Borrows Chester: Child and Family Protection Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Child and Family Protection Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13867] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 The Child and Family Protection Bill enjoyed good and wide discussion and debate and no small degree of consensus when it came before the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I would hope so Chester. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: The senior member of the House calls out that he would hope so. It is no real surprise because a large number of the clauses within the bill had initially been raised under the previous Government in previous legislation. 
The discrepancy between the views of the Government and Opposition parties in respect of this bill remains around the age cut-off of 17 and whether the default position should be that any protection order that is in vogue at the time should continue even if the person concerned moves away from home. The arguments that ran against it see it in a slightly polarised position. The Government’s position remains that when the person over the age of 17 who as a child was the subject of a protection order moves away from home on a permanent basis that order will lapse. But while the person is living at home either permanently or semi-permanently it remains valid. This means that a young person who is covered by a protection order and at the age of 17 goes away to university but lives in the family home during the holidays continues to be covered. Similarly a young person who works away from home but spends the weekends in the home would continue to be covered. The young person would be covered indefinitely as long as he or she continues to live in the home. 
The problem we have when we consider the other side of these sorts of disputes is that although a protection order may well be taken out legitimately and obtained through the normal course of proceedings through the Family Court frequently the children of the household have no say on whether the protection order is taken out and gradually over time the need for the protection order may dissipate somewhat. If the young person leaves home at 18 or 19 years of age and sets up in another relationship goes away for educational purposes and lives permanently somewhere else or goes away for work purposes if the protection order could not lapse then the estranged parent would be prevented from ever making any contact by way of email telephone letter visiting or any other means. It prevents the possibility of a relationship occurring because any contact is a breach of that order and can be the subject of a complaint. When a young person leaves home and establishes himself or herself independently from the family—sets up his or her own home—that young person may well want to explore that relationship again. If the protection order continues to be in force the law would prevent that from happening. 
We should remember that under the Opposition’s suggestion a young person would be able to withdraw from the protection order. That is quite right but at the same time we also know that young persons frequently do not pay attention to those sorts of things that impact on their lives. For instance if protection orders were taken out when children were 7 or 8 then 10 or 15 years later those young persons may well be in a different space. They may want to have some contact with a parent but their naivety in not withdrawing from that protection order may well mean that any contact that is made—by say a father who wants to regain the relationship—means the committing of an offence. 
Younger people in their early 20s are probably in a much better position to access protection if they need it. They could access the protection of the authorities if they felt threatened or they needed it. The Government believes that a person of that age is in the right sort of position in terms of maturity to pull away from that protection order or to reinstate that protection order should he or she desire to do so. 
In respect of other matters raised by the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern it is important to remember that bills in this area were introduced by the previous Labour Government very very late in the proceedings. The report back of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) for instance was tabled in the House about 2 weeks before the last Parliament rose for the election. The bill had sat on the Order Paper for a number of months without any implementation. We have to remember too that in the run-up to the last election the previous Government was involved in a number of other bills that in hindsight do not appear to have been urgent. If child protection had been at the forefront of its mind it could have done a lot more about invoking that legislation at that time. 
Members opposite can take heart from the fact that the Minister of Justice has taken on a number of Labour’s recommendations and has put them into legislation. This bill for instance was the subject of some debate when the short-term protection orders—or police safety orders as they are now known—were being discussed under the legislation that came out of the Government’s 100-day plan in our first year in office. At that time when the Justice and Electoral Committee raised with the Minister its concerns around the need for this bill the Minister undertook that it would be introduced within a year and would come before the select committee. 
I am pleased to commend this bill to the House and I am pleased that it receives wide support from all parties. The Government looks forward to further introductions of more child protection measures in due course and no doubt they will come from this Government. Thank you.