Dalziel Lianne: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8784] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am extremely disappointed in the direction this Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill proposes for children and young people. Unlike the previous speaker Katrina Shanks I attended the ministerial meeting on the drivers of crime hosted by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Maori Affairs last year. I would be interested to know the Maori Party’s view on this particular legislation. 
I came away from that meeting last year quite heartened by the approach that I thought the Government was going to take over a really important issue. I felt it would eschew the law and order drum it had beaten the tattoo on every year for several layers of intervention—early intervention school-based intervention and the youth development programmes that actually were effective in making a difference and being a last chance to turn people away from a lifetime of offending. 
Following on from that meeting I was then absolutely delighted to see that the Prime Minister had appointed a chief science adviser. I thought that that was fantastic especially when I read the speech that Professor Peter Gluckman gave later on in the year. I quote from that speech. He said: “There is the beginning of the recognition that there is a far greater need for evidence to be rigorously based and inform policy formation although I hasten to say that there can be many cogent reasons why evidence and policy need not align: the evidence may not be complete”—that is the assertion of the member who has just resumed her seat—“the public may not accept the evidence”. Well that is pretty much a problem that we have in terms of how crime is reported. The speech continues: “it may conflict with the accepted values of a society the cost implications may be contrary to the approach supported by the evidence”—ha ha! That is why Te Hurihanga has closed down—“and ultimately the democratic process will put constraints on decisions that can be made. The important point however is not to deny the evidence but to acknowledge it and explain when and why policies are developed that are not in accord with the evidence.”  
This policy and this bill are not in accord with the evidence and I have not heard the Minister stand up and explain why the Government has decided to ignore not only the very good general advice from the chief science adviser but also the advice of the Chief Family Court Judge and all the researchers who spoke at that meeting that day such as Richie Poulton from Otago University and David Fergusson from the longitudinal study in Canterbury. We had there everyone with a long-term interest in evidence-based policy and intervention who had been working on these issues for many many years—working with central government to bring about some change within our education system and within social development across the range of policies where those policies needed to be changed. 
But what do we have? We have had no explanation other than that anecdotally it felt really good to be at the graduation ceremony. Well I have been to lots of graduation ceremonies where I have felt really good about the change that has occurred but I want to know that when change occurs it will be long-term and sustainable and will make a difference in the lives of these young people. That is what I want from policy in this country. 
I think this bill is an insult to the appointment of a chief science adviser. There is no evidence to back military-style boot camps as a method of achieving that long-term sustainable change that is often needed to override—and I think this is where on both sides of the House we are being honest—an upbringing that no one in this House has experienced. The Minister talked of the people who gave evidence in the select committee. Those who are committed to making a real difference actually opposed the provisions in this bill; they are not evidence-based. 
Let me just briefly refer to the actual kinds of interventions that came up at the discussion we had at the ministerial drivers of crime meeting. They were to provide parenting advice support and intervention from pregnancy and through the early childhood years particularly in vulnerable families—those in poverty with young mothers and with parental criminality—and to provide coordinated and effective early screening diagnosis and intervention programmes for at-risk families and individuals encompassing and addressing a wide range of issues such as conduct disorder mental health issues and family dysfunction. 
Another intervention was to address the alienation and disengagement of young people from education by giving teachers the skills and support to deal with difficult behaviour and to improve alternative education provision and pathways back into education for those who were excluded or not enrolled. Well in my electorate this Government has got rid of all the adult and community education to speak of which is exactly the opposite of what was recommended from that meeting. 
A further intervention was to provide more accessible and timely mental health drug and alcohol treatment services with greater use of tikanga Maori - based models. I thought that was very interesting because the bill we will be dealing with next is a carry-over from legislation that our Government introduced—and guess what? All of the provisions about access to addiction programmes have been completely expunged from the bill; they have gone. We can see that this Government is not really interested in getting to the root of the problem; it is more interested in the headline news. 
Another intervention was to provide positive leisure sports cultural activities and role models for young people in order to give them positive focus for their spare time and energy and to build their confidence identity and sense of belonging and worth within society. That is the sort of thing that does make a difference. I have heard Judge Becroft use the expression that kids in sport stay out of court. It is a pretty simple one but those kids are busy involved and engaged. They learn team activities: they are not individuals left to fight on their own; they learn the skills to work as team players. 
Other interventions were to improve the quality and availability of therapeutic rehabilitation and reintegration services for prisoners and offenders serving community-based sentences and to review the underpinning principles structures and processes of the justice system to ensure that bias was addressed and the needs of victims were met and that justice system responses did not inadvertently increase crime. That is very interesting because of course we all know what the reality is in terms of increased recidivism of the effect on imprisoning people for longer. But we do not want to talk publicly about facts; they might get in the way of a good headline. 
Yet another intervention was to reinvigorate a sense of caring and responsibility within communities by building community capacity resources leadership and social capital. When the group was asked to say how that would happen in fact the very first point the group came up with was to have interventions based on evidence with a strong focus on what worked and with greater investment in research and evaluation. 
I thought that day was tremendous; I felt very heartened by it. Other interventions were to support innovative community-based and Maori-designed programmes but those needed to be evaluated and they needed to demonstrate effectiveness too; to develop an immediate long-term 10-year cross-party inter-agency approach to addressing the underlying drivers of crime in partnership with iwi and communities; to adopt a strengths-based approach that built resilience and strengthened families and communities by building their capacity and capability; and to adopt a resourcing model that provided sustained funding for effective programmes and flexible funding to enable local responsiveness and build provider capacity and capability and then to build relationships between iwi in order to share ideas models and initiatives. But that is all too hard for the Government. It just seems that it has given up on what really works. 
I have a question for members on the other side of the House. Who are Alexander Tokorua Peihopa and Whatarangi Rawiri? How about Phillip Kaukasi Riki Rapira and Joe Kaukasi? Maybe this quote from the  
Sunday Star-Times  
website will help: “Michael was brutally murdered nearly 4 years ago by six thugs including this country’s youngest killer Bailey Junior Kurariki.” The first two names I mentioned were the two young people who murdered Michael Choy and the other three were the others like Bailey Junior Kurariki who were convicted of manslaughter. It took me ages to track down the names of the people who murdered Michael Choy because story after story only ever referred to Bailey Junior Kurariki. He was the one who contacted the pizza firm who enticed the pizza deliverer to the house and who opened the door when Michael Choy arrived. What Bailey Junior Kurariki did was wrong but he has been additionally punished with the notoriety his youthful age earned him. Yet nobody knows the names of the real killers the murderers. 
I make this point about extending the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to 12 and 13-year-olds for other crimes beyond manslaughter and murder—as it already can—and I say that the Government should think about the consequences.