Turei Metiria: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9330] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Before I deliver the address prepared for this third reading I acknowledge the work of colleagues in Labour—Lianne Dalziel Jacinda Ardern and others—whose contributions have been very valuable over the last week or so of debate on this bill. I reiterate my support for what has been said and for their view. I think they have done a great job of expressing the concern of the community and particularly my concern on a number of issues. 
It is with genuine sadness that we see the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill come before the House. It will cause children and their families considerable harm. The Green Party came to Parliament because its members want to look after our country; we want to look after its people and its place. We are here to make change for families—for those families in particular who need us the most. This legislation will only damage those families and communities and in fact make our communities less safe. It should not be brought before the House or supported. 
I make it clear that the Greens recognise that this bill makes changes to the way that child offenders who commit the most serious crimes are dealt with. Although we oppose this legislation for the changes that it makes and its fundamental purpose we do not in any way undervalue the significance of the loss and the harm that is caused by young offenders who commit very serious violent offences. These are often terrible crimes that can seriously damage or destroy whole families and whole communities and they are always an awful tragedy. But this is why the Greens are so strong on issues around victims’ rights for example and why the Green Party initiated the victims inquiry. It is why we have consistently argued for greater recognition of victims’ rights and their voices in the legal process. It is why we have been so committed to restorative justice in particular as opposed to the punitive approach of this Government and the means by which that process gives back power to victims—those who have been deprived of it by offenders. 
Restorative justice not only opens the justice process to victims of crime but directs the whole legal process towards a proven means that ensures that crime can be prevented. The truth is that we must invest our resources into preventing further crime. To do anything else is not only to waste scarce public funds but to waste human capability. It is a waste of our people. We cannot afford to continue to lose child after child young person after young person to the legal system which causes them so much harm and keeps our communities unsafe. That itself is enough of a tragedy to shift the thinking. 
The Greens are most concerned that harm does not continue and that as best as possible our legal system protects all children and their families. It is our view that the age of criminal responsibility should never go under 14—there is a very good argument for increasing it—and that there should be a much greater emphasis on establishing small-scale and dispersed youth rehabilitation centres in order to end the detention of young people in police cells and adult prisons and to intensively address serious offending within a small-scale environment that can reflect their needs. Family group conferences are a key part of that process. The undermining and distortion of the family group conference process within this bill is greatly regretted. But we will strongly support marae-based Youth Court and youth justice programmes and these should be increased. I acknowledge that there has been an extension to the Hoani Waititi Marae for Youth Court processes which is great to see. 
The problem of course is that this bill fails all of our criteria. It is flawed at its core because the premise on which it is based is that 12 and 13-year-old children should be treated as young adults in criminal law for serious offending. That is simply wrong. I was very surprised to hear Hekia Parata undermine and dismiss the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The failure to address its core concerns was really quite surprising. The fact is that this bill is contrary to that convention. The bill attacks the child’s right to be treated in accordance with his or her age. It undermines the ability of the child to be reintegrated into the community. It undermines any rehabilitation that might ensure that the child does not reoffend. The bill fails the family and the community by exacerbating the social exclusion of the child and the inability then for that family to recover. The treatment of a child as young as 12 as a youth in the Youth Court will make our communities less safe not more. Parliament is wasting precious time on the demonstrably failed boot camps ideology which I am sure will go given the chance. 
The evidence proves that access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation and counselling if it is extended both in breadth and in length of time can resolve many of the violence and dysfunction issues faced by children and young people. Early intervention as has been mentioned by Labour colleagues is the key. But the Government is failing to close the gaps on the provision of these services. It is futile giving the Youth Court more powers to require young offenders to attend these programmes because the places in them simply do not exist. The statement about millions and millions of dollars being invested is just wrong. There are not enough places to meet existing need and there will not be enough places to meet ongoing need because resources are being diverted into punitive action like boot camps rather than into those programmes that we know will work because they are proven to. No provisions in this legislation will be effective unless there are high-quality best practice and properly funded long-term services for young offenders. On that basis it is with regret that we understand that Te Hurihanga has been closed down. That was a ridiculous decision to make. 
The evidence also proves that family focused services that treat the child within the context of the family will greatly maximise the chance for the reintegration of that child into family and community life. That surely has to be the goal—not punishment and not punitive action but reintegration and restoration of that child in their family. 
Thirdly we know that violence is more common in unequal societies. We know that incarceration leads to reoffending. The longer a person is incarcerated the more likely they are to reoffend and that is a fact. We know that the incarceration rate is greater in more unequal societies and incarceration frankly includes boot camps. We know that unequal societies are more punitive in their approach. We know that child abuse is greater in more unequal societies. We know that children experience more bullying fighting and conflict in unequal societies. Inequity is at the heart of violence in New Zealand society and New Zealand society has one of the highest rates of inequity in the developed world. We are not an egalitarian society. We are not an equal or fair society. Every day this Government moves us further and further from the ideal of being such a fair society causing further harm and suffering to New Zealand’s children and their families. The Government is choosing to ignore the roots of violence. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Rubbish. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The member over there can say “Rubbish.” but he needs to look at the evidence. The evidence proves this country has one of the highest rates of inequity in the developed world and inequity is the root cause behind social dysfunction including violence injury and damage to children. 
We know that rangatahi will be the ones who suffer most from this legislation and the proposals of the Government. Rangatahi already suffer disproportionate punishment and degradation in the Youth Court. The judiciary has been very upfront in stating that rangatahi are more likely to attract harsher penalties for less serious criminal offending when they attend the Youth Court. We know that when children and young people move through the Youth Court into the adult system the bias against rangatahi and Maori is even greater and that is proven and demonstrable. We know that the only way to deal with the offending of rangatahi is within the context of a tikanga approach within the whanau which is why we support so strongly marae-based processes for justice Youth Court and youth justice processes. In fact this bill entrenches institutional racism. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I know that National Party members will whinge about that but it is true. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a phrase that should not be used. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been a practice in this House that the use of the word racism to describe institutional issues or contextual issues is accepted but not in any context where it is an attack on a person or a group of persons. I think that is the right approach to take. My comment was concerned with structural and institutional racism. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: I want to underscore that point because institutional racism does not accuse any individual of anything. It refers just to a system that produces disproportional results and that is a fact. That being so it would be a travesty if we could not use a technical term to refer to what is a fact. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 42/3. The member Metiria Turei was right on the margin of using that phrase and I ask that for the remainder of her speech she is very mindful of crossing that line. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is really just a point of clarification. As I recall the reference by the member she was criticising the bill as— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled and I am allowing her to continue. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just trying to understand how her reference— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Look I have already ruled and I am allowing her to continue. I have said that she was right on the margin. I am allowing her to continue. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: In the last remaining moments I simply say the Green Party is opposed to this legislation. We are very disappointed that it has been pursued as far as it has. We are very pleased that there are other parties in this House—the Maori Party and the Labour Party—that oppose it. We hope to see real change in the very near future to protect our children rather than punish and accuse them as this National Government is doing.