Kanongata'a-Suisuiki Anahila; Rurawhe AdrianANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It's an absolute privilege to stand here to speak on the Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill. I just want to take this opportunity to thank the member Darroch Ball for this bill and for his idea in terms of contributing to reducing youth offending. I'm not sure whether the House knew that I first started as a social worker as a youth justice social worker in Ōtāhuhu in Auckland and through that I became a youth justice manager. Through my insights I do bring insights into youth justice. I want to acknowledge that throughout all of this we may refer to young people as youth offenders but at the end of the day they are young people from the age of 14 to under 18 and their voices need to be heard. The member spoke about the 80 percent of young people who offend once and they don't come through the system so really this is for the 20 percent and I want to acknowledge the member for bringing that into the conversation today. I want to talk about the purpose because it's important if there's a bill in the House that we know what the purpose is. If you could allow me Mr Speaker to read what the purpose is new section 210A in clause 8 states that The purpose of the youth justice demerit points system is to provide for a consistent system of intervention for young persons who have accepted full responsibility for committing an offence or who are charged with committing an offence in order to—(a) identify deter and penalise repeat offending by young persons; and (b) increase accountability and transparency within the youth justice system." I would like the select committee to look at the strategy in terms of the evidence. What does the evidence tell us? I want us to go to new section 210C in clause 8 because in that is the journey of a young person through the court system beginning with a warning from the police officer and going to a record in the court. So what I know is that a young person is arrested or warned by a police officer then the police officer refers the young person to a youth aid officer the youth aid officer speaks to a youth justice coordinator the youth justice coordinator speaks to a youth justice social worker and then it goes to the court where the young person is appointed a youth advocate. If we look at new section 210C(2)(a) it's the police—so the police decide whether to warn this young person or not but I'm not sure what advocacy the young person has in that journey. In terms of subsection (2)(b) it's the police who refer the matter to the youth aid officer so the youth aid officer then decides whether it's the intention to charge a young person by taking alternative action. If that doesn't happen then the youth aid officer refers to a coordinator for a youth justice intention to convene a family group conference. So I've talked about paragraphs (a) and (b). That involves the police and also involves the police in terms of the youth aid officer looking to alternative actions and then in the third section in paragraph (c) it looks to the youth justice coordinator. Then in subsection (2)(d) it refers to the youth justice demerit points and it refers to a young person being brought into court and that's the only time a young person gets a youth advocate to speak on their behalf. The question I'd like to seek the select committee to look at is: where is the voice of the young people in this bill? They are experiencing the youth justice system if they continue and I'm talking about the 20 percent that the member referred to. If they continue on this track they will end up with a record. But what I'd like the select committee to ask is about the advocacy for young people: how well are they informed from the point in paragraph (a) when the police officer looks at the demerit points from "between 1 and 40 youth justice demerit points" right down to paragraph (e) where if it is over 100 points they are referred to the District Court. It is the beginning of a record for a young person in court and it must be taken seriously. We do support this bill in its first reading and I commend the member for bringing it forward in terms of the purpose which is to reduce offending. But I do ask that we look at this with caring eyes in terms of not only deterring young people from reoffending but also looking after their record. Have we asked the right questions? Do they get the right advocacy before they reach the stage that they are before the District Court on a—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired."