Borrows Chester: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 July 2011. Volume:674;Page:20146. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It was a privilege to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill the Child and Family Protection Bill. The bill does a number of things that enhance the protection of young people who have previously witnessed or who have been in a situation of family violence. Of course we have a disgraceful record in respect of family violence in this country. 
In response to some matters raised by the previous speaker Charles Chauvel I say it is confirmed that Supplementary Order Paper 178 filed under the name of Lynne Pillay contains in effect an opt-out clause rather than an opt-in clause or an opt-in situation as it applies within the bill as it is before the Committee at the moment. The majority of the select committee at the time felt that as people at the age of 16 can leave home live where they like and be independent under New Zealand law—and many do tend to leave home at that time—and as they can make decisions for themselves at that time as to whether they stay at home or move away from home and decisions on the relationships they want to have the relationships they want to keep the relationships they want to change and the nature of those relationships it was fitting for the continuation of a protection order to be an opt-in situation if a person moved away from home. In other words 17-year-olds would have to make a decision as to whether they wanted to continue within the protection of a protection order. It is a relatively simple matter for them to do that and if they need assistance to do it by way of legal aid then that is something they are able to get. 
In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of Jacinda Ardern which seeks to extend a protection order to 18 years from 17 years I have to say that really there is a philosophical difference between the two parties Labour and National. Under the previous term of Government Labour in a number of pieces of legislation sought to extend the age of a young person—or a child in some cases—to 18 years. The incoming National Government disagreed with that so in its child protection legislation—the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act amendment legislation for instance—it kept it at 17. So there are some inconsistencies but again the point is made that in this country young people can leave home at 16 and make their own decisions as to where they are—by law they can choose where they live. As most of our legislation—for instance our criminal law legislation—means that young people get into the adult jurisdiction when they turn 17 it was decided in this case that we would stick with 17. 
We recognise that that is contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child but at the same time despite a number of the treaties and the conventions that we have signed internationally New Zealand continues to act in deference to its autonomy and sovereignty as a nation. It continues to act outside those conventions and has done so under both Governments.