Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I actually want to begin by addressing a couple of comments made by the member the Hon Louise Upston who just resumed her seat who talks about the fact that this Government is rushing" through this piece of legislation. However part of what the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill does is make some technical amendments because of drafting errors made by the previous Government given that this piece of legislation has had a lead-in period of two years. Which brings me to the point that the date of 1 July 2019 was actually set by the previous Government yet again and yet they adopt the moral high ground and tell us that we're pushing this through and absolve themselves of any responsibility for where we are today which is amending technical drafting errors. Also this bill was introduced before 15 March and we've actually lost two weeks as a result of the horrific attacks that we've seen in Christchurch. So if the members opposite are using that to score political points that is incredibly disappointing.Now on to what the bill actually does. The purpose of the bill falls broadly into two categories. One of them is in relation to the policy to raise the upper age of the youth justice jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds and to ensure that that policy can actually be fully realised and to ensure that these 17-year-olds receive appropriate and consistent treatment the benefits and the protections that they are entitled to once that change comes into force on 1 July 2019.So once again we don't have a huge amount of time to ensure that these errors are corrected and to ensure that 17-year-olds who will be caught up in that piece of legislation when it comes into force are actually treated in a manner that is consistent. So these changes will also allow the police the judiciary and other key stakeholders in this space to exercise their functions consistently and that's where some of the changes to the Sentencing Act and the Bail Act 2000 will come into play. This is an omnibus bill that will make amendments to 11 Acts and one set of regulations.The second part which was the technical amendments that I alluded to is amendments to those Acts and that set of regulations. They are significant amendments with regard to urgent interim orders but I'll get to that in a minute.If I may I wanted to just quote from a New Zealand Herald article that lays out quite succinctly and very clearly how the changes to this upper age and the changes to the separate pieces of legislation will actually impact people's lives. So I quote: "Jamie is 16 and facing Youth Court charges of assault and taking cars. He is also before the Family Court to get help from Oranga Tamariki—the Ministry for Children because of physical and sexual abuse by his father. After pleading guilty [he's] assessed by the adolescent mental health team. He is found to be dyslexic with a communication disorder meaning he needs constant help to understand what's happening in court. The Youth Court education officer discloses [that] Jamie has not been in school for three years. His situation is discussed at a family group conference and a plan is drawn up to provide help. During that conference [he] takes part in restorative justice and apologises to his victims. Rehabilitation and counselling for drug and alcohol issues is organised. The court will monitor his progress for months keeping in constant contact with Jamie and his guardians in a bid to get his life back on track."[Now] Jamie's not real—but that's the way lots of young people are handled when they get in[to] trouble. Things change when they hit 17. Charges of assault and taking cars would land them before the District Court an adult in the eyes of the law. Jamie would still have the same disabilities and [the same] family history. Without his own legal representation he would be assigned a duty lawyer who might not spot his communication disorder impeding his chance of a fair hearing. He could be bailed [at] his father's address because the court wouldn't know it's unsuitable. And if he pleaded guilty he might be sentenced to 200 hours of community work spending months of Saturdays with other adult criminals. From July [this year] young people won't go before the District Court until they're 18 [years old] [except in some circumstances] except in serious cases such as murder manslaughter sexual assaults and aggravated robbery."So we have people who are experts telling us that this change will allow more interventions at a crucial point in young people's lives: interventions that can actually help them to change track I guess and not go down the path of reoffending—if those interventions are actually successful—but actually make a difference to their lives. At its heart at the substance of the changes that this bill makes is really to ensure that 17-year-olds can be treated in a manner that's consistent with those changes to help them get back on track. So that was a decision that was made obviously in the previous Parliament and supported by the majority from the understanding that young people face complex problems and need interventions at those points to help them.I just want to make a quick point because it's been brought up time and again that this is about condoning offending. And I want to make the point that it's absolutely not. Research suggests that many traits common among adolescents remain prevalent in young adults; so they need to be treated differently. Sending them either to jail or in circumstances where they're in contact with hardened criminals only sends them down that path of reoffending and offending in more serious ways as well. So that's what the crux of this bill that we're debating here today does in terms of the changes.The other part of it—the second broad category—was about the urgent interim orders. It clarifies the making of those orders that may be required in care or protection proceedings under the Oranga Tamariki Act and that has to do with custody restraining orders and guardianship as well. So again some of those drafting areas that I mentioned at the start of my speech—it corrects those and it corrects them in very important ways. I'm just going to point to two. The amendments will remove the courts' ability to make interim orders in relation to children or young people on its own motion when there are no relevant care and protection proceedings under the Oranga Tamariki Act under way—and secondly the lawyer representing the child or young person's ability to apply for an interim order outside of care and protection proceedings under the Oranga Tamariki Act in relation to a child or young person unless they first seek leave of the court. So while this is a bill that corrects some of the drafting errors made by the previous Government it also makes some changes that ensure that our young people can be treated in a way that is actually beneficial to them and so I commend this bill to the House."