Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East)
: Part 1 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment
Bill deals with reducing the age of criminal responsibility from 14 years to 12 years for a wider range of offences than murder and manslaughter, as is the current case. I want the Minister for Social Development and Employment, to take a call early on in this debate, because this is an area we will be focusing on. It is a major change to important legislation. This issue has been challenged by serious experts, including judges, in respect of the intent that lies behind it. I want to hear a very simple explanation from the Minister as to why she wants to reduce the age of criminal responsibility for offences other than murder and manslaughter, which are already covered, from 14 years to 12 years.
I find it hard to understand what lies behind the thinking in this area, because the law accepts that 14 years of age is the defining line between a child and a young person. Under current legislation the definition of “young person” is 14 years and older. Below that age, we are talking about children. So we are talking about holding children accountable under the legal framework that was set up for young people. People know that they cannot leave their children home alone before they are 14 years of age. As we know, babysitters have to be at least 14 years of age. Parents are held legally accountable for providing the necessities of life for children under the age of 14 years. Criminal law and family law are riddled with this distinction between those who are under 14 and those who are 14 and over. So what possible motive lies behind this particular change? It does not make sense that a child who is not old enough to babysit is actually now old enough to face the consequences that would be faced by a young person under the youth justice provisions of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. I think this is one of the very serious issues in this bill—there is more than one serious issue that the Opposition will be focusing on—and the Committee really needs to have some understanding as to what the Government is trying to achieve.
All of the literature that I have read on this subject—and I have read copious quantities of literature on this subject—tells me that punishing young children who have grown up in adverse environments that have affected the way they see the world and respond to things around them will not make the kind of change that we need to see happen. The whole discussion, hopefully, is now turning to an understanding of what Whānau Ora will mean in practice, and the early intervention approach is what will make the long-term difference. Why, when Whānau Ora is waiting in the wings—if it is what it is made out to be; and it will now be extended beyond Māori to the wider community—would one change the age of criminal responsibility and bring in a punishment model that does not identify one of the fundamentals of our family law principles, which is that children lie at the heart of all decision making? They should be at the heart of decision making when we are talking about children.
I have in front of me one of several documents that I have been reading over the last wee while as I look at this whole question.
Unlocking Potential: Alternatives to custody for young people has been written by a non-governmental organisation in the UK called 4Children. I visited it last year when I was over in the UK and I got an understanding of what it was trying to achieve. The report said that there had to be a different way of finding out how we could address some of the underlying drivers of crime, and that that was the best way to move forward as far as young people are concerned. That was, I think, a defining reality of all the major submissions that were made on this legislation. We have to get to the roots of crime. If we do not get to the roots of these issues, we will see them continue.
There is another thing that the Minister would perhaps like to reflect on in her comments, as well. There has been a lot of debate in the media over the last couple of days about the Kāhui twins. I know that this is a really hard thing to say, but can anyone in this Chamber imagine what the Kāhui twins would have grown up to be like if they
had survived the treatment that was meted out to them by a family that let them be abused and, ultimately, killed? If they had survived that, if they had not died, what would have been the result? That is what I am asking the Minister. How can she sit there and agree to change the age of criminal responsibility when she knows—probably better than anyone else—that children coming from damaged, dysfunctional family environments have very little chance of finding their way back into society in a way that takes them forward? This bill takes them backwards.
