Restorative justice conference could be best result

AT first glance it’s a bad look all round for the Labour Party. Four 16yearolds, said to be two males and two females, attending a Junior Labour camp, were sexually assaulted by a drunk 20yearold male, who, apparently, put his hand down their pants.

Some aspects of the camp arrangements were careless, and potentially illegal, of which the worst was the apparently easy availability of alcohol in a setting where many participants were aged under 18.

Supplying alcohol to those under 18 without parental consent is illegal, and the party’s reactive decision to ban alcohol at gatherings where those under18 are present is sensible, if a bit late.

But blame for alcohol excess shouldn’t just be aimed at the party — it’s an endemic problem in New Zealand, as a past member of Young Nationals has noted.

When the availability of alcohol was extended (remember the ‘6 o’clock swill’?) much was said about the potential civilising of the country’s drinking habits.

It’s a pleasant change, from the days when wine with food in a restaurant meant taking in a bottle in a brown paper bag, in order to be able to buy a glass of wine with a meal, but the peculiar, deliberate aim of many, to drink in order to get drunk, seems worse.

Another generic, rather than Labour Party, problem, is the widespread feeling among some men (young and old), winked at by many, that it’s acceptable to ‘‘try your luck’’ sexually with any woman, as a casual experience rather than an expression of mutual commitment, as has been demonstrated, in a much worse scenario (because of the power imbalance), by some members of a large law firm.

Civis is loathe to endorse violence, but wonders if the most effective response of those assaulted by the young man at the camp might have been a resounding slap on his face, or a swift knee to his crotch.

The party’s support of those assaulted could have been better.

The offer of support could have been repeated sooner, after time to reflect on whether further action was warranted (the claim that the delay meant ‘‘the young people [were] again being made victims’’ seems overegged, though).

But the indignation from commentators and politicians Left and Right, and in editorials, about the party’s decision not to notify their parents or the police, is misguided.

It’s natural for parents to want to know when their children have suffered bad experiences, and talking things through with them may (or may not) be helpful.

But letting youngsters make their own decisions about such matters is important in allowing them to mature and become independent — the ultimate aim of parenting.

Sixteenyearolds are considered, in law, able to consent to sexual intercourse, and (one of life’s major decisions) to marry.

The confidentiality of anyone able to make a decision about disclosure of information by a doctor to parents (most have that capacity before 16) is protected by Principle 10 of the Privacy Act, and the Health Information Privacy Code.

The Guardianship Act provides that a girl of any age may consent to having an abortion, and the Contraceptive, Sterilisation and Abortion Act that a certifying consultant, considering an application by a person of any age for an abortion, can consult with her parents only with her consent.

So the law is clear that children even younger, let alone older, than 16 can make major decisions for themselves.

The Labour Party, as the sexual abuse survivor support organisation Help has said, was right to accede to the wishes of those assaulted, and let them decide for themselves whether to inform parents or police.

It may be a good thing, though, that one of those assaulted has now spoken to police.

The ideal outcome would include a restorative justice conference, so that the creep who assaulted them can apologise to them, learn how to behave, and keep his hands to himself in future.