Ardern Jacinda: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1446] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Before I begin I point out that it interests me that the National members’ biggest triumph at the moment seems to be that they are fulfilling the election promises they made. We on this side of the House have pretty high expectations. We expect that when people come into this House they do what they said they would do; I do not think that that is something to celebrate. 
Moana Mackey 
: You don’t get brownie points for not lying. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: One does not get brownie points for not lying. Just to clarify for members on the other side of the House who may not have picked up on this I say that we do not support the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. 
Before I continue I acknowledge the common ground that exists between us on the principles of what we are trying to achieve in youth justice. There is common ground despite what might be said on the other side of the House. Everyone here wants young people who commit crime to be held to account; no one is disputing that. However we acknowledge that when it comes to youth justice—and there is a reason we cordon off that part of the justice sector—we are dealing with young adults and children. Therefore we expect that there is an ability to intervene and to turn lives round. There is a perception that when it comes to the youth justice sector we should make use of that opportunity; it is right that we try to address both aspects of youth justice. But if ultimately the aim is to address offending and to prevent reoffending then I have to say that the Government has failed. What do we base that on? It is not just on assertion and rhetoric; we base it on evidence. 
Let me begin with boot camps. I know that my colleague the Hon Annette King has already addressed that briefly but I want to go back to the one time in New Zealand’s justice system when we tried this. That was with corrective training. I reflect here not on my own words but on the words of someone who is held in high regard in the justice fraternity and by both sides of this House—that is Judge Andrew Becroft. He noted in a paper on youth justice that “the sentence of Corrective Training was abolished in … 2001. It had been designed as a short sharp three month “shock” in a military training/borstal type facility for 15 - 19 year old boys. It proved a spectacular failure.” It was not just a failure but a spectacular failure. “If anything it simply produced fitter and stronger young offenders.”—a point we have made continually. “The reoffending rates approached 92%. It was the least effective intervention in New Zealand’s criminal justice history!” 
Chester Borrows 
: Check the legislation. It has nothing to do with corrective training. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am quite open to hearing from members on the other side of the House about whether there are differences between the military-style training they are proposing and corrective training which was also military-style training. I am happy to hear from them. The Brits have tried it since the 1940s; it is not a new idea. It has arisen a few times since but since then it has been abolished because Governments have realised that it does not work. 
I add an additional statement from Judge Becroft on this: “A commonly held and erroneous perception at least in New Zealand is that youth offending is ‘out of control’. Knee-jerk responses can all too easily include ‘scare them straight and send them to boot camp/corrective training’ demands. These types of suggestions are usually ‘intuitive’ well-meaning and born out of profound concern. But it is clear they are not effective in reducing youth offending.” We all have to acknowledge that statement by Judge Andrew Becroft. He has more to do with the youth justice sector than we do—he sees these offenders every day—and he says those ideas do not work. I tell Mr “Burrows”— 
Chester Borrows 
: Borrows! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Fortunately the pronunciation is not spelt out in  
Hansard 
. 
If that were not clear enough for the Government members I tell them that the judge went on to say that a simple solution of sending all youth offenders to a programme such as boot camp would be unsuccessful. Indeed it could increase reoffending. I do not need to go over that point any further; Judge Becroft has made it quite clearly. 
These are not the only measures contained in the bill; I will quickly address some of the others. Firstly there is the extension of the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to include 12 and 13-year-olds to bring them into liability for prosecution. The first question I have for the Minister for Social Development and Employment on this is: what evidence does the Government have that the Family Court’s current jurisdiction over these offenders and its role in addressing offending at that age group is not working? We have not seen any evidence and I think that it is critical that we see the evidence before we pursue that option. 
Secondly what evidence do we have that this extension will prevent reoffending? We acknowledge of course that some children—and they are children; we are talking about 12 and 13-year-olds—are committing crimes at what we would perceive to be the higher end of the offending scale but let us keep this in perspective. Do members on the other side of the House know how many 14-year-olds were convicted in the Youth Court in 2006? There were three. We need to keep this in perspective. We have seen no data on how many 12 and 13-year-olds we propose the Youth Court to deal with and no data on why the Family Court is not currently catering for these offenders. 
I can see that there is a temptation on the other side of the House to treat these children as adults so my question is: if we are sending these children to the Youth Court are we also extending its ability to send them on to the District Court? That can be done currently by the Youth Court for those who appear before it and I want to know whether this provision will cover 12 and 13-year-olds as well. 
Why am I asking these questions? As has been pointed out by Judge Becroft “there is an increasing trend towards treating youth offenders as junior adults for whom ‘adult crime demands adult time’. The pendulum swings between ‘welfare’ and more punitive ‘justice’ approaches in different youth justice systems. These changes in policy have historically bedevilled a consistent approach to youth crime. Currently the pendulum is moving firmly towards a more punitive approach.” Why is it important to make that point? It is important because Judge Becroft goes on to state that with more punitive measures come heavier levels of sentencing. One would expect that if 12 and 13-year-olds are being sent to the Youth Court the Government has an expectation of heavier levels of sentencing. Judge Becroft points out that that more punitive approach—moving from community-based approaches towards custodial sentences—is less effective. 
I reiterate this point: we are looking at policies without any evidence base behind them. Why? And when will the Government produce the evidence on which it is basing these quite major legislative changes that impact on our youth justice system? Our youth justice system has historically been heralded as an exemplar of how to deal with young people in the justice system. That has been because we have always differentiated between youth and adult activities and we have tailored our approach to suit. The Government is rebalancing—it is shifting the balance—and we need to see evidence as to why it proposes to do so. Until that time we will not support this bill. 
I want to briefly cover off the additional measures that have been talked about. We have already mentioned the extension of certain orders. Again we would like some explanation from the Minister as to why the ability of the Family Court—already within current legislation—to pass down those orders is not adequate. 
The final point I make is that given that there is such a lack of evidence around these proposals we should go back to what there is evidence around—that is the risk factors and triggers for youth offending. We know that such offending comes out of drug and alcohol abuse; out of dysfunctional disadvantaged and violent families; and out of truanting. But the responses we have seen from the Government thus far in all of those areas have been shallow at best and at worst those areas have been ignored. We on this side of the House have higher expectations. That is where our focus was when we were in Government and that is where we expect— 
Chris Tremain 
: On truancy? It was a disaster. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Truancy? The response from the Government of raising fines on parents who probably cannot afford those fines anyway will do nothing to put children back in school. 
I finish with one final quote. This one is not from Judge Becroft; it actually comes from Simon Power. He states that “The enduring solutions”—in reference to justice generally—“are not to be found in locking up offenders at younger and younger ages but to reach them at the earliest stages of development when character empathy and responsibility can be shaped and a future defined … And a future with something that’s perhaps become a four-letter word in politics these days. Hope.” I hope the Government produces something based on evidence and that this side of the House would be willing to support.