Prasad Rajen: Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) Care of Children Amendment Bill Adoption Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) Care of Children Amendment Bill Adoption Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20590. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am also pleased to take a call in the dying stages of this very important legislation arising out of the Child and Family Protection Bill: the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Care of Children Amendment Bill and the Adoption Amendment Bill. The three bills we are discussing in the third reading relate to very important parts of very important matters that worry every member of this House and certainly worry society. 
The changes being made to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 are timely and important and will extend a greater level of protection to those who have been caught in family violence generally. We have heard probably for the last 7 or 8 years some quite serious concerns being raised throughout New Zealand about domestic violence. The current Government has continued the work of the previous Government which set up the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families and that is still continuing. The work of Government departments and ministries and the Families Commission etc. is important work. The courts have become much more involved in dealing with cases of family violence and the changes being made here will at least progress addressing the problems in the system. So Labour supports those changes. This side of the House supports any action that will make the lives of our vulnerable particularly our children and women safer and this legislation goes some way to doing that. The concern I have is that we have not gone far enough or fast enough in this country—and I say that generally—to address family violence in a comprehensive way. This problem requires comprehensive long-term intervention. Some of that can be addressed by legislation and this legislation does that but other pieces of the jigsaw still need to be addressed. There is a bill on the Order Paper that also addresses other aspects of violence and the lives of children which has not come forward yet—the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. 
The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) has had a long period in this House. The original Child and Family Protection Bill was introduced quite early in 2009 and I would have thought that this was an urgent matter that we ought to be discussing and passing much more urgently. That has not happened either. So there are two points I want to make about the legislation. We are supporting it because it makes important changes that are required in addressing domestic violence but it is not comprehensive enough. It cannot be seen as part of the comprehensive programme. Neither can it be done fast enough. 
The changes being made to the Care of Children Act are also important. The changes allow the courts to address situations that arise under the Care of Children Act. More power is given to make decisions and change decisions because there are risks when a child is involved. The changes to the Care of Children Act do that as well. 
The third Act being amended is the Adoption Act. Here again is a very very small change to the Adoption Act. It is amazing: the Act we work with in New Zealand at the moment is the Adoption Act 1955. That says something: it is time to have a look at that Act far more comprehensively rather than what we are doing here looking at one or two pieces of it. It is a very old Act. It is an Act that is used quite regularly in New Zealand. 
Simon Bridges 
: It’s 57 years old. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well I am glad the member can count. I am really really pleased. The member can count. That is a very important contribution I say to Mr Bridges that he is making to this particular legislation. I worked with the Adoption Act when I was a child welfare officer in 1971. Even then we could see what the Act was—and here we are in 2011! I did not think for a moment when I was working with this Act in the field that I would be talking about this thing so long—almost 40 years—after I first used it. 
So here we are a very important area a change we support but really there is a problem. The Government did have an opportunity to modernise the Act because the nature— 
Simon Bridges 
: Rome wasn’t built in a day! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: As a lawyer Mr Bridges would know that the nature of the adoption has changed so much that this Act is really now a dinosaur. It is time to change the Adoption Act. There are open adoptions adoptions by same-sex parents overseas adoptions—even the attitude towards adoptions has changed dramatically over the last 40 years. Here was another opportunity to look at something comprehensively. 
This side of the House is very happy to support the provisions in these three Acts because they improve—they do not do any damage—and they address some problems. But I think there is a problem in that they do not address more fundamental questions in the area of adoptions care of children and family violence that we could have taken this opportunity to address. It is not as if we did not have material because the bill that is languishing on the Order Paper does take further a number of these matters as well. With those words we are happy to support this legislation but I alert Mr Bridges to the point that it is time to change the 1955 Adoption Act. He might use his considerable powers in his caucus to take this issue further because there are people who really want adoption to be modernised and the Act to be modernised. I look forward to debating that at a later stage. Thank you.