Prasad Rajen: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Prasad Rajen: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8796] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I inform Mr McClay that I indeed have the experience that he thinks members on this side ought to have before we address bills like the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. I worked with many of those families; I worked with them for years. I have also developed many workers to work with them and indeed researched much of the background from which those families come. The member seeks an assurance that Labour members speak from that kind of background and coming from that background I am convinced that the kinds of provisions that this bill has come up with are not what those families require. I do not disagree a great deal with the member when he talks about some of what those families need but where in the philosophical thinking behind this bill or in the principles that guide this bill are the provisions that will enable that to happen? They are not there. 
I too thank the officials who worked with us over the last 12 months. I also thank parliamentary counsel who helped design some of the amendments that were required. I acknowledge the chair of the Social Services Committee Katrina Shanks who led and chaired with good humour and enabled us all to participate with contributions from members from both sides. 
The bill however has a chequered history. That history forces me to really suspect the real motivation for this bill. The bill was introduced under urgency in February 2009. That fact would immediately say to us that there is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed and that we will do so fairly quickly. The bill was sent to the Social Services Committee quite early as well. The committee had begun to receive submissions by April and through May and June heard many of them. But at that point when we were waiting for the departmental report there was a vacuum. There was a direction from the Minister of Social Development and Employment—a letter that was sent to the select committee—saying that officials needed to do some more policy work. We asked what policy work was being done because the select committee—having heard all of the submitters and having understood what the bill was trying to do—wanted to know what the thinking was. Nothing was provided. Indeed we realised later on that a trial of the boot camps—military-style training—was under way. At that point I became very suspicious and I am still suspicious. 
I ask whether this is a real attempt to address the complex and fundamental issues our young people face knowing now what we know from the research and evidence that exists or whether it is merely a demonstration or working-out of some attempt to be punitive—to be seen to be punitive to be seen to be tough on crime. In the context of that particular flush some of the provisions of this bill begin to make sense to me. I do not agree with them but they begin to make sense to me. The Minister in her statement at the beginning of the second reading said that this bill was indeed about targeting the underlying causes of offending but I am not at all convinced that this bill does that. The Government’s own work on the drivers of crime says that we need to move from a retributive or punitive model to a restorative and rehabilitative one but the bulk of the provisions in this bill are really still quite punitive. Even though there are some wraparound services as was talked about the bill is still quite punitive. 
Indeed if the Government really was sincere in its own work on addressing the drivers of crime then this type of bill would not come to Parliament. Much of that work would be about poor parenting poor education and attachments the disconnectedness from the wider society that many of these young people feel and the failure of parents to provide the right environment so that degeneration is taking place in family community cultural supports and structures like that. There would also be a much more aggressive attempt to look at poverty intransigence and the demands on parents particularly single parents. Indeed the drivers of crime material would take precedence. 
This bill does not talk about those provisions but as my colleagues have already pointed out it makes one of the most fundamental changes in child welfare legislation in this country in the last several decades which is to take 12 and 13-year-olds to Youth Court jurisdiction. That is a very serious move; that move forces us to begin to contemplate the particular stage of development of 12 and 13-year-olds. We have been parents; we have brought up those young people and there but for the grace of God some of our own children could have strayed if you like at the ages of 12 and 13. When that happens—I am sure it has happened to members of families in this Chamber and indeed to people we know and have worked with—a punitive approach should not be the response; we should begin to address all those complex factors including our own behaviour the way our family operates the way we have supported our young people in our community and the demands of the young people themselves in terms of their own personalities etc. When we address those kinds of things we begin to manage this transition of the early teens into the later teens. 
Judge Andrew Becroft was very clear about that fundamental shift. He really said to me to be careful about that change and to ask whether that was what we particularly wanted. We know that 12 and 13-year-olds primarily have care and protection needs; they do not need for us as a society to be retributive—to really get our ounce of flesh if you like. In the kind of decent society in which we live 12 and 13-year-olds will always demand that we address their care and protection needs. We have a court that specialises in those care and protection needs and although that court is not perfect—it might require more resources it could be timelier and what have you—it is those shortcomings that should be addressed if we really have in mind the care and protection needs of 12 and 13-year-olds. I have spent half my life working with that particular population and that is what they require. In the time I worked with those young people I fought the system that sought to be punitive towards them. We were trying to get around the punitive approaches of days gone past. But those days are coming back and this is a fundamental change that we will live to regret. Now it is 12 and 13-year-olds but what will happen if that group becomes much more troublesome? If 10 and 11-year-olds get troublesome do we keep going backwards or do we use a different approach? 
I will also talk briefly about boot camps. We pride ourselves that people come to select committees saying that their Government will listen to them that Parliament will listen to them. They take a lot of pride in that and they put a lot of emphasis on what they do. At the select committee experts—people who have worked with this group—said that this particular model does not work. But not one of them has been listened to because here it is in the bill as originally envisaged. That is a problem. I do not think that in this Government there is a serious attempt to look at the programmes that achieve change. Te Hurihanga is a programme that was achieving change. The Minister said that four participants had reoffended but she did not tell us that the overall rate of offending had reduced by 82 percent. The select committee visited that group— 
Hon Simon Power 
: You’ve got no idea. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The Minister Mr Power is saying that it was useless but the select committee visited them. In a disingenuous kind of way that Minister added the cost of the plant to the cost of the first eight or so kids. 
Hon Simon Power 
: You’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The Minister did. That is how the Minister was reported. But here was a programme that was working successfully and now the plan is to close it down. 
Hon Simon Power 
: There is another side to this story you know nothing about. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I tell the Minister that we visited this programme. We visited the programme and spent some time there. Not one person in the select committee will disagree with that. But the Minister is not really interested in achieving change.