O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh look I'm delighted to be talking on this bill again. It'll become a—Hon Ruth Dyson: Ten minutes—you've got 10 minutes Simon.SIMON O'CONNOR: Whether it's a surprise for the Hon Ruth Dyson or not whether I take 10 minutes or not we'll be yet to see. Look I'm really pleased to speak on this third reading. For me the themes are somewhat similar to what I raised in the second reading but not completely and that's obviously that this side of the House supports the bill. We think it's overall a very good bill and in twofold sense: one it's making sure that some minor drafting errors are tidied up and secondly it's to bring about effectively a policy intent to allow 17-year-olds to be tried in the Youth Court rather than in the full adult courts. I mentioned before that I think that by and large is a good idea. Fundamentally I think it's actually an expression of being young and youthfulness the acknowledgement by this House that at 17 you are in many ways still young—not quite a child but rightly not in the full adult court.The second is again just from experience of dealing with young people that have gone through the system and those that eventually ended up in the prisons: that any way we can find to keep them out of that situation as early on as possible will make an enormous difference first and foremost to them and to society as a whole. We know through the research—in fact those who have been Ministers in this field before would probably know a lot more than I do but fundamentally a lot of time money and effort is saved if we can actually get to these young people first.The concept of the bill is relatively simple. As I say it's just ensuring that those who are 17 can be tried in the Youth—not adult—Court but importantly there's lots of little technicalities as the speaker who's just resumed her seat Priyanca Radhakrishnan noted. There are a whole lot of situations that we need to account for and this bill does that. First and foremost there's been a requirement that there are family conferences if there's an intention to charge—that is the police intend to charge. That will not be the case if someone has done an incredibly serious offence. In fact I've been remiss in not noting that the bill—very quickly; I think it's in Schedule 1—makes a distinction for a young person that has done well effectively an incredibly serious crime versus a non-serious crime. I'm not going to go through all of those but basically if the youth is involved in well murder—let's just go to the extreme—they're still going to go through the adult court. But in cases where it's a lesser offence—I won't get into what that might be in case I put my foot in it or begin to; yeah we won't get into the distinction or nuances. But I think the House can understand there is a difference.So we're saying through this bill that a family conference when it's not needed—they effectively can be suspended if it's a much more serious crime. The bill looks at what happens if the 17-year-old is jointly charged with another person. It makes provisions there in effect to make sure that there is going to be one trial. In my view that's not first and foremost for the need of the 17-year-old; it's for the needs of the victims—or the alleged victims sorry. They don't need to turn up to court twice for two three four different people who might be charged with the same offences.There's obviously a question around mixed pleas. Again often criminality is not a singular action; a person will have done two three four five etc. actions which lead to the subsequent number of charges. The bill looks at that quite specifically—that if in effect the 17-year-old has done some minor but also so incredibly major very serious crimes it's the latter that in effect takes precedence. In other words again to use a very simple or simplified example if the 17-year-old has committed murder and I don't know a bit of shoplifting at the same time the former charge takes precedence as to the court.So we think it's a prudent bill. As I said it was always the intention as I understand things for the National Party as it introduced the changes to Oranga Tamariki to bring about these changes. They take time they take thought so I think again this side of the House is pleased that we've reached this stage. We hope ultimately that it's good for the young people and for their families and that through this system if they do find themselves before the courts the experience is slightly better than it would be in the adult courts. Look thanks does go to all those who have been involved.This was a very speedy process. I probably will end somewhat by indicating a little concern continuing certainly from myself on this side at the speed of the process. It was good that some people had an opportunity to speak but we would certainly encourage the Government when it's bringing legislation like this to the House to allow people to have time to share their views and for us as the Opposition to do our job alongside the Government to critique the bill. We still feel that the bill while we understand that it needs to be done and dusted by 1 July hence the rush—just an encouragement to the Government to actually table these bills earlier so we can get going. So I'm really pleased to commend this bill to the House to support it and not to annoy the Hon Ruth Dyson for another 4 minutes and 34 seconds.