African National Congress, and they could not get him to accept apartheid. All they did was make him more determined to win, and win he most assuredly did.

Talking about the great Nelson Mandela, he also said that a nation should be judged not by how it treats its highest citizens but by how it treats its lowest ones. That is the challenge we are faced with whenever bills like this come before the House. We have to be smarter, we have to listen to the alarm bells signalling a breakdown in our society, we have to be willing to admit that we do not have all the answers, we have to listen to one another again and again, and we have to actually decide whether people are more important than property. We have to decide whether to build a nation going forward, by empowering those on the bottom to believe that the world is theirs, and not just the shadows; or to take the easy road, chuck the kids in jail, and hope they never come knocking on our nightmares when they get out again.

The Māori Party will oppose this bill and all that it stands for. Tēnā koe.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I stand on behalf of United Future to take an unusual position on the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. We will support the bill’s second reading, although we are unlikely to support it any further. The reason we have taken this particular stand, which is an unusual stand to take, is that we believe that this bill and its sponsor have been given extremely shoddy treatment by this House.

Our concerns about the bill were signalled in the first reading debate. What amazes us is that despite the fact that the bill’s sponsor willingly drafted substantial amendments to change the bill in the direction that its submitters had requested, there was no will or effort shown in response. Given that there was such willingness to improve a lot of the concerns that people had, I would like to label the response that was dished up to the bill as plain laziness. Let me draw a comparison. When the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill was put before Parliament it was very dysfunctional and poorly drafted legislation—everybody understood that. But because the sponsor of the bill was willing to have it worked on, to negotiate, and to consult interested people around the community and within this House, a considerable amount of time and effort was put into helping him get it into a much more acceptable format to be returned to the House for the second reading. But this bill has never been afforded that luxury.

Let me give members another example. When the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill was introduced into this House it scraped through to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and then considerable work was done. The sponsor allowed the bill to be parked. The Department of Labour jumped on board, and for 12 months behind the scenes, in consultation with the sponsor, it worked vigorously on that bill to bring it back into a completely redrafted state where it could be introduced into the House at the second reading reconsidered. I could name a lot of legislation that has turned up in the House for a second reading looking markedly different from how it looked when it entered the House for its first reading.

We all understand that getting a member’s bill balloted and taken through the process is a very precious thing to members, and I think that Ron Mark has been served a very raw deal in regard to his bill. I have explained to Mr Mark that some of his amendments could not be supported by United Future, but that is not the point I am making here. The point I am making is that every bill is deserving of good process, and I do not believe that this bill has been given that. For that reason, and that reason alone, United Future is prepared to support the bill’s second reading. I feel critical even of the Government in this regard, because the Green Party, whose bills I mentioned before, has a deal with the Government whereby it abstains on issues of supply and confidence. It does not put its vote forward and support this Government, yet the Government will bend itself over backwards to do additional work on any of the Green Party’s bills in order to get them into a fit state to return them for a second reading. The Government will not give the same courtesy to a bill from a support party.

If a bill has been given a fair chance to improve in a select committee, as much as it is capable of being improved, and is then rejected, that is a different matter. In that case one chooses to reject it on the basis of its potential and what has been worked on. I think Ron Mark has been given a very shoddy deal here, and for that reason and that reason alone United Future is supporting the second reading of the bill so that it can come to the floor of the House and the amendments that he wanted to have made at the select committee can be given the chance to be considered by the Committee of the whole House.

KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. I want to make it clear that although National opposes this bill, it is certainly of the view that violent youth offending rates do warrant intervention and serious consideration. It is clear that there has been an increase in the intensity of violent crime committed by young offenders, and this is one issue that does need to be addressed in the future. Certainly the many discussions held at the Law and Order Committee highlighted a number of other matters that are deserving of our attention in this arena.

However, in light of a number of the submissions, including, as has been mentioned, but not limited to, submissions from Judge Becroft, the Principal Youth Court Judge, the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro, and the New Zealand Law Society, it became apparent throughout the process that despite the best intentions of the member and, indeed, of the select committee, the bill in its original form, notwithstanding the proposed amendments, was simply unworkable and should not and, indeed, could not proceed.

