Dalziel Lianne: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9315] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have to respond to Mr Garrett’s speech because I feel there has been an utter misrepresentation of the position that members on this side of the Chamber have taken on this bill and on why the bill is such a fundamental change to our Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 which was world-leading legislation when it was introduced and which has been looked at by other countries as a means for trying to get underneath the problems. 
I cannot believe that that member can describe another human being as a harridan and then describe her circumstances. That member does not know the circumstances she was brought up in; nor does he understand the environment Bailey Junior Kurariki was born in. I think it is really unfair to use that one example of a child who was convicted of manslaughter because he was part of a group. He rang the pizza place and he opened the door when Michael Choy arrived but I do not know how much he was led. I do not know how much pressure was put on him to do that. He was 12 years old; he was a child. I cannot believe—and I think it has been absent from this debate—the lack of responsibility that the ACT Party is prepared to take for what is as the member says a loss of values in our society where we have children brought up who are so utterly and completely damaged that their lives will never ever fulfil the potential they might have had at the moment they were born. 
I am really interested in what we can do across party lines to get underneath those drivers of crime. That is why I attended the ministerial meeting on the drivers of crime that was co-hosted by the Hon Pita Sharples and the Hon Simon Power. I really enjoyed that day because I was able to sit there listen and discuss issues with people who were all there with a common thread which was to determine what we could do to intervene earlier in the lives of these young people to ensure that they do not become the horrible offenders we are dealing with. 
After I attended that meeting I was so struck by the passion of everyone in that room that I went back to the Labour caucus and said that I wanted us to do something we did not normally do: I wanted us to offer to work with the Government collaboratively on the underlying drivers of crime. I said: “Let’s do the 0 to 12-year-olds. We are not going to agree on 12 and 13-year-olds and we are not going to agree on boot camps but we do want evidence-based interventions for 0 to 12-year-olds. Let’s do that.” Did I get a positive response from the Government when I made that offer? No. I have been told that the Government is prepared to work with us on the Sale of Liquor Act but is not prepared at this stage to work on other legislation. Government members are saying: “Let’s just see how we go with the Sale of Liquor Act and if that works then maybe we’ll sit down and talk to you about what really matters.” 
I can tell members that there is not one single person working with children in this country who does not want both sides of this Parliament to put down the battle lines on the 0 to 12-year-olds. They want us to work together to come up with the solutions that will address the fundamental change in our society which happened in the 1970s or whenever Rajen Prasad was working as a social worker on the ground. The difference then was that we had parents in employment but I know that in the days of Roger Douglas the number of people working for the railways went from 22000 to 7000 over the course of 2 years. If members want to look at the cause of youth suicide and if they want to look at the cause of some of the issues that affected children in the 1990s they need look only at the massive redundancies that occurred in the 1980s. 
I think we all have to put aside some of the concerns we have about protecting certain positions and actually get real here. We are talking about children being given the responsibility of young people who are much older than they are—children who really have not had the chance to achieve their full potential in life. I believe that New Zealanders will back us for doing that. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The debate has been somewhat wide-ranging and I just want to bring it back to relevancy. This debate is on the title and commencement of the principal Act and in future speeches I ask you to make sure we are focusing on the title. 
Hon Member 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I do not need any help with this. The member makes a fair point but the title clauses and so on are generally construed to be in the nature of a summing-up debate and I think members should cast their comments in terms of summing up. I think we have strayed a bit beyond that but with points well made; the Committee needs to debate things on occasion. I just say to future speakers that when I call them the debate is in the nature of summing up the evidence. That is what this is about not starting off on a first-reading speech. I know that passion is running high and that is a good thing. But let us stick within the rules and have summing-up speeches.