Nash Stuart: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9303] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 It is interesting I mentioned in my maiden speech something that Harry Holland used to always ask. He was one of the early leaders of the Labour Party and his first test was to ask: is it right for the people of New Zealand? I was speaking at a Rotary club on Monday this week. Rotary has its four principles as well and they are very much aligned with the Labour Party principles. The No. 1 principle is whether it is right for the people of New Zealand. If Harry Holland thought that it was right for the people of New Zealand then the Labour Party would move forward start the policy process and put it into place. I look at this bill with regard to 12 and 13-year-olds and I ask: is this right? It fails the fundamental test. It fails under any test. 
I will tell members a story. I heard an interview with a woman called Celia Lashlie. I think we all know of her. She is a prison reformer. She said she thought that of all the people she had ever met in the prison system only six of them could not be reformed. That woman had met many evil buggers in the prison system but she had met only six who could not be rehabilitated. On a plane down from Auckland one time I was sitting next to Sian Elias. I mentioned to her what Celia Lashlie had said and I asked what her views on this issue were. This was after the honourable Minister Simon Power had said that Sian Elias was not in a position to comment on judicial matters being the Chief Justice and what would she know about judicial matters anyway? I mentioned Celia Lashlie’s comment to Sian Elias and asked what her view was on that. She said she concurred with it. She thought that very very few people who entered our judicial system could not be rehabilitated. 
This is about language. Politics is about language messaging is about language. If we tell a 12 or 13-year-old that he or she is a criminal then we have set that child on a path to jail. That is not what is necessary. 
I read the  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 I read the papers. There have been a lot of assaults and there has been a lot of crime. Let us face facts: we are all tough on crime and we want to be tough on crime. Crime is a scourge of our society but these are crimes committed by people over the age of 18 or 21 years. 
As MPs we have all been to intermediate schools and seen 12 and 13-year-olds running around the fields and that is where they should be. They should be kicking around rugby balls throwing softballs around and throwing netballs through hoops. These are not criminals. If we label them as criminals then we are labelling them for the rest of their lives. This comes back to national standards and to why all the top academics are against national standards. If we label a kid a failure then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we label a 12 or 13-year-old a criminal that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is not about that; it is about mentoring. It astounds me. 
My colleague Moana Mackey said that the police will run into a whole lot of complaints about this legislation but I will tell members why they will not. I say this with all due respect to my colleague who is a very articulate speaker and who knows what she is talking about because science and technology are her background. The police will not run into a whole lot of complaints about this because 12 and 13-year-olds simply do not know their rights. If a policeman comes along to a 12 or 13-year-old that child will not complain because at that age children hardly know which foot to put each shoe on. We are talking about children for God’s sake. We are not talking about criminals; we are talking about children. Why can members opposite not say that they are children? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh for goodness’ sake! 
STUART NASH 
: I ask when Sandra Goudie last visited an intermediate school. There are kids running around in shorts with bare feet kicking rugby balls. It astounds me that we want to label these children as criminals. 
One of the things we must address is what the cause of this is. It is poverty. For example in Hawke’s Bay 70 percent of the people earn under $40000. Seventy percent of the people in Hawke’s Bay got no tax cut in that Government’s reforms and those people will be screwed when this Government increases GST to 15 percent. It is as if Government members do not even care. 
Where is the caring society that we all came from? Where is the community spirit? It has disappeared and this is just one further step in eroding the community spirit that this party was born to believe in. I would like to think that the vast majority of New Zealanders believe in community spirit. But Government members want to take 12 and 13-year-olds away. We are not talking about people we are talking about children. If you take DNA from these guys then you are labelling them for life. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member must not include me. 
STUART NASH 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson you are not at all—I know that you are a decent— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
STUART NASH 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson. This Government is removing any vestige of community. 
What I think really needs addressing in this House—and the Labour Party works very hard to address this—is what the causes of poverty are. Why do we have 12 and 13-year-olds committing crimes that in the past we just did not see occurring? I will tell members what it is: it is the breakdown that is happening in the community. People are working at second and third jobs simply to put food on the table to put petrol in the car to put clothes on the children and to buy textbooks. National members want to give tax cuts to those earning over $70000—and we are talking about only 8 percent of the population—and to make 75 percent of the population pay more in GST. We all know that is the case. Seventy-five percent of the people in this country earn under $40000. 
Chester Borrows 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 2 which amends the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act and the Criminal Justice Act. The member has talked about national standards GST tax cuts and the causes of poverty and we have had sweet Fanny Adams about Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member himself became a little bit elaborate in his explanation. Members know that relevance is one of the issues I consider before taking the closure motion. 
STUART NASH 
: With regard to DNA testing I see taking DNA from 12 and 13-year-olds as being a breach of human rights. These are members of our society who do not have any understanding of their rights. These are members of our society who should be looked after and covered by our society yet by taking their DNA we are in effect putting them on a database and criminalising them for life. It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 
As Moana Mackey mentioned a whole lot unintended consequences will come from this. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research or the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd or whatever it is called these days—it is being restructured because it now has to have a profit motive—will probably be user-pays and GST will be charged on top of that and we all know that it is going up to 15 percent to hurt the most affected. No only are we seeing here an increased cost to society in relation to marginalising and criminalising the most vulnerable in our society but also we are making the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and the police undertake procedures that in effect they know are a waste of time. They know that this will not help society that it is not about productivity and that it is not about protecting society. It is pure and utter politics. 
I know that if the vast majority of New Zealanders looked into their hearts and asked whether they wanted to criminalise 12 and 13-year-olds whether they wanted to take their DNA and whether they wanted to violate the human rights of 12 and 13-year-olds by forcing them to give swabs and asked whether that is what they signed up for whether it is what they voted for and whether it is the sort of society they want or the sort of country they want to live in then the answer to every single question would be no. These are children. 
We are seeing the breakdown of our communities. We talk about a Government that is inclusive that wants economic development yet here we have legislation in front of us that in effect is marginalising those who are the most vulnerable when in fact we should be picking them up and giving them opportunities. We should be providing them with aspiration. It is easy to talk about aspiration as we beat them down as we heap all this stuff on top of them and say: “You cannot achieve because you are a criminal.” It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and I for one am very proud to be part of this party which stands up for the rights of children—who stands up for 12-year-olds. They are not even in their teens for goodness’ sake. The 12-year-olds whom I know are without a doubt children yet this Government wants to take DNA samples from them. 
We talked about  
CSI 
. I like  
CSI 
 it is a great programme but never in any of the  
CSI 
 programmes that I have watched has there been a 12-year-old who has had a mouth swab on whom all these tests have been run and who has been put in jail. Even the guys on TV who make programmes to appeal to the vast majority know that taking DNA from 12 and 13-year-olds is just not right. 
This bill represents everything that is wrong. It fails the fundamental test that we ask ourselves every day as parliamentarians: is this right for the people of New Zealand? No it is not.