Prasad Rajen: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Prasad Rajen: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9014] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I do not mind listening to a passionate speech and I do not even mind listening to one I disagree with but I do mind when the member who has just taken her seat Hekia Parata begins to shout without really reflecting on the facts. I will concentrate on that for a few minutes. 
Todd McClay 
: We can arrange some counselling for your soft ears if you want. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I say to Mr Todd McClay that he might also like to reflect on the facts I am about to talk about. I want members opposite to name one example of this side of the House not supporting a good idea since National came to power and brought this suite of legislation before this House. Which bills designed to address the problems of our young people today and the issues of the day in this particular area have members on this side of the House not thought about and supported? Members opposite and Mr McClay in particular might want to think about why a number of us feel so passionately—if that is the word—about a particular aspect of this bill that is a most fundamental shift. 
Our first speaker our second speaker and our third speaker have asked for that question to be answered. They have asked the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett to take a call but the Minister has not answered the question. However one of the members Chester Borrows came very close. Chester is a reasonable person. He was reasonable throughout the hearings and reasonable in coming to an accommodation. He came closest to beginning to explain and give an answer. I do not agree with his answer but at least I give him credit for trying to answer the question. 
The Minister dismissed the question. She did not go anywhere near it yet it is the Minister’s responsibility to answer. The question I am talking about is the change in the age of criminal responsibility and I say to the Minister that her answers simply did not go there. I want her to take another call and address the specific question of how we make ethical and philosophical sense of changing the age of criminal responsibility in respect of 12 to 13-year-olds and what fundamentally lies behind it. If the Minister could convince me I would be impressed because she has not addressed this issue and it ought to be addressed. 
The change is fundamental because when we take 12 and 13-year-olds and put them into a youth justice jurisdiction we are taking away from and giving less authority to the primary responsibility of a decent society to care about the care and protection needs of young children. That is fundamentally where this side of the House disagrees. 
Judge Becroft pointed that out powerfully. He is not stupid. He can see that this change is a fundamental change that needs discussion and justification. But no justification has been provided other than for the Government to say: “Well these are very difficult ones. We will have to deal with the more difficult kids.” That is no justification. You know we are not ethically stupid and I think that members opposite owe it to the citizens and the children of this country to provide the explanation. That explanation must be given and it does no credit to this Parliament when it is not provided. 
In the absence of robust evidence and robust argument what do members opposite expect people on this side of the Chamber to assume? We can only assume that the rhetoric the Government got into during the election campaign is the only rhetoric that now guides it. The rhetoric was an attempt to ratchet up the concerns of our nation State about violence and offending. As the Government members make decisions on this point we believe that they are incapable of riding beyond those decisions. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s benchmarked against most other nations—Australia Canada Britain and most of the United States. Are you going to ignore that altogether in the debate? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I say to Mr Mapp that his approach is entirely punitive. This country has had enough. Successive Governments have done the punitive thing to an extreme and I tell Mr Mapp that his Government is doing the same thing. I do not think that the member is a violent person himself but why does he not try to come up with some ethical explanations? The Government owes it to the country and to the children to come up with that kind of explanation because it is not there. 
Our 12 and 13-year-olds primarily need care and protection and when they appear before the Family Court then that is the perspective that guides that particular court. When we raised the issue at the Social Services Committee as Jacinda Ardern talked about I think that the officials could see that this was something that should have been visited but it was not. It seemed again as if there was a directive from the Minister not to compromise on this as well. 
This bill took a lot longer for the officials to report on for reasons that have still not been provided to us. We were told that more work was being done. I suspect that somewhere in the Minister’s own heart she must have said “By golly these are 12 and 13-year-olds.” because I do not believe that the Minister is as heartless as that. But somehow the rhetoric that drove National in the election campaign is what came to the fore and I think that our country deserves better. 
The other option I tell the Minister is still there. One option is to reform the Family Court. It does not make any sense for the Minister to say to us: “But they take too long.” as Mr Chester Borrows said. Well I say to members opposite that they are the Government and if the Family Court takes too long then the Government which has lots of resources should address the problem through resources or through legislative provision. The Government can do that. What the Government should be saying is: “Yes there’s a small group that does veer off the track quite seriously but they are still young children and they have care and protection needs. We will not desert our young people.” 
A previous speaker in this debate talked about Bailey Junior Kurariki. That is one case—and I do not defend him for anything he did; what happened was awful. But what we as a society have done to him does not do us any credit either. Bailey Junior Kurariki was 12 years old and what life does he have today? Can we as legislators as people who developed the system he experienced take any credit at all? This Parliament designed a system that could have taken him in when he was still a kid and could have provided him with high-quality provisions and systems that might have turned him round and no matter how bad these young kids are that is what we owe them. We cannot lock them away and throw away the keys because that is not the kind of society we want. 
I come now to the section of the bill that deals with the new orders. This side of the Chamber I tell the Minister does support the notion of greater options being available to the Youth Court. We said that at the select committee and our minority report shows that. We are not against that at all. But a message is given in that section and it relates to the first point I made which is that the Government has accepted a punitive approach in this bill and believe you me like most legislation that is what will endure for the next 5 10 or 15 years. That is what will endure and that is how people will make decisions. 
An impressive array of people came to the select committee and said: “Please don’t go down the track of boot camps.” I know Chester Borrows’ defence of them but the submitters said that they do not work. We have read the evidence they quoted and we have quoted it as well. 
Chris Tremain 
: I guess we’re going to find out pretty quickly aren’t we? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member should not be too sensitive about boot camps. It is the idea that his Prime Minister— 
Chris Tremain 
: I’m not sensitive. I’m saying that we’re going to find out pretty quickly whether they work—whether the new style works. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: A group of people presented information time and time again at the select committee and they said we should not go down that track. When will the Government listen to people who present information from their experience and say that this ought not to happen? What is the point of people making submissions? 
Chris Tremain 
: It depends on how you define boot camp. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: What I ask Mr Tremain is the point of people making submissions at select committees when there is not even a gentle move a little bit towards the direction they take? The bill still shows that that is the intent. The first flush might be fine but two or three generations down the track it will happen again.