Speeches 

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : 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.

• OUR MPs | 
• FEATURES | 
• LATEST NEWS | 
• SPEECHES | 
• PORTFOLIOS | 
• POLICY | 
• MULTIMEDIA | 
• SEARCH | 
• CONTACT US