Dyson Ruth: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16205] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the proposer of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill Ron Mark. Despite the fact that Labour is opposing the bill and despite what I believe was a misrepresentation of the facts by Judy Turner—it was not deliberate but I certainly do not share her perception—in bringing this bill to the House Ron Mark has not only shown his personal concern for the increase in high-end offenders amongst young people but also raised a very useful debate. I do not agree with what Ron Mark has proposed as a solution; I think it would work in the opposite way. But I have no doubt at all about his personal intention in bringing this bill to the House to make victims feel as though their role in youth justice issues and crime is of primary concern to the House and to make Parliament’s key consideration that of making young people more accountable for their offending earlier on in the piece so reducing the likelihood of offending again. 
I say to Ron Mark that I do not share Judy Turner’s view about the way his bill was treated; it was treated in no other way than seriously and with what I consider was very rigorous consideration. When I read the report of the Law and Order Committee I was very impressed. To be frank given the huge opposition to the bill it would have been quite easy for the committee to be dismissive of it but it was not. The committee said that the bill had been put forward with good intent; it had been put forward because we needed to look at youth justice issues in our community and develop robust policies. The bill was progressed through the select committee under the fantastic leadership of Martin Gallagher at the beginning and under somebody else more recently after Martin was promoted. Who is the current chair of the Law and Order Committee? 
Martin Gallagher 
: Ron Mark. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Ron Mark the proposer of the bill himself. We could not get much better chairing. 
I want to make another point in relation to the specific issue of lowering the age of criminal responsibility. I consider that that action has been internationally disregarded as being the best response to youth crime. It has been overwhelmingly opposed by youth justice practitioners in New Zealand and is clearly not the way to get the best outcomes. But that does not mean we should not have the debate. That does not mean we should back away from something that in the view of some has already been refuted. To go even further than that I say that we certainly should not back away from something controversial. Parliament should be the place for controversial debates. 
I took what was quite an unusual step and included Ron Mark’s proposal in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) discussion document knowing that I did not agree with the proposal. Knowing that Ron Mark had a bill before the Law and Order Committee that was not supported I still said that the issue was live amongst some people in our community and that Parliament should consider it. I have put it on the record that the proposal should be part of the formal consideration of the amendment to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act that is now before the Social Services Committee. I have a paper trail showing that I have taken this issue seriously. 
I regret the timing of our two bills the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill and Ron Mark’s bill. If I were him I would be a bit grumpy—I seem to recall that he was actually. I seem to recall a momentary inclination towards grumpiness but I am glad that it passed because the timing was not deliberate. If the member thinks I am able to control the proceedings of the House to such a fine degree then he is mistaken. The timing was neither deliberate nor intended to cause any offence. I deliberately put his proposal in the discussion document about the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill so that it could have another round of discussion—but in a broader context. It is the broad context we need to focus on. 
I also agree with Kate Wilkinson—there is a first for everything—who said tonight that had we taken up the points Judy Turner mentioned and tried to rework the bill into something acceptable the title would have been the only part remaining. That is clearly not a runner. 
I conclude by looking at what the committee said in the conclusion of its report. The committee after its consideration of submissions and other deliberations concluded: “While the majority of us did not believe that the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill was an effective tool to make such changes”—and those changes need to be done to improve our youth justice system—“we think our consideration has been very useful in highlighting many important concerns. We are sure that the submissions and advice received in consideration for this bill will prove to be a valuable resource for future legislative proposals.” 
As I have mentioned a bill in my name is before the Social Services Committee at the moment. It aims to strengthen the responses of our youth justice system to 10 to 13-year-olds and 14 to 16-year-olds. The submissions made with that goal in mind during consideration of Ron Mark’s bill will be part of the consideration of the amendment in my name at the Social Services Committee. I hope that the members of the Law and Order Committee who went through that submission process will now move on with more advanced thinking in the light of hearing from so many people that bluntly lowering the age was not the answer. We still all agree that the question needs a response. I hope that the Law and Order Committee having considered Ron Mark’s bill will put its advanced knowledge to good effect. I give my commitment to working with the Social Services Committee on the progress of the amendment currently before it. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.