We in the National Party want to get tough on crime, and we have proven that we have not put the issue of youth crime in the too-hard basket; instead we have come up with a fresh, innovative strategy to help deal with some of the problems that this bill intended to fix. Our youth plan released earlier this year tackles the problem of youth offending and will help to get these at-risk children off the conveyor belt to crime. An overwhelming number of prison inmates begin their criminal careers as young offenders. In fact, young people between the ages of 10 and 16 are responsible for a quarter of the crime in this country, and youth offending has been quoted as being 21 percent of all offending. National’s youth plan will help turn these statistics round by giving the Youth Court new powers to get young people back on the rails and providing tougher sentencing options to deal with those who pose a serious threat to the safety of our communities.

We will not turn our backs on those who most need help. We want to give all young New Zealanders the opportunity and the responsibility to better themselves, no matter what their circumstances, abilities, or track record, and simply locking up young offenders and throwing away the key will not address this.

I want to dwell for a small time on the criticisms of the process. I think it is incumbent on us, as members of Parliament, to make sure that the laws we pass in this Parliament are good laws and ones not so riddled with flaws that they need to be revisited time and time again. It is important to note that if amendments to this bill were, indeed, even possible, then the only clauses remaining in the original bill in its original form would have been the title clause and the commencement date clause, and, in fact, the only clause remaining totally unchanged would have been the title clause. The amendments were so substantial that it really would not have been fair. Submitters would not have been given the opportunity to present on such a dramatically amended bill, and we would have had to start all over again.

Given the huge legal implications this bill would have on our youth justice system, it would be irresponsible for us to support it at the second reading. The Law and Order Committee had serious concerns about the structure, drafting, and operational implications of this bill and the Youth Court. We have already heard the words of Judge Becroft: “In short, it would effectively end our current youth justice system, it would abolish the way that we have acted for the last 19 years, and whatever … have been the intentions, it is clear that this bill, in my respectful view, is profoundly poorly drafted. One could even say it is abysmally drafted.”

The bill also aroused concern from a number of legal practitioners experienced in the criminal justice system. The New Zealand Law Society echoed concerns and in its submission stated: “The Society opposes this Bill. As it is presently drafted, the Bill demonstrates a misunderstanding of New Zealand’s youth justice system, adult criminal justice system, and international obligations in respect of children and young persons.”

I mentioned earlier that this bill would have huge legal implications for the youth justice system and I think it is important to examine some of these this evening. Irrespective of the member’s motivations for the introduction of this bill and his intent, effectively the bill would abolish the Youth Court by removing almost all criminal offenders from its jurisdiction. We heard that it would remove 95 percent of cases from its jurisdiction, leaving only depositions hearings involving 10 to 16-year-olds.

The definition of a serious offence was one that was widely discussed at the select committee, and it is extremely wide: far wider than other definitions of the same phrase in other legislation. We have heard that it defines a serious offence as any offence 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 and, yes, that would include the “Moro bar thief”, or any other offence committed by an offender who has previously been convicted of an offence or has more than three previous convictions for offences.

There would be no Crimes Act offences outside this definition and only 18 Summary Offences Act offences that are not serious, according to this definition. Examples of such offences include acting as a medium with intent to deceive; publishing a false notice of birth, marriage, or death; and trespass on a ship. All are very rare offences, some of which are not even relevant to youth offenders, and Judge Becroft noted that he had never seen these offences before the Youth Court in all his years of involvement.

The bill would introduce a new system where almost all children and young people between the ages of 10 and 16 who need to be charged in court rather than diverted will have to be charged in the District Court as opposed to the Youth Court. It will ensure that children and young people will be tried and punished as adults. If this bill were to pass we would see many offences committed by children deemed as serious, although the same offence carried out by an adult would not be considered in the same way. This would see a situation whereby children were given harsher treatment than adults. Although the term “adult time for adult crime” has been bandied about, it is worthwhile to consider the huge body of research that shows that teenagers do not have the same developmental level of cognitive or psychological maturity as adults.

