Hipkins Chris: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I think it is really important that we keep in perspective what we are doing here. The Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill corrects a mistake that was never intended. It restores the status quo. So we are not making a significant change; we are restoring the status quo. I think it is really important that we keep in mind that this mistake this change that has occurred to the policing legislation was never debated by the public. It was never debated by Parliament. People did not have the opportunity to make submissions on it at a select committee—that was never intended. So to say that we are somehow erring by restoring the status quo and repealing this unintended change to the law is simply wrong. This is the right thing to do. Restoring the status quo in the absence of debate that should have preceded the change is the right thing to do.  
I am not saying that we should not have a debate about whether the police should store the identifying details of young people. If we had that debate I personally would stand up in Parliament and say that yes I support the provisions in the current legislation. I am not afraid of debating the issue but I do not think we should debate it in the context of correcting a mistake that was made. Basically the arguments being put forward by the Green Party and the Maori Party seem to be that we should leave in place a law that was unintended and was never debated and I do not think that that is right.  
I am not entirely sure what the point of Rahui Katene’s many contributions so far has been unless of course she wanted to devote 20 minutes to demonstrating quite clearly that the Maori Party has absolutely no influence over the National Government. We did not need 20 minutes for that; we knew that anyway. I think that all she has managed to do so far is demonstrate the fact that the Maori Party does not seem to have any influence over the National Government.  
I think that both the Green Party and the Maori Party have missed the critical point here which is that the bill is restoring the status quo. It is not designed to make a significant law change. As I mentioned in my first reading speech—unusually I am delivering my second reading speech only shortly after delivering the first reading speech—[ 
Interruption 
]—and Moana Mackey did not hear the first one so I am sure she will appreciate it—I think it is really important that we continue to respect the role of the Youth Court.  
The Youth Court is there to protect young people from themselves in some instances as the Minister mentioned but also from the harsher edges of the adult criminal justice system—we could use the Bill English phrase “the sharp edges”. The Youth Court is designed to protect young people from that. I think that is good. I think many of the concerns that David Clendon raised—I had some sympathy with many of the concerns he raised—when taken to their logical conclusion question the valid role of the Youth Court.  
I think that the Youth Court is really really important and we should not be questioning the role of the Youth Court and whether it is doing a good job. I think the Youth Court does a very good job and I am really disappointed if this debate which is about correcting a mistake is used to question the validity of the Youth Court.  
The other thing I would be disappointed by is if this debate is used to question the police. I spent 10 years fighting a legal case with the police which was ultimately found in my favour. But I am not holding a grudge against the police on that because I think that overwhelmingly— 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s right—forgiving member. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —I am a very forgiving member—the police do a very very good job. I will tell members another thing. I went out on night patrol with the police a few weeks ago and it was a real eye-opener for me. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s called an arrest. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I was there voluntarily I can assure the Minister. It was an eye-opener and a lot of the people they were dealing with on a Friday night were young people. They were young people who were intoxicated or had taken drugs. They were very difficult to deal with and overwhelmingly what I saw was police acting in a very responsible manner in their dealings with young people. They were not going over the top; they were basically looking after the young people who were getting themselves into trouble. I think we should respect the really important role the police play in that.  
I do not think that we should always assume that the police are out to get people. They are not. Ultimately they are out there to protect everybody. Sometimes they are protecting young people from themselves and I think they do a pretty good job of that overall. I want to thank the Hutt Valley police for giving me the opportunity to go out on the night patrol with them. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Over that 10-year period. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: They have obviously forgiven me for the 10-year battle. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They probably don’t remember you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: They probably do not remember me either. I thank Steve Chadwick—that was very flattering! 
Hon Simon Power 
: Why was the member arrested when he was 7? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am happy to go into the case in detail if it would be useful for the Minister. But I come back to the substance of this particular bill and the reason why we want to pass it under urgency.  
As I mentioned in my first reading speech I do not want to see young people who have been through the Youth Court have effectively been found guilty of doing whatever they were doing and have been dealt with under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act through the Youth Court being let off on the basis that the information the police stored that identified them in the first place had been held by the police illegitimately.  
The other thing of course is that it might not necessarily be the dealings of the Youth Court that are brought into question. A subsequent proceeding in the District Court could be brought into question on the basis that the information the police used in the District Court hearing had been collected for an earlier hearing by the Youth Court. That could also be questioned and I do not think that that is the right thing to do.  
If it is the right thing to do it should be done deliberately by Parliament and not by mistake. It was never done deliberately by Parliament; it was done accidentally. If the Green Party and the Maori Party had very strong views on this during the debates on the Policing Act they could have raised those at the time. As my colleague Lianne Dalziel pointed out the only two people to speak on that part of the debate were Chester Borrows and Annette King. When the mistake occurred Maori Party members and Green Party members did not feel strongly enough about it to debate that part of the bill at all. So if all the concerns they are raising now are legitimate concerns there are opportunities for them to raise them but not in the context of preserving an inadvertent law change which is what opposition to the bill does. It preserves a law change that was not intended that was not debated that was not scrutinised and that the public never had a chance to have a say on and I think that is the wrong thing to do.  
I think Parliament is doing the right thing by correcting the law back to the status quo. Then if there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether the status quo should be changed there is a way to do that. The way to do that is obviously to introduce a bill refer it to a select committee and let the public have their say on it. We should not be making law changes by accident then arguing that they should be preserved. I think that is what this bill is all about. It is all about making sure that the will of Parliament is actually respected even when a mistake is made and that is what happened in this particular case. With that I will end here. I look forward to the Committee stage of this debate.