King Annette: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9021] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 So far we have had quite a number of contributors to this very important part of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. First of all I acknowledge the contribution from Chester Borrows. He comes from a background in policing and in law and in practice. Mr Borrows is always worth listening to. I do not always agree with everything he says but he would make a very splendid Minister in my view. 
We have just heard from the member for Hamilton West who pointed out that the Police Association supports this bill. I was the Minister of Police and that is exactly what I would expect from the Police Association. I have a great respect for the association but I do not always agree with it. I do need to tell members that some of the stars of the police themselves are the Youth Aid officers who work on a daily basis with our young people. They understand how young people work and they try not to criminalise young people but to keep them out of the criminal justice system in a whole variety of ways. In fact when I was the Minister I was told that our Youth Aid officers in New Zealand are amongst the best in the world in terms of their practice and what they do. So I am more inclined to listen to the Youth Aid officers than to the association on this matter. The association is often right on other matters and I have agreed with it. But I was not at all surprised that the association was one submitter out of perhaps two of all the submitters who agreed with this bill. 
The member also mentioned Te Hurihunga and how the Government is going to use this facility which was built for a programme that was working for some of the toughest children we could find for Fresh Start. That is what Tim Macindoe said: the Government is going to use that facility for Fresh Start. Will we put the cost of the facility on every Fresh Start child who goes through it so that we know the cost for the children who go through the facility? Why is the Government stopping something that has had an evaluation and been shown to be successful? The facility was dealing with “hard nut” kids. 
The Minister mentioned her little pilot in the South Island. There has been no proper evaluation of that programme; no real work has been done to see whether it works. Something that the Government has had for a few months can hardly be evaluated over a long period of time. Why would we stop a programme that could make the very thing happen that the Minister has said she wants to make happen? That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. 
The Minister has forgotten a really fundamental thing. It is that 12 to 13-year-olds are not young people; they are children. Can the Minister remember what it is like to have a 12 or 13-year-old? They are children; they are not young adults. They still have developing brains and bodies and although those who offend need to be held accountable for their offending they also need to be given care and protection. It is the State’s responsibility to provide that care and protection when failing parents have not been able to provide it. What is wrong with this bill is that it puts emphasis on the Youth Court without giving that attention to care and protection. We can punish those children put them into boot camps and require them to have mentoring and we can require their parents who are already dysfunctional to have parenting training. But at the end of the day those children need to receive proper care and attention in order to ensure that they have a chance to grow up as decent young people. 
The Minister then made a fundamental error by saying we can do things like imposing a short sharp shock. If we heard anything at the Law and Order Committee it was that short sharp shocks do not work. They might last as long as the short sharp shock is being given but the children go away angry and defiant and the shock does not work. So why would that be in the Minister’s thinking? I think it shows where she comes from. It is not from a basis of evidence in terms of what she is trying to do. I tell the Minister I would like to know how she will judge this programme in 1 year’s time.