The bill as originally drafted would amend the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act of 1989 so that children as young as 10 might be dealt with in the adult courts, thereby establishing a new system for those between the ages of 10 and 13. What is confusing about this, however, is that there is already a procedure in place to deal with 10 to 13-year-olds. The current system whereby child offenders are dealt with under section 14 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act remains entirely unchanged. Thus we would be left with two parallel and contradictory systems.

In conclusion I reiterate the National Party’s stance as being one that is tough on crime. However, unfortunately this bill does not achieve that objective. Although the bill has brought a number of issues to the table that need to be confronted, any support for the bill as drafted from this point onwards would be irresponsible on our part. Reluctantly, although we support the intent of the bill, we in the National Party must oppose its second reading.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I rise to speak on the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. Before I praise and commend the mover of this bill in terms of the issues he has raised with this Parliament, I will take brief issue with Judy Turner, who implied that insufficient consideration had been given to it. As the former chair of the Law and Order Committee, I reiterate that this bill was referred to the committee on 29 March 2006. We received and considered 66 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard 35 submissions, which included holding hearings in Auckland. We also conducted a site visit to the Child, Youth and Family facility in Rolleston, Christchurch. We also received advice from the Ministry of Social Development, the New Zealand Police, the Department of Corrections, and the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health also contributed to advice provided to the committee. I also want to ensure that Judy Turner has read the 15-page concise summary of the bill—so that there is no misapprehension, I certainly urge people to read it.

Although we are not able to support the continuation of this bill, I strongly and warmly praise Ron Mark for introducing this bill. I acknowledge that even though we will not progress with this particular bill tonight, the issue of youth crime and youth offending will absolutely remain with us tomorrow morning.

We have heard tonight about some very serious examples of youth offending. We have all had the experience where we have spoken, as members of Parliament, as friends, as neighbours, and as relatives, to victims of crime and victims of youth crime. Indeed, when one sees the hard-working shop owner who is literally ageing before one’s eyes because he has been constantly hit by taggers and by the broken windows, then, of course, it is natural that one wants to see an effective system to protect him as a victim so that he can get on with his life, but, most important, in order to stop the offending.

I also acknowledge the anti-graffiti bill that was debated in this House yesterday. That bill was also before the Law and Order Committee.

The two key concerns raised in the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill are the accountability of child offenders and the need for longer youth court orders to address serious and persistent youth offending. I note that these concerns are being addressed in the context of the update of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, and I notice that the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) is before the Social Services Committee at the moment.

As our report acknowledged, we hope members of the Social Services Committee have already read our report very closely. We hope they have availed themselves of the very comprehensive range of submissions and the issues that were raised in terms of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. I note also that the lowering of the age of prosecution was considered in the consultation phase of the update of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. The majority of submitters who commented on this issue in that particular consultation process opposed lowering the age of prosecution. I notice also that the Government is addressing concerns regarding the response to child offenders, and serious and persistent offending by young people aged 14 to 16, through the proposals in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6), and, indeed, for longer Youth Court orders.

That particular bill, which is before the Social Services Committee, strengthens the approach taken to young offenders but does not cause them to be treated as adults unless necessary. Comprehensive research asserts that children and young people who are dealt with on an adult basis are more likely to reoffend, especially those who are subject to imprisonment.

There is debate around lowering the age of criminal responsibility and criminal prosecution, and we have heard evidence that that is inconsistent with research on the cognitive capacity and the intellectual and emotional capacity of children and young persons. To state the obvious, I say that adolescents have incomplete brain development and insufficient life experience to enable them to foresee the absolute consequences of their actions or to enable consistent and sound decision-making, especially at times of high emotional arousal. However, those facts should not let a young person off the hook, at all. Let me stress that it is a matter of having the outcome, the consequence, and the punishment appropriate to the age, and appropriate to the crime.

