Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take my first call in this the Committee stage of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. There are quite a few points to cover in this debate and I do want to share the concern that has already been raised about process. We yesterday got a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on this bill that is almost the same size as the legislation itself almost 100 pages. This relates to legislation that guides practice where children's lives are at risk and we are being expected within one day to absorb this information and consider what it will mean in practice. I have to admit I do not think that is possible. I spent hours going over this last night up till very late trying to work through it to understand the implications of these changes and I have many questions that I hope the Minister for Social Development will be able to answer for me. I will start by outlining some of those questions that I have so bear with me.One of the changes in this SOP 329 is the change to the complaints system so that it is amending—the existing language in the legislation is providing direction for what should be considered in coming up with a complaints system. No detail no guidance which is a bit of a problem but the things that should be considered. This adds the wording from where it was previously complaints mechanisms"; it now adds in the wording "1 or more complaints mechanisms." So I want to know whether that is actually opening up the possibility for a constraint on what will come out of this by saying there may be multiple and this will apply only to one whereas the initial implications of the legislation would have been that it applied to all of them if there were multiple. If that is the implication I would like to know the rationale for it.I would also note that in new section 4 "Purposes" inserted by clause 6 there has been the removal of the phrase that the purpose of the Act would be adding to the establishment and promotion of services—there is the removal of the language of assisting with the establishment and promotion of services and facilities. That seems to me to be consequential—that if it is restricting the purpose which in previous legislation had included facilities just to services is this now constraining the role of the new ministry in a way that is actually more limited than what we had seen previously to the extent that there will not be the assisting of other organisations in setting up services or facilities and there will not be any role for them in looking at facilities? That seems to me to be something that the Minister should stand up and speak to and at the very least explain to this Committee.I also notice that in one of the sections where it currently talks about assisting families in the prevention of children and young persons from suffering harm it deletes the phrase "the risk of suffering harm". That seems to me to be actually a sensible removal. It was not there in the original legislation is my understanding so that seems sensible. But again I really think it is something that we should be able to have explained to us because the explanatory note in terms of the bill does not provide the explanation. It just tells us very very broadly what it is doing.I do have a question about two points in the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). We are told that "Clause 21 amends section 18B to ensure that it applies in relation to decisions that a child or young person is in need of care or protection on certain grounds made before the commencement … for consistency with other provisions in the principal Act." My concern—and there is another provision a completely different point that is the same thing—is that this is undoing a change that was made in the select committee. We were given advice that we should have the specific language that this is amending and now it is reversing that decision and taking it out and in two cases in this SOP. It undermines my confidence in this whole process. This is happening very quickly without proper debate or scrutiny and I am not seeing the rationale for it. It worries me.I also would like to understand because I do not understand the difference around the transfer back to the Youth Court. There is a change in the language and the ordering of the language but I do not actually understand what difference it would have in practice and in meaning. It just seems to be a kind of reordering but I would actually need some explanation to understand it because it does not make sense to me about why we are making that change in an obvious way. There are other points as well but I am conscious of the time so I will move on to some of the discussion but I really do hope that the Minister will engage in some discussion about the SOPs and explain them to this Committee so that we can understand and at least have a token cursory look at being able to do due diligence in ensuring that this legislation and the way it is written will actually provide for what we need.I would like to speak now to some of the changes that are being made to the purpose clause which have already been mentioned in concerns raised by Jacinda Ardern. I will leave the discussion around the changes to the "whānau first" principle to my colleague Marama Davidson. It is an area of significant concern to us in terms of the process leading up to this as well as a concern that we may have undermined the clarity of the purpose of the legislation with the changes that are coming in this legislation.I also want to speak about another two points in relation to the purpose. One that the Law Society raised concern about is that we are adding complexity to a piece of legislation that they suggested had bedded in over time and that we needed in terms of practice and surety in the courts—and so many cases do go to court. That certainty plays a really important role in decision making and this risks undermining the surety of practice. We do not know what some of the outcomes will be in the court particularly when we add words like "safe stable and loving home from the earliest opportunity" into the purpose of the bill. How will the courts define "loving" in a legal sense? I do not think that this is a concept that has been introduced into our legislation before and this was questioned by quite a few submitters—whether it is appropriate to be in here. We all want our kids to be loved but is it appropriate for us to ensure through legislation that they are loved? I am not convinced. It just does not seem appropriate and other submitters agreed on that point.We were also challenged by some practitioners and by Child Poverty Action to include in the purpose a more general duty on the Government to ensure that all children and families have adequate income to meet their basic needs. If we were looking at being really aspirational and really brave about actually doing the best for our kids then we would include that."