SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I am disappointed to hear that the member for Hamilton West did not take his remaining 2 minutes to speak, because I was waiting for an apology. I was waiting for him to say sorry to the people of Hamilton and, in fact, to the people of New Zealand for standing by while the very best facility that we have had to date to deal with high-risk offenders has been closed down by his Government in his back yard—in Hamilton. Yet during the member’s whole speech last evening, not one mention was made of Te Hurihanga. Perhaps the member is embarrassed, and rightly so. He should be embarrassed that his Government is flying in the face of the good people of Hamilton. It is flying in the face of two Hamilton bishops—the Anglican Archbishop, David Moxon, and the Catholic Bishop, Denis Browne—who have both come out to criticise the Government about this very bad decision.

If the Government was truly serious about dealing with youth crime and helping to turn angry young men’s lives around, then it would continue to invest in the Te Hurihanga model. Te Hurihanga is now a proven model. It had been piloted for 3 years in Hamilton, and the assessment was glowing about the results it had achieved with those very high-risk offenders. For people who are not aware of that model, I say that it took in young men who had committed, on average, 23 offences before they had even stepped inside the facility. That was the high level of offending, and we know from research and evidence—which the Government ignores, at its peril—that it is the small number, the minority of hardened offenders who cause the majority of grief in our community and our society. That is why Te Hurihanga is so important. It was dealing with the hardened, high-risk youth offenders, and it was achieving success.

Yet this Government today, in urgency, is pushing through a bill to go back to a failed model. It is almost like having the McGillicuddy Serious Party as the Government. Talk about the great leap backwards! This is the great leap backwards: back to boot camps, and back to a situation that we know does not work. We have research and evidence that proves that it does not work here in New Zealand; we have tried it. It does not work overseas; it has been tried overseas. This Government is going for the great leap backwards to something that does not work.

I want to know from the Government—I still have not heard anything from the Government members, and I will not, as this is the last call on this bill; they have studiously avoided this question—what will replace the Te Hurihanga model in Hamilton. There we have a custom-built facility—an eight-bed facility—

Tim Macindoe: The facility is remaining open. Child, Youth and Family is taking it over. You know that—it’s all publicly available. The whole thing has been announced.

SUE MORONEY: The member seems to know, but he has not told the Hamilton community what will be replacing it. I ask Mr Macindoe whether it will be a 12-month programme.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not a word!

SUE MORONEY: No, he does not know. He does not know, and neither does the Hamilton community. I ask Mr Macindoe whether it will be a 6-month programme. I ask the Minister for Social Development whether it will be a 6-month programme. They do not know. They have closed down this successful programme—an 18-month comprehensive wraparound programme—and they are trying to convince the country and Hamiltonians that they will do exactly that same programme, but they will do it for about a third of the cost.

Members of the Hamilton community are not dumb. They know that that programme cannot be delivered for $40,000 per offender. They have been told it will cost only $40,000 per offender. Currently, the Ministry of Justice says that the programme the Government has cut was costing about $170,000 per offender. That has been a very contentious issue. The Ministers have tried to inflate that figure and say that it cost $600,000 per offender. The Government’s own ministry, the Ministry of Justice, says otherwise. So who is telling the truth? Well, I would go to the Ministry of Justice website to see who is telling the truth. It is costing $170,000 per offender, and that is a fantastic investment in stopping crime in our country, and in particular in my city of Hamilton.

The Government—in its short-sighted, uncaring way—has come to that community and completely disempowered it. I tell members that nothing is more disempowering for a community than to completely embrace a programme—even the people who opposed its being set up in the first place—and then have to fight the Government to keep it in place. Even though some people opposed the programme in the beginning, they now know that it works. They have seen the results in their community and for those young men, and they have turned their opinion around. But has the Government turned its opinion around? No way. That community has supported the programme—has put its heart and soul into it—and now an uncaring, unthinking, unfeeling Government has come along, against all the research and evidence, and said that it will not have that programme, because we are going to have boot camps.

Why are we going to have boot camps? It is because it made for a great bumper sticker slogan during the election campaign. That is the reason; there is no research or evidence for it. In fact, the research and evidence shows otherwise. Once again I find myself in this House—as I have on many occasions, and over many other pieces of legislation in respect of this Government—asking where the research is. Where is the evidence? What is the Government basing this decision on? The Government is not listening. Not only is it not listening to what I am trying to impress upon it, but also it is not listening to the Hillcrest community in Hamilton. It is not just the Hillcrest community. If Tim Macindoe thinks that this will not be an issue in his area, then he should talk to the Methodists, he should talk to the Catholics, and he should talk to the Anglicans, and he should take heed of what they are saying. They are interested in social justice, and they are interested in finding a true way forward. That member and his Government are more interested in bumper sticker slogans that will just turn into plasters over wounds. That is what will happen.

This legislation is putting us in the predicament of having the Te Hurihanga programme close in June—mind you, it will not if the Hamilton community has its way, because it is in fight-back mode against this Government. It is in fight-back mode.

Tim Macindoe: No evidence of that.

SUE MORONEY: Tim Macindoe says he has not heard that Hamilton is in fight-back mode. Where has he been?

