Chris Lynch’s Christchurch Newsroom earlier this month reported that the Opportunity Party has scrubbed the age of 25 from a policy proposing a major expansion of New Zealand’s youth justice system.
An archived version of the party’s “Smart on Crime” policy, captured on March 5, explicitly promised to “raise the age of the youth court jurisdiction to 25, in line with developmental science”.
The policy now promises only to “raise the age of the youth court jurisdiction, in line with developmental science”. The words “to 25” are gone, but the commitment to raise the age remains.
Asked in an interview this week where that limit should be set, party leader Qiulae Wong was unable to give a figure.
The change followed scrutiny from National campaign chairman Simeon Brown, who said Opportunity was “very weak when it comes to law and order. That is a radical policy, and that is not something the National Party supports.”
Lynch noted that Youth Court jurisdiction was extended in 2019 to include most 17-year-olds until their 18th birthday. Murder and manslaughter were excluded, while some other serious cases could be transferred into the adult jurisdiction.
Opportunity’s deleted wording did not explain whether its proposed extension to 25 would apply to every offence, whether serious and violent crimes would be excluded, or whether the change would be introduced progressively. Its current policy provides no further detail.
The party says its approach is supported by “developmental science” and forms part of a justice system focused on reducing reoffending rather than simply punishing offenders.
And:
Archived copies show the explicit age was on the party’s website in March. By July 28, it had disappeared.
The policy has not been withdrawn, and the party has not publicly replaced 25 with another proposed age.
Opportunity did not respond to two requests for an interview about whether 25 was still its policy, why the age had been removed from its website, or when the wording was changed.
For now, Opportunity is asking voters to support an increase in the Youth Court age without telling them how far that increase would go.
Whether the change is enough to mollify the multitude of critics of Opportunity’s position is open to conjecture, but this week the Taxpayers’ Union reported –
August 27, 2026 NZTU Media
New Taxpayers’ Union–Curia polling shows New Zealanders firmly reject extending the Youth Court beyond its current upper age of 17, with 64 percent opposed and just 22 percent in support.
The Taxpayers Union reported that Opportunity was campaigning to raise the Youth Court age,
… but even its own voters are against it. Three-quarters of Opportunity voters oppose extending the Court to 25, compared with just 10 percent who support it.
Even among 18–39 year olds, 57 percent oppose the proposal and 26 percent support it, and opposition rises to 73 percent among rural voters.
A majority of voters in every party tested reject extending the Youth Court to age 25:
The policy now promises only to “raise the age of the youth court jurisdiction, in line with developmental science”. The words “to 25” are gone, but the commitment to raise the age remains.
Asked in an interview this week where that limit should be set, party leader Qiulae Wong was unable to give a figure.
The change followed scrutiny from National campaign chairman Simeon Brown, who said Opportunity was “very weak when it comes to law and order. That is a radical policy, and that is not something the National Party supports.”
Lynch noted that Youth Court jurisdiction was extended in 2019 to include most 17-year-olds until their 18th birthday. Murder and manslaughter were excluded, while some other serious cases could be transferred into the adult jurisdiction.
Opportunity’s deleted wording did not explain whether its proposed extension to 25 would apply to every offence, whether serious and violent crimes would be excluded, or whether the change would be introduced progressively. Its current policy provides no further detail.
The party says its approach is supported by “developmental science” and forms part of a justice system focused on reducing reoffending rather than simply punishing offenders.
And:
Archived copies show the explicit age was on the party’s website in March. By July 28, it had disappeared.
The policy has not been withdrawn, and the party has not publicly replaced 25 with another proposed age.
Opportunity did not respond to two requests for an interview about whether 25 was still its policy, why the age had been removed from its website, or when the wording was changed.
For now, Opportunity is asking voters to support an increase in the Youth Court age without telling them how far that increase would go.
Whether the change is enough to mollify the multitude of critics of Opportunity’s position is open to conjecture, but this week the Taxpayers’ Union reported –
New Poll: Kiwis reject Opportunity push to raise Youth Court age
August 27, 2026 NZTU Media
New Taxpayers’ Union–Curia polling shows New Zealanders firmly reject extending the Youth Court beyond its current upper age of 17, with 64 percent opposed and just 22 percent in support.
The Taxpayers Union reported that Opportunity was campaigning to raise the Youth Court age,
… but even its own voters are against it. Three-quarters of Opportunity voters oppose extending the Court to 25, compared with just 10 percent who support it.
Even among 18–39 year olds, 57 percent oppose the proposal and 26 percent support it, and opposition rises to 73 percent among rural voters.
A majority of voters in every party tested reject extending the Youth Court to age 25:
- NZ First: 86 percent
- ACT: 78 percent
- Te Pāti Māori: 78 percent
- Opportunity: 75 percent
- National: 68 percent
- Labour: 58 percent
- Greens: 53 percent
“Adult actions should have adult consequences.”
And:
“There is nothing ‘youth’ about a 24-year-old. If you’re old enough to vote, drink, marry and work full-time, you’re old enough to face the adult justice system.”
Opportunity obviously disagrees. While it questions the fitness of youthful lawbreakers to face the adult justice system, in 2023 it wanted to lower the voting age
TOP deputy leader Natalia Albert at that time said the country’s “democracy needs a comprehensive review and reset” and announced the party’s Democracy Policy, which would see a raft of changes to electoral, parliamentary and local governance processes.
Among them: lowering the voting age to 16.
How this gels with the development science that guides the party’s youth justice policy is absurdly unclear.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.