Editorial: Parenting advice idea has merit

Opinion

At first hearing the National Party's proposals to make parents responsible for a child's offending sounds harsh, the more so since National also proposes to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 12. If children as young as 12 are to be considered answerable at law, how can the law also hold parents to account for them? National may need to make up its mind: are youngsters in their early teens responsible for their own actions or is their misbehaviour more likely to be a consequence of parental and family failures?

On closer listening, however, the party sounds more interested in the role of parents than in making criminals of children. The parenting requirements it proposes are in force in Britain and have been under consideration in Australia. By contrast, lowering the age of criminal liability sounds like a knee-jerk response to delinquency - until the age adjustment is seen in conjunction with the additional powers National proposes for the Youth Court. If the court acquires the means to make parents accept help with their role, it is logical to give it jurisdiction over younger offenders.

The law National is contemplating would enable Youth Court judges to make orders binding the parent(s) to such remedial services as counselling or guidance sessions, parental skills classes, anger management courses, even treatment for alcohol or drug addiction. Like the British system on which it is modelled it could insist that parents ensure their children attend school regularly, avoid certain places or remain at home during certain hours. If the parent - or even the child, it seems - fails to comply with the order the parent(s) can be fined or sentenced to community work.

It is a big step to hold anyone punishable for the crimes of another. National is reported to be anxious to downplay the punitive elements of its policy but there is no disguising the fact that to impose even compulsory help on someone who has committed no offence raises a serious question of civil liberties. Community work is an effective loss of liberty, and fines, which can run to several thousand dollars in the British example, are a significant confiscation of personal property. Nobody should suffer those sorts of penalties for the failure of a child to obey a court order. The court should have to find the parent negligent for the punishments to be applied.

A similar proposal has run into criticism in Australia from sole parents who complain that the obligations will fall entirely on them and not at all on their child's absent parent. But Youth Court judges can surely be counted on to take a single parent's difficulties into account. The intent of parenting orders is, after all, constructive rather than punitive. The aim is to correct problems in a young offender's home that are plainly contributing to the youth's criminal tendencies, it is not to add to the household problems by punishing a parent pointlessly. In Britain the system is reckoned to have helped to halve youth offending in the seven years since it was introduced.

The polls suggest that National is not going to get an opportunity to put the policy into action soon, and the policy on its own is unlikely to turn the tide. But it is worthwhile putting it into the political arena. On its previous performance the Government might well pick up the proposal in some form when the next time a bad case of youth crime hits the headlines.

Parenting, most might agree, is one of life's hardest jobs. A child's mind is learning, usually by trial and error, where the boundaries of acceptable behaviour lie. And when the teacher of these lessons is an emotionally involved parent, the trials and errors can be particularly fraught. Most parents can benefit from some professional advice at times, but those who need it most are probably the least likely to seek it. It makes sense, therefore, that as soon as children get into serious trouble judges have power to impose help on those whose care can do most good.