Dalziel Lianne: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9032] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am speaking to Part 2 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. Reading this part of the bill was quite interesting; I think we might need a little bit of detailed explanation of what is intended. I assume that it simply adds 12 and 13-year-old children to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The legislation—previously covering only those charged with murder or manslaughter but now including those being prosecuted for a wider range of offences—will now apply to children. 
It is quite an interesting area and it is quite ironic that we are having this debate the day after an event that occurred here in Parliament last night. I attended the 20th anniversary of DNA testing in New Zealand an event hosted by the Minister of Research Science and Technology along with the Royal Society and the body that brings all of the Crown research institutes together. It was a fascinating history of the development both of the technique of DNA testing and also of the development of databases of information and the quality of the results taken from them. In a way we are reflecting here the tragedy of the reoffending rates of our young people who get to this stage. 
I think probably the point I was trying to make most of all in the debate on Part 1 of this bill was that if we have not successfully intervened early on then this is really the last chance. I know I heard the ACT Party member indicate that these children were not able to be saved and were not really worthy of being saved because of where they had got to. He said they were not children. I think what he meant was that their behaviour was no longer childlike but he ignored the dreadful reality of the lives of so many of these children who get to this stage of serious offending. 
I do not normally give movie reviews when I debate a bill in the Chamber but I went to see the movie  
Precious 
 and if anyone wants to be completely drained and to have a real sense of hopelessness then they should go to see that movie. I read a review of it that said that it had an uplifting aspect to it because of the meeting or connection with an alternative education teacher that gave Precious a hope that she could have a life. But I felt no sense of being uplifted by the end of that movie. In fact I felt utter and complete desperation for the reality of those lives which are so dysfunctional so tragically destroyed at an early age by parents who either neglect or abuse children or abuse each other and who allow their children to grow up without a moral compass and to head off down a pathway to inevitably ending up with their bodily samples their DNA on a database. What a tragic record that is. 
I think quite relevant to this part of the bill are the issues that came up in the evaluation of the Te Hurihanga pilot because I do not think that Parliament has quite understood the extent of the development of the practice of the model that went on during that pilot. In fact it makes me weep now that I have read the evaluation—I would really like to know from the Minister of Justice why the evaluation took so long to be publicly released since it is dated October 2009—which states: “The current treatment model is aligned with ecological approaches used in New Zealand and internationally. These approaches target known risk and protective factors that contribute to conduct disorder and youth offending by: increasing opportunities for the young people to mix with prosocial peers through positive activities (eg education work and recreation); …”—I guess that is the Youth Guarantee that we heard about before—“reducing opportunities for the young people to mix with antisocial peers and engage in antisocial activities (eg by creating alternative positive opportunities and developing young people’s positive self-identities); building consequential thinking; and strengthening whaanau/families (eg though skill enhancement building positive parent-youth relationships positive reinforcement).” That is the only direction that we should be heading in. 
What bothers me about passing this amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act is that it really takes on board something else the ACT Party member said which was to indicate that the only measure of success—the only outcome that we should look at for Te Hurihanga—is the reoffending rate. What about the participants’ pro-social choices and their ability to choose better peers? What about substance abuse reduction and identity development outcomes for young people? How about mental health safety and physical health outcomes for young people? How about the cultural and life skills outcomes for young people? How about the reduction in gang identity? How about increased thoughts and behaviours relating to personal appearance? How about some of the enhanced moral reasoning and enhanced consequential thinking? 
David Garrett 
: So reoffenders with a nice haircut and a shower—that’s all right? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That member might well mock but he actually does not even begin to understand what an ecological approach to treating those damaged children is. Those children are damaged. The reason that we insist upon them being called children is that they are entitled to the care and protection of their parents of their families and of their communities. I will always stand in this Chamber and say that we have a collective responsibility for the children of our nation. This bill is not the answer.