Katene Rahui: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Katene Rahui: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20915. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe. Immediately before I came into this House I spent a profitable half hour talking with Deborah Morris-Travers from Every Child Counts sharing our enthusiasm and our energy for a strengths-based approach to our tamariki. She provided me with a report entitled  
He Mano Ra: One thousand days to get it right for every child 
. Those 1000 days relate to the first 3 years of life and the 1000 days of a parliamentary term. It is a wonderful concept: the incentive and the inspiration to ensure that our children are well nurtured and that we place value on policies that lead to positive outcomes for our tamariki and mokopuna. I thought about what a complete contrast it is to the focus of this House today which has dedicated hours of debate to keeping photographs and fingerprints of youth offenders. 
The Green Party and the Maori Party—the only two parties opposing this Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill and making the effort to speak out and speak up on behalf of our people—have received the wrath of the House for daring to oppose this bill. We have been told that it is simply a technical issue and that all the bill does is restore the legal position under the Police Act 1958. 
Tere Harrison in writing to the Maori Party about her response to this bill has acknowledged how critical it is for this debate to be held. I share her views which put forward another position: “That would have to be the immediate concern under urgency will prevent select committee process and public submission. That’s a gross (and suspiciously a deliberate) misuse of urgency. Unfortunately not all parties are present in the House to vote against it”. That of course is the nature of urgency: the process of public scrutiny is shortcut or in the case of this bill completely avoided so the onus is placed on all parties to take up the issues on behalf of the people who have placed them in this House to speak on their behalf. 
The Maori Party has therefore taken every effort to ensure that the views of Maori—the strong and independent views of Maori—are placed on the record of the debate on this bill and indeed every bill in the urgency motion. We will continue to do that whether or not we receive the reception we hope for because we are conscious as Tere Harrison has also pointed out of the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in particular article 3 of that convention which requires that all “States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being”. 
Our focus in raising the questions we have is to bring to the House the opportunity to talk about youth well-being rather than simply to promote yet another forum for politicians to talk about the perils of youth and the need to hold the fingerprints of youth who have been admonished by a judge. I really recommend that members look carefully at section 283(a) to (n) of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. These provisions for children to be admonished for young parents to attend a parenting programme and for young people to attend a mentoring programme are now provisions for which the fingerprints and photographs of these young people are kept. I suggest that Mr Hipkins in particular looks at this detail. These orders from very good legislation were always intended to focus on child and youth well-being not to be fodder for this Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill. 
I have been greatly disappointed by the nature of the debate today which has tried to close down discussion on impacts for youth and instead focus on the mistakes of the statute. At the end of the day one has to ask: if this bill was merely a technical issue why were the name and the nature of the legislation kept secret until mid-morning today? According to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the explanation for the secrecy was fears the bill might lead to a flood of legal challenges. That same paper suggests it has been the best kept secret in the world with discussions between the police and officials taking place since 2010 when the problem was first identified. 
We have been talking in the House today about the fact that fingerprints and photographs have been improperly retained ever since the Policing Act of 2008 was implemented. The Minister of Police told the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the police had been holding hundreds of records that should have been destroyed under the present law which have now been destroyed. So in effect the Minister has confirmed that unlawful practice by the police has taken place with the police retaining information that should have been destroyed. 
The House needs to know whether the police hold any records that have been collected over the past 3 years. If so have they been held by the police in breach of the current law and if not then why is the bill being made retrospective? This little bill containing just four pages has been described as necessary to rectify a loophole in the law. But I have asked the House to focus on the bigger picture—that is the group being targeted in this law. We are told in the explanatory note that this group could comprise about 1200 young people a year—that is young people who have proven outcomes in the Youth Court and orders made under the Children Young Persons and their Families Act. Yet again we have law that focuses on crime and offending on youth offenders and on repeat offenders. This is a law to enable the police to retain the identifying particulars of young people who have a charge proven in the Youth Court and who have had an order made by a judge. 
I bring us back to the views of the public—those people who have contacted our office over the morning to share their feedback. Sharlene Pearce shared her view which I quote for the record: “I do however believe that ‘where attention goes energy flows’ and that perhaps in the long run (another day) we should look at a solution to changing the attitudes of people looking at our youth in a negative way. i know that it would be a total paradigm shift for society though! It’s seemingly impossible! But could we focus on the positive instead of the negative I can see some people have very strong feelings about the institutional racism we inevitably face.” A similar view was shared by Maryanne Rapata: “continue to oppose it Minister hard to fathom that some people are so naive to think that only serious offences and offenders data will be kept. Would hate to think if my moko shoplifts when he is a minor that the offence will be hanging around his neck for the rest of his life. People change as they grow older circumstances change but his offence history won’t. Hoha crime is the target for this bill not serious crime. It’s saying once a crim always a crim. I don’t want that for our kids or in fact anyones kid”. 
The most consistent comment made by other parties in this House in response to the arguments put forward by the Maori Party and the Greens has been that we limit our comments to fixing the loophole on the law rather than stretching out any further. But if we listen to the views of the public we can hear a focus on forgiveness on rehabilitation and on restorative justice. We have not heard the public calling out for youth who have a charge in the Youth Court or who have received an order made by a judge to be fingerprinted photographed and have their data retained. I remind the House that this bill allows the data to be retained of young persons who have been admonished young persons asked to attend a parenting education programme and young persons asked to return to the court 12 months on from their first appearance. If the House thinks that people who have admitted to a charge necessarily have committed the offence they admitted to then it is living in an alternative universe. So many of our kids go to those courts and say “I didn’t do it but hey if it’s going to get me through faster I’ll say that I did.” We have to be aware of those issues. 
I leave the final word to Aneta Timu: “I’m sure even police can appreciate that we all make mistakes and if we learn from them we deserve to move on unstigmatised”. Will this bill enable the great potential of our youth to be supported? Will it facilitate a second chance? The Maori Party does not think so and we will continue to vote against it.