I congratulate Karyn Knight, a woman who lives in Fairfield who has started up a petition. When she came to see me for some advice and asked me to receive the petition and table it in the House for her, I told her that I absolutely would, because I firmly believe that the Government has made the wrong decision. I was interested in what her motivation might be, so I asked her why she was doing this and whether she was a staff member at the facility, and whether a family member had gone through it. When I asked her what her vested interest was, she told me that she had no involvement with that facility, but that she just thought people deserved a second chance. That is the type of sentiment that this Government should be listening to—not to bumper sticker slogans, but to things that actually work. It should be listening to real people’s sentiments and programmes that the research and evidence—the Government’s own research and evidence, and the assessment that it paid for—show work with our most hardened offenders.

I think it is extremely shallow that all those members opposite have got up and said that they want to stop youth crime. If they really wanted to stop youth crime, they would not be closing down Te Hurihanga and they would not be passing this bill. I am very proud to be part of a party in this Parliament that is opposing this shallow bill.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : Good morning to my colleagues and to members opposite. As I was sitting having a good breakfast after a great night’s sleep, I thought that all members might be in the same mood that I am in this morning, but it is obvious from that last speech that some members in this House did not sleep as well as others. I would like to briefly thank a number of my colleagues, and, in particular, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, for bringing the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill to the House so quickly after the election, for supporting the Social Services Committee in its work, and for speaking so clearly about youth in New Zealand in all stages of this debate. Certainly, yesterday the Minister spoke many times during the Committee stage and now during the third reading.

I want to recognise other colleagues on my side of the House who worked on this policy when we were in Opposition. Anne Tolley certainly worked very hard on this, as did Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows, a member of Parliament whom I respect greatly, has 20 years of experience as a policeman in our community, working with the very young people whom members opposite were so quick to disregard during their term in office. Can I say—as I did during the second reading when Chester Borrows told the House that this bill will make a difference to young people—that I back what he said and I accept it fully. I would listen to Chester Borrows any day of the week before I would listen to a single member on the other side of the House, as members opposite often have opinions but cannot back them up. I want also to recognise members of the select committee, and the officials who worked very diligently for us over the last year. I thank submitters also. We heard from a wide range of submitters who had an opportunity to put their views—

Hon Member: And they weren’t listened to.

TODD McCLAY:—and they were listened to. We had great discussions.

I will be very brief during this call, because this is the last speech in the debate, and Parliament is about to pass this bill. On 1 October the bill will come into effect. The bill will make a number of changes, and it will make a number of changes for the 1,000 worst youth offenders in New Zealand. The last speaker for the Opposition said that a small number of hardened offenders cause most of the problems in our society. I agree with her—but, guess what? There are not just 1,000. Every year those young people who commit crimes and get into trouble reach the age of 17, and they go on to fill up our adult prisons. Every year younger people start committing crimes, and those 1,000 young people stay in the group. What has happened over the last 9 years is that that group of 1,000 young people has grown, so it is about time the House took this issue seriously and did more to help these young people.

The bill will expand the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to include 12 and 13-year-olds. This will enable the Youth Court to play a greater role in the support and rehabilitation of 12 and 13-year-olds who commit the most serious crimes. We are actually giving out a very important and very serious duty and power to the Youth Court. We heard from some submitters that there is concern that the Family Court had options available to it that the Youth Court would not have. Well, guess what? The bill was changed so that a judge in the Youth Court can decide, without intervention from others—members opposite or anybody else in this Parliament—whether a child should remain in that court or should be sent back to the Family Court. I have listened to the judges, I have respect for them, and I think that is an appropriate measure.

The bill will also strengthen the Youth Court and expand its powers to give a new range of compulsory orders, including parenting education. I would guess that the vast majority of the young kids who are getting into trouble and continuing to get into trouble from very early ages until they reach the age of 17 do not have family backgrounds that are the same as members in this House. I would guess that they do not have parents who spend enough time with them or care for them, and therefore parenting orders, to be directed by the court, are a very good step in the direction of ensuring that parents realise that they have greater responsibility. Also provided are mentoring and drug and alcohol treatment programmes, which are very important, as we very clearly know that there are children who have problems with drugs and alcohol.

I have heard about military style camps, and this legislation will bring in such camps in order to bring respect and discipline to some of our worst repeat youth offenders. These camps are the most intensive intervention that there is in the bill, and are intended to help get the lives of youth offenders back on track before they reach the age of 18 and end up in our prisons. There is also an option for longer supervision with residence; residence can increase from 3 months to 6 months, and supervision can be up to 12 months. Another option is longer supervision with activity, which is 6 months of activity and another 6 months of supervision. There will be more intensive monitoring. This is not just about children going before the Youth Court. It is also about judges being able to keep an eye on them. There is provision in the bill for electronic monitoring for repeat offenders and those who breach community orders. There is also judicial monitoring.

I want to conclude so we can move on to other business, but can I say to members opposite and to people listening this morning that we are not talking about young people who lead ideal lives. We are not talking about young people who have strong family support and backgrounds, or supportive parents. We are talking about young people who have started on the path to serious repeat offending, and we are talking about young people who are on a path directly to prison if the State does not intervene and give them more support. This bill gives those young people a chance, and, in some cases, a last chance. I support it fully. Thank you.