Borrows Chester: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9310] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 At this stage of the debate on the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill it is interesting to recollect a little where we have travelled the number of people who have spoken and the points they have made in this part of the Committee stage which allows us to take a view over the whole bill. 
I will make two or three points. The first point is that during the select committee process the Labour members prepared a three-page fairly extensive minority report but missing from that report was any talk about DNA. It has been quite interesting to see the debate we have had in respect of the conflict those members seem to find between natural justice and the Bill of Rights and the taking of DNA samples. In an earlier speech we heard that apparently 12 and 13-year-old children would be held down to have a DNA sample taken from them. The DNA sample is actually taken by the young person taking what we know as a Q-tip rubbing it on the inside of his or her cheek and putting it into a plastic bag. The DNA sample is not taken by way of a burly policeman holding down the 12 or 13-year-old. It is important for the people who are listening and making an assessment on the validity of the speeches in the Committee stage to know that fact. 
Another point was made about 12 and 13-year-olds being children. Of course under this Act and the Crimes Act “child” is defined as somebody under the age of 14. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s right. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: So by this definition under the Crimes Act 12 and 13-year-olds are children. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s right. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: On their 14th birthday they become “young persons”. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s right. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: On their 17th birthday they become “adults”. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That should be 18 as you know. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: We do not hear any disagreement from members on the other side of the Chamber in relation to when children become young persons but we hear disagreement about when they become adults. Those members have a problem with people becoming adults when they are 17. But that is the definition we are dealing with in relation to the Crimes Act and the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. 
It is important too to restate the point the Minister for Social Development and Employment made in respect of the offences for which DNA will be taken from 12 and 13-year-olds. These are crimes that are punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment or more. We are talking for instance of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Hon Lianne Dalziel has spoken on numerous occasions about a tragic murder that involved half a dozen young people the youngest aged 12. If we think about that situation we see that if the victim of that attack Michael Choy had not died then the 12-year-old offender—who rang the pizza place to have the pizza delivered opened the door to let the victim into the house but apparently did not wield any implement that actually brought about the murder—could not have been charged with anything. He may have appeared as part of a care and protection process through the Family Court and but would not have been charged and a DNA sample could not be taken in any event whatsoever. 
The Minister quite ably made the point that knowing the offending that went on by some of our most notorious offenders—like Joseph Thompson Malcolm Rewa and Graeme Burton—if we had the opportunity to secure a cheek swab that held the DNA of any of those three offenders with them having committed a crime punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment or more why would we not take it? Why would we not take the opportunity to prevent for instance the two of those offenders who went on to have at least 100 more victims in respect of rapes in people’s own homes? If for instance we had their DNA profile on record then as soon as they had left a bodily secretion of any kind they could have been identified and that may well have prevented the crimes against those 100 or so victims. 
I believe very strongly that aligning this legislation with the DNA sampling legislation is a very real step. The DNA sampling legislation will prevent more victims than any other legislation this House is ever likely to pass. Aligning this Act in order to include 12 and 13-year-old offenders who have committed crimes of that magnitude is something that not even Harry Holland would have disagreed with bearing in mind the way we treated 10 12 13 and 14-year-old offenders in Harry Holland’s day. I think it is important to try to take some of the emotion out of this debate and just look at it in real terms. 
Another point that has been made time and time again regards the initial debate we had from fairly high-profile people within the sector who were anti the legislation especially in respect of 12 and 13-year-olds. We have heard Judge Andrew Becroft quoted on many many occasions. The reason of course is that he has huge credibility within the sector. It is interesting to note though that when he appeared before the Social Services Committee initially—he appeared about three times—his concern was that 12 and 13-year-olds who offend on this level and would therefore appear before the Youth Court under this legislation are actually few. But we know that their offending is very sophisticated and very violent and we are now seeing a new trend that involves young women as well as young men. He argued that if we really wanted to help the situation we needed to streamline the process of moving young people through the court system that involves 12 and 13-year-olds. 
We responded to that suggestion and he actually was complimentary about the changes that were made. For instance we allowed the process to move quickly so that 12 and 13-year-old prolific offenders whom the police bring before the court system can appear before the Youth Court quickly so that they can have curfews they can have prohibitions on associations with people and they can be banned from areas of high-level offending. We can get them on to what in an adult court are called bail conditions and in the Youth Court are called adjournment conditions—even if they then go back and appear before the Family Court. When Judge Andrew Becroft came back before the committee after the changes had been made he commented that he did not have a heck of a lot of problem with this because his suggestion was to streamline it and that is exactly where it went. 
When he returned again to the committee at that stage some more flesh had been put on the bones of the military-style activity camps— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Without legislation. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: —and the Government had started a pilot course. We did not need legislation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You don’t need it? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: That is right. Just remember that the court could do it only with the consent of the young person who was appearing— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s right. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: —and we are changing that. Labour agrees with that change so let us not kick it around too much. When Judge Becroft came back before the select committee and found out what was being offered in terms of programmes while people were attending these military-style activity camps he did not refer to them as boot camps; he did not align them with the corrective training that was going on at that time. The members who were present will recall—actually not a lot of members opposite heard him but I am sure that Ms Ardern will recall it—that when he came back and when the programmes that went along with military-style activity camps were explained as they were being run at that time he did not refer to them as boot camps. In fact in a direct response to a question from me he said that they were completely different from the boot camps that had been commented on within the media and by commentators reported in the media. He said he agreed with the programmes that were being offered in the military-style activity camps and he agreed that the style of camp that we were running—and the supervision with activity which is now part of military-style activity camps—was actually having the best results. 
Hon Member 
: No. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: That is what he said. I am pleased to stand here today because a number of us have worked on this legislation for a long time. In Opposition the Hon Anne Tolley and I spent a lot of time looking at the youth justice area visiting a number of providers around the country and working on the youth justice discussion paper that was the forerunner of this bill. Along with the other members of the law and order caucus committee of the last National Opposition I am very proud of this legislation. We believe that people will be safer and young people will be dealt with very well.