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:9023] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I believe that the Committee is entitled to an answer to the question I posed earlier about a change that is described by the Chief Judge of the Youth Court as constituting the most fundamental change to the system since its inception in 1989. That is why I think we are entitled to an explicit answer on the question of the age. I ask about the age of criminal responsibility for offences in addition to murder and manslaughter which are already covered in legislation. The examples we are often given out there in the public arena are those that are already covered by that extension by way of exception. This provision makes it more of the rule rather than the exception. 
I want to know what evidence the Government is using to lower that age. What evidence does the Government have that shows that changing the age and shifting the jurisdiction to the Youth Court will in fact make a difference in terms of turning around the lives of children? I want to know why the Minister cannot say “children”. These are children under her own Act. Under the Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 a person is a child until he or she is 14 and then a young person. It is unfortunate that she will not pick up on the language. 
I have another important question for her. Just over a week ago we referred another bill to the select committee. It was a bill not in the Minister’s name but in the name of the Minister of Justice. That was to make an amendment to the offence provisions of the Adoption Act 1955 so that the Government could ratify the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I ask how on earth this legislation stacks up with that convention and our obligations as a country to that convention to which we are a party. 
My understanding is that the Government failed even to mention that this bill was in Parliament when the Government appeared before the United Nations Human Rights Council last year. That suggests to me that this bill runs directly counter to our United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child obligations. The Minister Paula Bennett should get up and explain whether that is the case—and if it is the case why on earth we would want to go down one track with the Minister of Justice and his changes to the Adoption Act and down another track with this Minister in order to counter our obligations under that convention. 
For me the evidence base is the issue. I do not think the Minister was around when I was quoting the very excellent appointment the Government made to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Professor Gluckman. I was relieved when the Prime Minister appointed him to such an important position because by way of that appointment the Prime Minister was saying that it was important to have an evidence base wrapped around social policy decisions—as we would have around all other elements of economic and scientific endeavour. I will quote Professor Gluckman—I raise a point of order Mr Chair. I understand that if the Minister is in the Chamber the Minister has to be in the chair. The Minister is having a conversation with one of the members at the back of the Chamber. I do not think she understands the Standing Orders in that regard. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is quite right. I say to the Minister the Hon Paula Bennett that if she is in the Chamber she is required to be in the chair. The Minister will either resume the chair or leave the Chamber. She is leaving the Chamber. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I wanted to quote Professor Gluckman for the benefit of the Hon Paula Bennett but unfortunately I am not able to do that and will have to find another occasion. It is very important. Professor Gluckman talked about the “need for evidence to be rigorously based and inform policy formation”. He said—and this I thought was really relevant—“that there can be many cogent reasons why evidence and policy need not align: the evidence may not be complete”—well that is a reasonable reason why they may not align. He said: “the public may not accept the evidence”—that is a challenge then because one has to explain things to the public—“it may conflict with the accepted values of a society”. That is certainly an issue in terms of some of the harm reduction approaches we would like to take. On that note I was very disappointed at the immediate knee-jerk response of the Minister of Justice Simon Power to the Misuse of Drugs Act report from the Law Commission.