As I have said before, I acknowledge the significant contribution of Mr Ron Mark, and I know he will respectfully disagree with the majority view of the Law and Order Committee in terms of our report back to Parliament. I acknowledge his significant input and contribution to the bill that is now before the Social Services Committee.

In the context of the bill tonight, we need to note that the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) strengthens the responses to children aged 10 to 13 who offend, by proposing to enable the Family Court to make orders against adults who profit from, or are involved in, child offending, thereby preventing them from contacting child offenders. The bill also applies youth justice principles to child offending, and gives the Family Court greater powers to limit where a child offender can reside. The bill gives the Family Court the power to make bail-like conditions for children who are alleged to have offended, and gives police greater powers to enforce such conditions. The bill requires the court to review the status of many child offenders who come before it every 6 months, until it is satisfied that the child’s offending behaviour has ceased. The bill clarifies and simplifies the child offending provisions.

Also I notice that the bill before the Social Services Committee strengthens the responses to young offenders aged 14 to 16 who offend, by creating two new Youth Court orders for serious offenders: extended supervision with residence, and extended supervision with activity. Extended supervision with residence proposes that a young person be in a secure residence for up to 6 months, followed by up to 12 months’ supervision. Extended supervision with activity proposes that a young person be subject to activity for up to 6 months, followed by supervision for a further period of 6 months, and requires the system—and this is very critical—to be more responsive to the needs of victims, removing a young person’s right to refuse receiving a community work order or supervision with that activity order. In my view, those were very constructive proposals put before the select committee, and we certainly look forward to the committee’s report back.

The report of the Law and Order Committee looked at some real issues. The issues on page 9, which have regard to youth mental health and addiction facilities, are important. I acknowledge that significant progress has been made under this Government, but certainly there is ongoing concern about access to mental health services for young offenders, and, speaking for parents and families, there is the ongoing issue of adequate access to addiction services to help young people.

I was talking to a colleague at Christchurch airport the other night. He told me about his experience of attending a family group conference. He made some very valid points to me. Yes, there is evidence of family group conferences that have not worked well, and that has to be an area of renewed focus. After talking to constituents and my colleague the other night, I think there has to be a real focus on the victim, and on ensuring that victims know their rights and have had explained to them the exact processes. We need to make sure that the venue for, and environment of, family group conferences centre around what is convenient for the victim, and we need to spell out the options very clearly.

I acknowledge that there has been evidence historically of some bad practice in terms of family group conferences. I think the majority have been quite good, but we certainly need to learn from bad practice, the ambience in which the victim has somehow felt outnumbered and in the minority. It seems to me that family group conferences should be just as much about how we can ensure restitution, adequate compensation, and respect for the victim as about trying to get a young person’s life on track.

By the way, if a young person appears at a family group conference for the 10th time, it may be a message that that particular approach is not working adequately. The competence and effectiveness with which those family group conferences are undertaken should be focused upon.

It is also timely to acknowledge the contributions of Principal Youth Court Judge Becroft and many others. As chair of the Law and Order Committee, I acknowledge the excellent contribution made by the mover of this bill, Ron Mark, and I thank the many people who have made a very valuable contribution through their submissions on the bill. Hopefully, the Social Services Committee will also avail itself of those comprehensive submissions in considering the legislation currently before it. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I begin by acknowledging the proposer of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill, Ron Mark. Despite the fact that Labour is opposing the bill, and despite what I believe was a misrepresentation of the facts by Judy Turner—it was not deliberate, but I certainly do not share her perception—in bringing this bill to the House Ron Mark has not only shown his personal concern for the increase in high-end offenders amongst young people but also raised a very useful debate. I do not agree with what Ron Mark has proposed as a solution; I think it would work in the opposite way. But I have no doubt at all about his personal intention, in bringing this bill to the House, to make victims feel as though their role in youth justice issues and crime is of primary concern to the House, and to make Parliament’s key consideration that of making young people more accountable for their offending earlier on in the piece, so reducing the likelihood of offending again.

