Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to start with at least some common ground. I am sure that every single member of this House would absolutely concede that we have a care and protection regime that can and must be improved. There are 5000 young people in State care at any given time. It is incumbent on us to do as much as we can not only in the first instance to ensure that those families and whānau are given the greatest opportunity possible to retain the key roles that they have as primary caregivers—not the State but them—but also in those instances where safety is a concern for a child to ensure that the State improves the role that it then steps in to play. There is no doubt that we have failed far too many on both the prevention and the intervention side.I think one of the more devastating reflections of that that I have seen is the Children's Commissioner's State of Care 2015 report where he blatantly stated that having looked at the state of care in New Zealand he could not confirm hand on heart that children in care were better off than in the situations they were removed from. That is an indictment in every respect. So there is no denying that we can and should do better.The debate that then arises is: what does that look like? How can we reform the legislation in a way that is yes child-centred but recognises the important ties and bonds with whānau iwi and hapū and the important need for cultural connectedness and how do we improve practice on the ground? That is something I have heard professionals talking about a lot. One thing that is absolutely unwavering is the desire amongst our social work professionals be they within Child Youth and Family (CYF) or out in the NGO sector—their unwavering desire—to do the best that they can by the communities that they work in. It is something that I think we need to reflect more often in this debate.Our concern is though that this bill takes us backwards. At one point in fact: During the 1980s"—and I am taking this from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) website—"there was increasing dissatisfaction with the negative effects statutory care practices were having on a growing number of children."—that is according to Dr Marie Connolly in 2004—"Children were frequently placed outside their kinship network and the overrepresentation of Maori children in care meant that Maori families felt the effects of this cultural loss." I reiterate that this report is on the MSD website. "In 1986 the most significant report to address welfare issues and the needs of Maori was introduced Puao-te-ata-tu (Ministerial Advisory Committee 1986). The report made many recommendations regarding the particular needs of Maori children and their families"—again they are overrepresented in our CYF numbers—"but most critically with respect to the care and safety of children it reinforced the centrality of whanau and the maintenance of the child within the family group."The consequence of that report was that in 1989 we had groundbreaking legislation in the form of the Child Young Persons and Their Families Act. It was groundbreaking it was world leading and it placed children and family at the centre of that legislation but it also introduced practices like family group conferences. In particular the principles of that Act under section 13(2) included sentiments like for instance "(f) where a child or young person is removed from his or her family whanau hapu iwi and family group … that—(i) wherever practicable the child or young person should be returned to and protected from harm within that family whanau hapu iwi".So of course it puts safety first. That has never ever been in question. Safety has always been first in that legislation of 1989. But it then went on to say that "where the child or young person cannot [immediately] be returned to and protected from harm within his or her family" wherever practicable the child should live where appropriate in the same locality as that in which the child or young person was living and in which the child's or young person's links with his or her family whānau hapū iwi and family group are maintained and strengthened. The idea of these provisions was that there was priority—safety first but secondary to that priority was placed on the idea that children would be retained in kinship and whānau care. That might not be immediate family; it might be an outer layer. But either way it was recognising—it was recognising—that that was of primary importance. This bill removes that provision.I am not just taking an interpretation of that. The Minister has been explicit that she has removed that provision because she believes that that has led to distorted practice on the ground. Our argument is that if the practice is wrong change the practice. Change the practice guidelines. But the legislation is the biggest guide we have to inform practice and if the legislation purposely omits priority around kinship care—which I have to add is not just a New Zealand principle as much as we have grasped it. It is internationally recognised and evidence-based because it reduces trauma on children it reduces harm done to children and it is child-centred practice. The fact that it has been explicitly and purposefully removed from this legislation is something we cannot support.If the Minister says to us: "We want greater priority placed on what the child wants." no problem—let us put the child's view front and centre. If the child says "No I don't want to be placed with family. I do not feel safe" that should be front and centre—no question. Sibling placement—absolutely we agree that being placed with your siblings is of huge importance. That is a connection that we should be retaining as a priority. Let us put that as a principle—front and centre. But let us also maintain the importance of that kinship care—for Māori yes but also for non-Māori for Pasifika and for all kids in care—and if it is not possible then of course you look more widely.That is what the legislation in 1989 should have achieved. The problem that we had was that in practice Child Youth and Family yes treated it as a priority but it did not treat it the same as wider care. It did not undertake the same risk analysis and risk assessments. In fact in many ways you could assume that it was seen as a less risky option to the State to place a child in family care because then we were no care and no responsibility—we did not support those placements in nearly the same way we have supported every other form of placement. So we do not do proper risk assessment and we do not properly support whānau and family in kinship care and then when things go wrong we stand back and say: "Oh kinship care is broken." That is not true. What this legislation should have done was put kinship care on equal footing with other forms of care in terms of support and actually lift the priority of it—retain the priority.I want to highlight again: no one has said that that should happen over and above safety for the child or over and above a child's view on what they want. But to remove it altogether is plain wrong. It takes us a massive step backwards from where we were as a world-leading nation on child protection issues and that is a bottom line for us.I have to say that there are other provisions around prevention that we support. There are provisions around youth justice and raising the age of the Youth Court jurisdiction that we support but we cannot support a bill that makes such a fundamentally wrong move on kinship care. So we in the select committee will be absolutely as pragmatic and helpful as we can to have those provisions returned. We will work alongside our fellow members but right now we will not support this bill at this reading until those provisions are returned to this bill.I want to finish on a final point—and my colleagues will talk about the lack of consultation with iwi leaders in particular and the Māori Women's Welfare League case before the Waitangi Tribunal. I want to finish on one final point: how can you truly take a preventative approach if we do not factor in child poverty financial stability and the economic conditions that children are growing up in? It is the No. 1 determinant of child well-being and yet a bill that purports to deal with child well-being is not allowing the ministry to take into account any issues around child poverty.A ministry for children under Labour would have a plan to eradicate child poverty. That is what our ministry for children will do. "Oranga Tamariki Ministry for Children" will care about the well-being of all children and that means the financial security of their whānau."