Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise to speak to the bill and specifically in my comments I would like to address new paragraph (f) in section 238(1) in clause 93(2). Linked into that is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 331 which has been put forward by Jacinda Ardern. My late father-in-law had a saying that he would never let me forget which was: You measure twice and you cut once." He was a carpenter. I do not think it was a saying that was unique to him but it is a piece of common sense that says that when you are doing an important job you really take your time to size it up and get it right before it is too late to turn back.I think in the course of this debate that that is what we have heard in speech after speech—that we are dealing with some incredibly complex and important issues that across the Chamber there is a great desire that we do right by our kids by our tamariki but that on this side of the Chamber certainly we do not think the measuring has been done. Time and time again when we come to the submissions when we hear the comments made in speeches tonight I think there is plenty of evidence that there has not been enough measuring with this bill.I want to turn to that in respect of section 238(1)(f) in clause 93(2). This is an interesting part of the bill because clauses 92 to 109 are the ones on youth justice. It has been commented on by members on this side of the Chamber that in general terms the Labour Party is supportive of changes to the age of youth justice ensuring that 17-year-olds for the most part are dealt with in the youth justice system.My colleague across the House and friend from the Mt Roskill by-election spoke against that on the campaign trail. I think it is important that we are consistent in these matters. But in turning to section 238(1)(f) we have got a funny little inconsistency.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: You should hear clearly what I said.MICHAEL WOOD: All I ask Ms Parmar is that we are consistent in what we say whether it is on the street or in this House and if we do that we can hold our heads high.If we turn to section 238(1)(f) this is the section that deals with young people on remand—17-year-olds in remand situations. We had a reasonably significant change at the select committee stage. If you look at section 238(1)(f) it states: "subject to section 239(2A) order that the young person (aged 17 years) be detained in a youth unit of a prison." We then turn to section 239(2A) in clause 94 and this is where we have got the significant change. The previous wording we had was that the court "must not make an order under section 238(1)(f) for the detention of a young person (aged 17 years) in prison …". That changes to "may make an order" subject to certain conditions." So we have got a complete flipping of something that is quite important in terms of how we are treating young people who might be on remand.There are a number of serious concerns that the Labour Party has got in this area and I guess the first one—having crossed the Rubicon in this bill and recognising that we should for the most part treat 17-year-olds within the confines of the youth justice system—is that it seems an inconsistency that relatively late in the legislative process we have said that we are going to do something other than that in respect of remand.The reasons for the original change are clear to most members of this House—acknowledging that not everyone agrees with it. We believe that it is most appropriate to treat 17-year-olds in the youth justice system in terms of their ultimate rehabilitation and in terms of our international obligations. It is a matter of record that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says that we should not be treating 17-year-olds in the adult criminal justice system. Again we commend the fact that in this bill for the most part we are dealing with that issue. So we question why we would in this section—this change that has occurred in the select committee—open up our young people to be held on remand in adult prisons all being where there are I think youth facilities.What I also note and this is more specifically as we make our way through the changes—I am turning now to section 239 in clause 94—is the scope that is provided here. In Supplementary Order Paper 331 in the explanatory note that my colleague Jacinda Ardern has provided to support the SOP she notes that in the principal Act we do have some capacity to deal with this issue and we absolutely require it in situations of extremis in very limited circumstances—"