Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): I think I am going to take a quick call for my first call of many. I just want to highlight firstly—there are a few genuine questions that I would like to ask the Minister for Children in my first call. I think I would like to highlight one of the major issues first—and it has been highlighted in the first 45 minutes of this debate—and that is the absolute ambiguity in the legislation about the priority for the child. The reason why it is highlighted is because we have got the Labour Party members standing up and disagreeing with the Minister we have got the Greens standing up and disagreeing with the Minister and we have got the Minister standing up and yelling at the Labour Party and the Green Party about how they should read the bill.Now if it was so clear—if the priority was so clear—then why is there so much ambiguity and argument? One of the major issues with that is that if we are sitting in here and cannot even decide—with it in front of us—what the priority is the clear priority how on earth is a caseworker going to be able to do it on the ground? That is the problem with this legislation and it is highlighted.I think one of the other issues is that there is a mixture of the definition of the principles of the legislation and like I said what the priority of the legislation is or what the priority is within the legislation. There is a lot of talk about the principles and how you are supposed to approach things with the legislation. But until it is clear and—look there is no denying that the Labour Party the Greens and the Māori Party as well and our party too have different angles on this and have different thought processes with which we address this issue. But all of us want it to be clear what the priority is. We might have different priorities but we need to ensure that we know what those priorities are. It all rolls downhill. If we cannot get it right here within 45 minutes of looking at this legislation I do not know how caseworkers on the ground will be able to do it.I am just looking at the part the Minister talked about—I just want to highlight what I am talking about—new section 5(1)(c) set out in clause 8. I could go through that whole page. I have highlighted: the child's or young person's place within their family … should be recognised … (i) the primary responsibility for caring … lies with their family …". That is not clear. In (ii) "… child's or young person's relationship … to whakapapa should be considered: (iii) … belonging whakapapa … group should be respected: (iv) wherever possible the relationship between the child or young person … should be maintained and strengthened:". I mean the list goes on; this is an issue. I am going to be taking different calls throughout the debate but I think that underlying—whether we can sort that out and ensure that we have a clear priority. Even if it is something that all of the other parties disagree with the Minister needs to be clear about what the priority is.The second question that I want to move on to and I have noted that in new section 5(1)(b) it talks about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC). It says: "the well-being of a child or young person must be at the centre of decision making that affects that child or young person and in particular—(i) the child's or young person's rights (including those rights set out in UNCROC …". I am just wondering whether the Minister can answer whether the new legislation—with the new way that the 17-year-olds are going to be included in the youth justice system—is going to be in line with all of the principles of UNCROC because under UNCROC with the youth justice system versus an adult justice system the UN and UNCROC state that the youth justice system must be totally separate—100 percent separate from the adult justice system. That is not in line with what is written in new section 5(1)(b)(i) inserted by clause 8: "the child's or young person's rights (including those rights set out in UNCROC …". Those rights are not being met. I am happy to be corrected by the Minister if the Minister can address that.I have got a couple more questions. In new section 276A inserted by clause 104 which is moving into the youth justice area it states: "(2) The District Court or the High Court must transfer the proceeding back to the Youth Court to be dealt with in that court unless the interests of justice require the proceeding to remain and be dealt with in either of those courts." I want to ask the Minister what part justice plays in that. Why is it different? Is this saying that there are different parts that justice has in the adult court versus the Youth Court? Why is that a consideration? Why is it not a universal consideration? Why is justice not a universal consideration whether it be in the Youth Court or in the adult court? Will this new legislation allow 17-year-olds not just to be transferred to the courts but to be involved with the Police Alternative Action plan? I think that is unclear in here as well—whether they are going to be dealt with just within the court and whether the Youth Court can transfer them into the Police Alternative Action programme from the police through the family group conference plans and how that would work and whether that is the intent of this legislation.I have got few questions for the Minister but lastly in clause 107 which inserts new section 284(1A) it lists the considerations of the court: "whether to transfer a proceeding to another court for sentence or decision under section 283(o) in addition to the factors in subsection (1) the court must consider and give greater weight to all of the following: (a) the seriousness of the offending: (b) the criminal history of the young person: (c) the interests of the victim: (d) the risk posed by the young person to other people." They are quite clear. There are four of them. The question is why and how the adult court and the Youth Court provide different things for those four things. Why would they have different results for the seriousness of the offending the criminal history of the young person the interests of the victim and the risk posed by the young person? Those surely are the four main things that both courts should be considering at the same level. I will leave my questions there at this stage but it would be appreciated if the Minister could answer those questions. Thank you."