Benson-Pope David: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16196] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 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 1000 to 3000 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 100000 to 38 per 100000. 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 13000 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.