Wilkinson Kate: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16201] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. I want to make it clear that although National opposes this bill it is certainly of the view that violent youth offending rates do warrant intervention and serious consideration. It is clear that there has been an increase in the intensity of violent crime committed by young offenders and this is one issue that does need to be addressed in the future. Certainly the many discussions held at the Law and Order Committee highlighted a number of other matters that are deserving of our attention in this arena. 
However in light of a number of the submissions including as has been mentioned but not limited to submissions from Judge Becroft the Principal Youth Court Judge the Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro and the New Zealand Law Society it became apparent throughout the process that despite the best intentions of the member and indeed of the select committee the bill in its original form notwithstanding the proposed amendments was simply unworkable and should not and indeed could not proceed. 
We in the National Party want to get tough on crime and we have proven that we have not put the issue of youth crime in the too-hard basket; instead we have come up with a fresh innovative strategy to help deal with some of the problems that this bill intended to fix. Our youth plan released earlier this year tackles the problem of youth offending and will help to get these at-risk children off the conveyor belt to crime. An overwhelming number of prison inmates begin their criminal careers as young offenders. In fact young people between the ages of 10 and 16 are responsible for a quarter of the crime in this country and youth offending has been quoted as being 21 percent of all offending. National’s youth plan will help turn these statistics round by giving the Youth Court new powers to get young people back on the rails and providing tougher sentencing options to deal with those who pose a serious threat to the safety of our communities. 
We will not turn our backs on those who most need help. We want to give all young New Zealanders the opportunity and the responsibility to better themselves no matter what their circumstances abilities or track record and simply locking up young offenders and throwing away the key will not address this. 
I want to dwell for a small time on the criticisms of the process. I think it is incumbent on us as members of Parliament to make sure that the laws we pass in this Parliament are good laws and ones not so riddled with flaws that they need to be revisited time and time again. It is important to note that if amendments to this bill were indeed even possible then the only clauses remaining in the original bill in its original form would have been the title clause and the commencement date clause and in fact the only clause remaining totally unchanged would have been the title clause. The amendments were so substantial that it really would not have been fair. Submitters would not have been given the opportunity to present on such a dramatically amended bill and we would have had to start all over again. 
Given the huge legal implications this bill would have on our youth justice system it would be irresponsible for us to support it at the second reading. The Law and Order Committee had serious concerns about the structure drafting and operational implications of this bill and the Youth Court. We have already heard the words of Judge Becroft: “In short it would effectively end our current youth justice system it would abolish the way that we have acted for the last 19 years and whatever … have been the intentions it is clear that this bill in my respectful view is profoundly poorly drafted. One could even say it is abysmally drafted.” 
The bill also aroused concern from a number of legal practitioners experienced in the criminal justice system. The New Zealand Law Society echoed concerns and in its submission stated: “The Society opposes this Bill. As it is presently drafted the Bill demonstrates a misunderstanding of New Zealand’s youth justice system adult criminal justice system and international obligations in respect of children and young persons.” 
I mentioned earlier that this bill would have huge legal implications for the youth justice system and I think it is important to examine some of these this evening. Irrespective of the member’s motivations for the introduction of this bill and his intent effectively the bill would abolish the Youth Court by removing almost all criminal offenders from its jurisdiction. We heard that it would remove 95 percent of cases from its jurisdiction leaving only depositions hearings involving 10 to 16-year-olds. 
The definition of a serious offence was one that was widely discussed at the select committee and it is extremely wide: far wider than other definitions of the same phrase in other legislation. We have heard that it defines a serious offence as any offence for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term of not less than 3 months or a fine of not less than $2000 and yes that would include the “Moro bar thief” or any other offence committed by an offender who has previously been convicted of an offence or has more than three previous convictions for offences. 
There would be no Crimes Act offences outside this definition and only 18 Summary Offences Act offences that are not serious according to this definition. Examples of such offences include acting as a medium with intent to deceive; publishing a false notice of birth marriage or death; and trespass on a ship. All are very rare offences some of which are not even relevant to youth offenders and Judge Becroft noted that he had never seen these offences before the Youth Court in all his years of involvement. 
The bill would introduce a new system where almost all children and young people between the ages of 10 and 16 who need to be charged in court rather than diverted will have to be charged in the District Court as opposed to the Youth Court. It will ensure that children and young people will be tried and punished as adults. If this bill were to pass we would see many offences committed by children deemed as serious although the same offence carried out by an adult would not be considered in the same way. This would see a situation whereby children were given harsher treatment than adults. Although the term “adult time for adult crime” has been bandied about it is worthwhile to consider the huge body of research that shows that teenagers do not have the same developmental level of cognitive or psychological maturity as adults. 
The bill as originally drafted would amend the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act of 1989 so that children as young as 10 might be dealt with in the adult courts thereby establishing a new system for those between the ages of 10 and 13. What is confusing about this however is that there is already a procedure in place to deal with 10 to 13-year-olds. The current system whereby child offenders are dealt with under section 14 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act remains entirely unchanged. Thus we would be left with two parallel and contradictory systems. 
In conclusion I reiterate the National Party’s stance as being one that is tough on crime. However unfortunately this bill does not achieve that objective. Although the bill has brought a number of issues to the table that need to be confronted any support for the bill as drafted from this point onwards would be irresponsible on our part. Reluctantly although we support the intent of the bill we in the National Party must oppose its second reading.