Lole-Taylor Asenati: Reports — Inquiry into the Identification Rehabilitation and Care and Protection of Child Offenders 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Reports — Inquiry into the Identification Rehabilitation and Care and Protection of Child Offenders 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4940. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this report on the Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders. First of all I acknowledge the work of the Social Services Committee which resulted in this report being submitted to the House. New Zealand First is pleased to be involved in the discussion although it was very much at a late stage given our return to Parliament at the recent election. There is no question that an inquiry was needed and it is a shame that it was not done earlier. Now that the report into this inquiry is before the House the Government needs to do something about it. 
When identifying potential child offenders the Social Services Committee addresses the importance of early detection of at-risk children. The Government needs to look closely at the committee’s recommendations especially around Government agencies to focus on risk and protective factors. There needs to be a thorough analysis of the severity of risks that children identify with and whether all these risks justify intervention. Having collaborative cross-agency and Government departments is key to creating successful interventions. It is acknowledged that the health and education sectors must have more responsibility and input into the process. However I believe that the Government should consider a wider approach involving different key ministries—namely the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the Ministry of Maori Development. These ministries need to contribute more towards addressing the social and economic drivers of offending. 
Recent incidents arising as a result of poor system administrative processes in Child Youth and Family services highlight poor strategic thinking. Of child offenders who are apprehended 57 percent are Maori and just under 6 percent of them are Pacific Islanders—that is 63 percent are Maori and Pacific Islanders alone. The lack of awareness around cultural perspectives will make rehabilitation hard not only for existing youth offenders but also for those who are possibly at risk. The culturally specific approaches in the Youth Court for Maori and Pacific offenders have been commended. However there are still loopholes within these approaches. Application of specialised cultural services—for example cultural assessment and relevant resources—would contribute to addressing some behavioural issues of children falling through the cracks. It should be mentioned that demographic areas need also to be considered when considering where Government resources and funding should be allocated. These should be allocated not by the populations of cities but by the highest concentration of youth offenders. 
There are still concerns surrounding programmes to address at-risk children. The question needs to be asked as to whether there will be a clear difference between rehabilitative programmes for offending children and at-risk children. Compounding these two areas could lead to children ending up in compromised situations. The committee has identified mentoring programmes as a solution for at-risk children. However the Government will need to look at the effectiveness of such programmes as this will be very much dependent on the mentors themselves. I would also like to raise the question of parent accountability when it comes to child offenders. In most serious offences the child has been brought up within a dysfunctional and often abusive family situation which potentially leads to behavioural problems. I do question whether a lack of accountability at family group conferences needs to be addressed. Often these sessions are clouded with political correctness which then blurs the lines of accountability when addressing the real issues. It has been recommended that educational programmes promoting good parenting are positive and effective ways to address these issues. Most programmes need to be established in terms of early parenting. There are not enough avenues nor sufficient programmes and support during the early maternal stages especially for first-time parents. This begs the question why parents are not being held responsible as their actions could very well be a leading factor in the circumstances of their child’s offending. Thank you.