O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm delighted to take a call. Look I was so hoping that the honourable member who's just taken her seat would just elaborate a little bit further on why she personally was enthusiastic about the bill.Hon Member: Pronounce her name.SIMON O'CONNOR: Anahila? Anahila's great. Even though she might be on the other side of the House—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members should use the full name.SIMON O'CONNOR: That is true—that is true.Hon Member: Do it.SIMON O'CONNOR: No no actually I won't not because of any disrespect for that member but because she might theoretically try to compete with me in Tāmaki. I can't give her any advertising.Now look this is a good bill. National is keen to support it—Greg O'Connor: Say her name.SIMON O'CONNOR: —but there are a couple of aspects—[Interruption]. That's right. There are a couple of aspects—I think a member on that other side maybe of an eponymous name as myself is having a bit of a moment or a turn.This is a bill that this side of the House supports but I think it's important in the second reading that we once again put on the record our concern that this has been too fast.I certainly acknowledge as the speaker who has taken her seat has noted—with such an honourable name—that 1 July is when this has to come into effect. While this side of the House acknowledges this and will work obviously as we have done our point of protest for want of a better word is that this could've been introduced to the House earlier. This piece of legislation is not new. National has always supported it. The changes that needed to be made including those drafting errors which members have noted we were already aware of. I suppose that's our basic principle: this could have been introduced much earlier. It could've gone through a more rigorous select committee process.It's one of my concerns particularly in this social services space—and I'm sorry it harps on to a theme of the past—we've seen many mistakes which have entered into social services legislation and particularly in this Parliament and we've had to come back and fix them. I'm more than happy to admit the mistakes that have come through the original drafting. When they are raced through to be amended in this fashion there is a higher risk that either more mistakes will happen or we'll have overlooked other mistakes.Look this is an omnibus bill as has been noted. I think it's probably important particularly for Ruth Dyson to note what an omnibus bill encompasses around this so I'm going to take my time for that honourable member. An omnibus bill this one—obviously the principal Act is the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. That's a rename of course. It used to be the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act but the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill 2017 renamed that. We have the Bail Act 2000 which was very memorable—not to me; I wasn't here but I'm sure for some honourable members—and the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017. Being an omnibus bill it also is dealing with the Children's Commissioner Act 2003 the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.While touching on some of these and there are some others to come why it's particularly relevant as has been heard by a number of other speakers is that this is primarily a piece of legislation—sorry a bill; it's not legislation yet—that's dealing with our 17-year-olds and how they will be dealt with in the criminal justice system. Importantly the criminal justice system and the way it operates is not in a single piece of legislation; it moves across many. Through this particular omnibus bill which I think is a very efficacious and effective way of dealing with things we're able to move changes throughout these bills.The flip side to this—and I'm pleased we've avoided it and commend the Minister for this otherwise we'd have had to go through and amend 12 or so pieces of individual legislation and that would really slow down the House. As this speech clearly indicates I'm really never keen to slow down important pieces of legislation.The Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act 2005 the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 the Sentencing Act 2002 the Victims' Orders Against Violent Offenders Act 2014—Hon Tracey Martin: What does it do to that Act?SIMON O'CONNOR: The Victims' Orders Against Violent Offenders Act? Again it's important on that one. It's really good the Minister is asking what it does. I'm a bit concerned; the Minister proposing the bill should know. I'm disappointed. I have immense respect for that member. Fundamentally of course a victim's order is that the person who's been offended against has an opportunity if you will to speak to or against—depending on what word you want to use—the violent offender. So this particularly when it comes to Schedule 1A the delineation between what are serious and non-serious—Hon Tracey Martin: Excellent well done!SIMON O'CONNOR: Look it is wonderful. I'm pleased the Minister is taking notes. That's really good. The Sentencing Act 2002 the Victims' Rights Act 2002—probably something that could've dealt with a little bit more discussion there actually. It's something I think all sides of this House are very much focused on the rights of victims. We're not going to get the chance—or maybe we will in the committee of the whole House—to make sure that the rights of victims are not undermined in this way because we've moved a 17-year-old into the youth justice space. Finally we've got the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Regulations 2004 and these themselves are building on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995.So look it's an enormous amount of legislation and yep I read through them a little bit ad nauseam but what's important to illustrate is why it is important not to rush a select committee process. Each of these pieces of legislation have been amended in small—and in some cases substantial—ways and I'm always just a little nervous in this House that in order to fix the mistakes rushing to do so will cause us problems down the line.Obviously the select committee took the little time it was given prudently—13 people and/or groups spoke and we now have well a changed bill in front of us and importantly too a fairly substantial Supplementary Order Paper No 247 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin. Look a number of colleagues have touched on what are the key aspects. Fundamentally the principle at play here is that someone who is 17 should preferentially go through the youth justice system. I overall agree with that I think it's a prudent approach. I think it's equally prudent that we're separating out those very serious offences so that they remain in the adult court. But if I was to use a personal anecdote having visited often of my own free and voluntary will the old Mt Eden prison one of the things that always struck me particularly working in the youth yards was that young people would come in—yes having committed crimes—to a fairly soulless place a damaging place to them as individuals and importantly in this context they were often then in touch with very professional career criminals. At the end of their particular sentence at a young age they would come out not only young—perhaps arguably more broken maybe a little bit retrospect on the decisions they'd made—but again importantly for this context they came out slightly more professional in their crimes than when they started. So for me personally the longer we can keep them out of the adult court and in effect the adult sentences the better. So I think that's an incredibly positive—look separating out the nature of the offences is quite important. I don't think New Zealanders at large would agree with a wholesale pass if you will of young people to the youth court for all offences so I think that's positive. Fundamentally this was something that National in the previous Government was looking to exercise so we're not completely—well we agree with primarily everything that's here. Suspending family group conferences that's prudent I think—quite practical Minister. What's happening there—again if there's an intention to charge then there's an opportunity to actually suspend those conferences. Again there's a bit of delineation between whether the young person's going to the adult court or to the youth court and I think it's maintaining a good equilibrium there. Look elements around the joint charges with another person; that is again prudent. I suppose what it illustrates is that a lot of thought has been given to the variety of circumstances in which a young person's going to find themselves. It's very easy in this House to take the singular example of a single 17-year-old—single by number not their relationship; the bill doesn't deal with that. I'm sure that's not going to be an issue moving forward. But a single person who actually—what we could be dealing with here is a young person who of their own right has committed a crime—or as this section's looking at if they've committed a crime with someone else—how do you try both those people? An opportunity to make sure we're not having the victims having to come forward first. So I think I've covered most things; I suspect there'd be a lot more that I'd like to cover but I don't think I'm going to achieve my final purpose and the Hon Ruth Dyson knows it.