I say to Ron Mark that I do not share Judy Turner’s view about the way his bill was treated; it was treated in no other way than seriously and with what I consider was very rigorous consideration. When I read the report of the Law and Order Committee, I was very impressed. To be frank, given the huge opposition to the bill, it would have been quite easy for the committee to be dismissive of it, but it was not. The committee said that the bill had been put forward with good intent; it had been put forward because we needed to look at youth justice issues in our community and develop robust policies. The bill was progressed through the select committee under the fantastic leadership of Martin Gallagher at the beginning and under somebody else, more recently, after Martin was promoted. Who is the current chair of the Law and Order Committee?

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

I rise to speak to the second reading of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill in the name of the member Ron Mark. Like other members in the House, I too acknowledge the years of work that have gone into this bill and his commitment to it. ACT will be supporting this second reading. I think it is a shame that the Law and Order Committee was unable to recommend that the bill progress further, especially noting Mr Mark’s willingness to be very flexible about the outcome. He was very much of the mind, I think, that anything moving towards an improvement in the youth justice system was a positive move and, therefore, he was quite prepared to listen to the opinions of people from other parties around the table, to take those into account, and to work hard to see whether something could positively be brought back to the second reading and Committee stage in this Parliament. I understand that Mr Mark has signalled his willingness, if the bill were to make it through to the Committee stage, to consider further changes too. I think he should be congratulated on that.

I, like the previous speaker, was also going to read from the conclusion of the select committee report. I do not think I heard Ruth Dyson read out the first sentence of the committee’s conclusion, which I think is very pertinent. She started on the second sentence, and I would like to bring to the attention—

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) Link to this

My dad taught me, and he used to say to me—because, believe it or not, I used to be a bit fussy about a few things in my early farming days—that sometimes, but not always, the seeking of perfection can be an excuse for avoiding action. While sitting here listening to these speeches, I think sometimes this is what is happening here. Obviously I am speaking in favour of this bill, and in favour of my friend and colleague Ron Mark, as it happens. One would never believe it from listening to the speeches, but Ron Mark’s sole purpose for putting forward this bill is to keep people out of prison.

We do not want to see young people in prison, and we do not want to see recidivist offenders amongst our society. We want these people to have a short, sharp hurry-up, if you like, so that they do not pursue a life of crime. It is not a matter of saying whether we are to have the intervention—that is a good word that is used these days—at 25, 18, or 17. The intervention must be at the age when those people commit the crime. Sadly, I do not think Ron Mark decided that that should be at 10 or 13, but that is the age at which crimes are being committed and that is when the action must be taken to stop that person from going on to a life of crime.

It saddens me a little but I can absolutely believe that all members of this House are concerned about this issue. In fact, in many ways I can understand why Labour may not be as enthusiastic as we are about doing something about this issue. But I tell members that I cannot understand why National is not supporting this bill. The National Party that I used to belong to, all those years ago, would have been into this like a fox into a plate of mince. That party wanted to deal to crime back in those days, but now I have to say, in sadness, that it has become an election slogan for the National Party. I think that is tragic. It has been brought out tonight in the debate on this bill, and I could not believe it.

Ron Mark had to ring me in my room, where I was diligently attending to the affairs of State, to say “Doug, you have to get down here and see what is happening.” I said “Mate, you will have no problem. You have the National Party, you have ACT, you have New Zealand First, and there are a few others that we hope would come up on the day.” But he said “No. It is not true.” I said “Ron, you are having me on.” He said “It is not true.” I asked “Who haven’t you got?”. He said “We haven’t got the National Party.” I said “Get out of here!”.

I came down to the Chamber because I did not believe him. It is not because he is not an honourable member, but because I was a disbelieving little soul. I used to know the National Party. I said “They would support this every day of the week, including Saturday and Sunday—especially after what John Key has been saying.” But no; Ronnie was right. The National Party is not supporting this bill.