Borrows Chester: Children Young Persons and Their Families  Amendment Bill (No 6) — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Children Young Persons and Their Families  Amendment Bill (No 6) — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14635] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak against this bill not because there are not a number of valid provisions within the bill but because there are some that actually detract from it quite significantly. I am pleased to see notifications of abuse included. When children disclose abuse there should be a fast track for those matters to be investigated and to be exposed. The fact is that when children disclose abuse they disclose it to an adult because they want to make it stop but for years and years we have seen the professionals working in the area do everything they can to move away from a position where they have to take action seriously on the disclosure of abuse hiding behind some perceived relationship they may have with the child or with the parents of that child and failing to take concrete action. Unfortunately the abuse has gone on from there. 
I am also pleased to see a provision where family group conferences for care and protection matters have a 30-day time limit. I have to say that I do not see any need for there to be legislation around this particular concern as it is one that goes on and on time and time again. I am reminded of the last time that I was sitting in the Youth Court in South Auckland at Manukau and watching a number of matters come before the court. For five of the matters called before the court—in fact for the first five matters called before the court—the young person was not available nor were their parents. The reason was that they had not been served any notice by Child Youth and Family social workers to say that the matter was going ahead. 
I have attended two family group conferences in recent weeks and on one occasion the proposals for resolution put before the family group conference—for endorsement as a proposed resolution of the conference—did not stack up because the positions that were possibly available and open as a resolution had not been confirmed by the providers. So those present at the family group conference were asked to endorse a proposal that had no end to it. 
I am also pleased to see in the bill the removal of the requirement of consent from young persons before they can be given a sentence of community work or supervision with activity. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that this legislation which had its genesis in 1989 and in which the young person has the option as to whether they are going to be engaged in community work or be sentenced to a term of supervision with activity has lasted so long. It is no surprise to me that high-end offenders who are sentenced to these sorts of programmes such as supervision with activity or supervision with residence may choose in effect to go to jail. There are a hell of a lot more brownie points amongst their associates on their having done what they perceive to be a lag than there are on their going on a course of supervision with activity that involves them being in unfamiliar territory on their own without their mates and without any way of connecting with street gang affiliations for instance. 
I am also pleased to see within this legislation the provision that young persons who are aged as young as 14 will now be able to be commuted to the District Court when the charge is a purely indictable charge. The problem with that is that it addresses only the very very high-end offences which are the purely indictable offences such as arson rape aggravated robbery and suchlike but it does not address those offences young people are engaging in that we are becoming more and more concerned about. 
In the last 9 years we have seen an escalation of youth violence by 47 percent—that is a 47 percent escalation in youth violence. Yet for instance if a person beats someone up on the street and uses extreme violence and is charged with robbery as a 14 or 15-year-old then that person cannot go through to the District Court for sentence because it is not a purely indictable offence. If a young person beats someone up with a baseball bat and is charged with assault with a weapon then he or she cannot go through to the District Court for sentencing. That seems to me to be a ridiculous situation when cases of extreme violence are those that are of most concern within the jurisdiction at the moment. The escalation in youth offending in violent offences is higher than in any other class of offences young people are appearing before the court for at the moment. 
In a similar vein a young person who has committed for instance sexual offences that do not amount to rape or unlawful sexual connection will not be able to appear before the District Court either. A young offender could commit a series of offences that amount to indecent assault and may have a well-discerned problem with those offences—and may well even have been previously sentenced for those offences—yet he or she still cannot appear before the District Court for sentence or access the programmes available through the District Court. I think that that is ridiculous. 
The reason why National will not support this legislation lies principally around three points that the bill does not address. For instance the bill seeks to raise the age of a young person who can appear before and be dealt with by the Youth Court from 17 to 18. Currently the situation is that if a person is under the age of 17 then he or she will be dealt with in the Youth Court. This legislation raises that level so that if a young person is under the age of 18 then he or she will be dealt with by the Youth Court. I wonder whether members can consider what they were doing when they were 18 because I know that a number of us at the age of 18 were working in adult jobs and being treated as adults with adult responsibilities. There are people in this House I think who were parents at 18. 
The other day there was a photograph on the front page of the  
Taranaki Daily News 
 showing two young people who had been encouraged by the Ministry of Social Development to set up home together. They are still at high school so they have decided that that is what they will do. There is a lovey-dovey story and a big colour photograph of them having become engaged setting up home together. They have made a decision to shack up. This Government would say to them that they are still children yet at the same time it has encouraged them with a series of benefits whereby they can carry on living as children. 
The youth justice accommodation as it is at the moment the supervision with activity is absolutely filled to the brim. For instance on a recent visit to the Rolleston youth justice facility we met a 15-year-old who was serving his fifth term of supervision with residence. It is his fifth term of 3 months’ duration. In fact most of the people we spoke to on that day had served multiple terms of supervision. At the last family group conference that I attended which was in the last couple of weeks the 15-year-old— 
Jill Pettis 
: Name dropper. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: There are no names involved. The 15-year-old offender who had broken into a house while armed and had stolen a vehicle along with his 17-year-old brother who was on parole was being dealt with before the family group conference. The 17-year-old of course under this legislation would still be appearing before the Youth Court. 
National believes that Labour has spent its time trying to minimise the effect of youth offending. We note for instance within the graffiti bill which is currently before the Law and Order Committee that it is an offence to sell a spray-can to a youth under 18 years of age but there are no possessory offences for the under-18-year-old to be caught red-handed with the can about to spray it on a clean fence. It seems ridiculous to me that there is no possessory offence for the person who is going to do the tagging but there is a $1500 fine open to the person who sells the spray-can. 
National believes we need to be holding these young people to account. National believes that if someone is between 17 and 18 years of age then that person should be treated for the adult that he or she is. National will not be supporting this legislation.