Ardern Jacinda: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9308] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to kick off the debate on the clauses of the bill concerning the title commencement and principal amendments to the Act. I will start with the title of the bill. I think this actually comes to the core of the issue. The bill is titled the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. Critically there we are cross-referencing the primary legislation that this bill amends and that is obviously the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. We heard time and time again in this Chamber and also at select committee that this bill would fundamentally change the core and the principles of that primary legislation. I think to even claim that we are remaining in the realms of the core values of that legislation is actually quite misleading. 
So I am proposing that we change the title of this bill. Perhaps we could change it to the “Most Fundamental Change Since the Inception of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act Amendment Bill”. Just to prove my point I go back to that core legislation and those founding principles because I think had we done that at the beginning that may have better informed the debate. Part 4 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 sets out under section 208 the guiding principles for our youth justice system. I think it is worth going over some of those. Section 208(a) states “the principle that unless the public interest requires otherwise criminal proceedings should not be instituted against a child or young person if there is an alternative means of dealing with the matter:”. That is an interesting point the fact that it makes the reference “the public interest requires”. I ask who the arbiter is of whether the public interest is being served by having a 12 or 13-year-old being moved to and dealt with by a Youth Court. 
I offer to the Committee the idea that we already have enough flexibility within our judicial processes and procedures in our youth justice system for that test of public interest to be made at that level. To arbitrarily move 12 and 13-year-olds into the Youth Court removes that discretion and public interest test as it sits in the primary legislation. I think section 208(c) is also worth reflecting on together as we go through the final part of the Committee stage. Again it comes to the core issue. It states: “the principle that any measures for dealing with offending by children or young persons should be designed—(i) to strengthen the family whanau hapu iwi and family group of the child or young person concerned; and (ii) to foster the ability of families whanau hapu iwi and family groups to develop their own means of dealing with offending by their children and young persons:”. 
This Act puts the family at the core. It says that if we are dealing with children in particular and they are offending at the level that the Minister claims we are trying to target there must be care and protection issues in that young child’s home. The Act explicitly states that a core principle is that that family that whanau that hapu that iwi should be a part of dealing with that young person’s or child’s behaviour. We are removing that through this change. We are taking the family out of the equation. When we move a child or a young person into the Youth Court we essentially fly in the face of this principle within the core primary legislation. 
I argue that we would be within our rights to look at the title of this bill and say that it is misleading and to say instead that we should pick up on the point made by Judge Andrew Becroft when he said that this is the most fundamental change to the primary Act since its inception. Also at the core of this primary legislation is the idea that essentially our youth justice system unless the public interest decides otherwise should be diversionary and that criminal proceedings should where possible be limited in their usage for children and young people. 
I do have some other proposals for other names that we could use for the bill. I want to be able to offer those to the Committee. I think we can see that this bill contradicts some of those core principles. Perhaps if we go a little further into those core principles we see that age becomes an issue as well. In section 208 it states “(e) the principle that a child’s or young person’s age is a mitigating factor in determining—(i) whether or not to impose sanctions in respect of offending by a child or young person; and (ii) the nature of any such sanctions:”. Again we have a principle here that we are undermining with this legislation. Perhaps then this bill should be renamed the “Removal of Any Discretion to Test the Public Interest as Set Out in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 Amendment Bill”. It is not too snappy I acknowledge. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: A bit clumsy. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It is a bit clumsy but I think it points that we are fundamentally undermining what was ground-breaking legislation at the time that it was introduced. I want to go back to that point because it is internationally recognised that our legislation is unique; it was well ahead of its time when it was introduced and still remains at the head of its game. But the changes that we are seeing here today undermine that and contravene our requirements under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. So perhaps again a better title for this bill would be the “Contradiction of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Amendment Bill”. That is at the core of things as well. 
I hear members on the other side of the House who are talking about the victims and I will come back to that because they are specifically mentioned as part of the core principles of the Act as well. They are not mutually exclusive. That is why the public interest test is in there. We do acknowledge that we do have some serious offending amongst our children and our young people. But we could not size that in the Social Services Committee. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh she’s saying that we do have some problems of offending. Oh my goodness! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I will never in this Chamber admit I say to Ms Goudie that she has a point. I am sorry; I will not admit that in this Chamber ever. I do not believe that she has taken into account the far-reaching effects of this bill. 
Again up front at the very beginning of the core legislation in the first schedule it talks about the fact that this an Act to reform the law relating to children and young persons who are in need of care or protection or offend against the law. It states right up front at the very beginning of the legislation what the core principles of the Children Young Persons and Their Family Act are and I do believe this amendment bill flies in the face of those principles. 
So why are we doing it? I want to come back to this in my third reading speech because it is a more appropriate place to discuss that issue but I contend that this is actually about shifting criminal responsibility. It has been tried before in this House and it has failed. It has been tried by other members who are not now part of the Government but were from a party long past New Zealand First. It tried to shift criminal responsibility in New Zealand. It was much more overt about it though. I believe that although this bill may not be as overt as that attempt this is taking us down a similar track. So perhaps this legislation should be retitled the “Shift In Criminal Responsibility Bill”. 
I thank members though for their contributions to the debate. I do hope my other colleagues take the opportunity to share their view on what would be a more accurate depiction of what this bill is doing to our youth justice system. As I have already stated and as stated by Andrew Becroft who is a much wiser person on the issues of youth justice than I this is a fundamental shift and it cannot and should not happen in this Parliament without a robust debate first.