Garrett David: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Garrett David: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9027] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I was not intending to take a call on the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill and I will make it very brief. 
There are a couple of points to be made about the programme that is not being continued. I just asked my colleague Rahui Katene the name of it but she could not think of it either. We both know that it is Te something. 
Hon Members 
: Te Hurihanga. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Well I do not profess to have any great knowledge about it but the evidence is quite clear from overseas even from criminologists who are in the “rehabilitation is not possible” camp. The camps are broadly divided into two. Some criminologists say nothing works and that is one recognised camp of criminologists whereas others say lots of things work. Even the “nothing works” camp agree that if enough money is spent and a programme is intensive enough the results will be OK or better than OK. But the question then becomes one of how much we should spend and for what sort of OK result. 
I think the figures given by Ms Ardern yesterday were that there had been no reoffending by any of the graduates for 10 months. Is that correct? 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I never said that. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Someone said that the graduates from the course thus far had not reoffended for 10 months after completing it. Sadly that is not very significant. If the period was 2 years or 5 years then that would mean something. In this country we have lots of manipulation of the statistics about sex offenders. We say graduates of particular courses have a 20 percent or 6 percent reoffending rate but we have to know over what period that is. So although this programme may well be effective for a small number although at a vast cost the sad reality is that getting bangs in return for the bucks spent is important. We have to achieve rehabilitation of the greatest number—the greatest good for the greatest number; utilitarianism I think it is called. That is one reason that sadly this legislation is necessary. 
Secondly I think Ms King whose opinion I have considerable regard for said we are talking about children. She was a little passionate about the issue and said these children need to be given care. Sadly I say there are 12-year-olds who are no longer children. They might be children chronologically but they have offended seriously. They have no background; they have no values. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Where are their parents? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yes. Well members on that side of House have encouraged their parents not to care through the welfare system. That is the whole problem. We cannot say that all the young people—or young children—at my daughter’s school who are aged 10 11 12 and 13 are children. Sadly they are not. 
I am all for rehabilitation. Members can laugh over there; let us hear it. But I say rehabilitation is wonderful. As I have said in other speeches I would be delighted if no one was ever locked up under the “three strikes” law on the third strike. But sadly that is not reality and we have to target the available money to those who are most likely to benefit from it and to areas where the greatest number will benefit from it. This is what this part of the bill does. Thank you.