Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to begin by reflecting on some of the provisions we chose to highlight as a party in the first reading of this bill. As I put on the record then and as my colleagues did as well this bill brings to fruition something that Labour has campaigned hard for—not just as an Opposition party but actually as something we had on the agenda as the Government. So we are talking about a time over 8 years ago now when Labour drew a line in the sand and said absolutely that the age of care and protection in this country needs to be lifted—and not just the age of care and protection. We did not view young people as people we should treat differently if they are in care and protection rather than in in our youth justice system. Our view was that if you are 18 or under you are a child—and that is not just our view; it is an international view. That is the international standard. It is the standard we have signed up to in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. If we take the view that you are a child when you are in the care of the State then you are a child if you ever come before a court in this land. We took that view over 8 years ago and we have pushed for it ever since. We have run petitions we have had amendments in this House we have campaigned hard alongside organisations like the Dingwall Trust—and I acknowledge the huge work not just by the people who work within Dingwall but by the young people in its care who have been at the forefront of this debate. I acknowledge that they have put their stories out in the public to see this come to fruition. So our support of that provision even though it is just for care and protection has been unwavering—unwavering. That was the basis fundamentally on which we gave our support to this bill at its first reading. That strength of feeling should highlight equally on the flip side our strength of feeling now and why we are putting our support under a condition. This bill includes not just an increase in the age of care and protection which is fundamental; it also includes what the Minister has broadly brushed over as some cursory delegation of powers away from social workers. These are not just cursory delegations and I want to spend a little bit of time talking today about what clause 7 of this bill does because it was really only when we fully canvassed this bill at the select committee that we saw the gravity of what this bill was proposing. Social workers in this country hold a number of statutory powers which are literally shared only between them and police officers. There is a good reason for that: they are some of the most powerful potentially damaging—if used incorrectly—powers that the State has. The ability to remove a child from a family is an overwhelming power and one that should be treated with accountability transparency and a huge level of regard for the professionals who are asked to execute that power. At the moment we have partitioned off in our laws that we believe that those warrants should be exercised involving only the courts police officers and social workers. What this bill does is allow those powers to be transferred to the chief executive who can then delegate those powers to any professional whom the chief executive deems it necessary to delegate those powers to. Let me just reference exactly the way that it is articulated. New section 7D inserted by clause 7 states—basically this is the process that has to be gone through—(1) The delegations referred to [in this bill] and a subdelegation … must be publicly notified and information about all delegations and subdelegations must be made available on an Internet site maintained by the department and be available for inspection at the head office of the department free of charge until in any case the delegation or subdelegation is revoked." The only other requirements on the chief executive in making this delegation to a person who is not a social worker as set out in new section 7C(2) in clause 7 is that the chief executive must be satisfied that the person is appropriately qualified to perform the function and if the person is outside the States services and therefore not a professional employed by the State the person must have a contract; some contractual obligations. There is nothing in here that stipulates what an appropriately qualified person must be—nothing. It is simply for the chief executive to decide. If they are not for instance someone working with the State—not for instance a medical professional employed by a district health board—they simply have to be bound by a contract. Well we have a number of organisations bound by contracts in this country. A number of them have had contracts removed from them simply because they have not exercised them properly. Serco is one that comes to mind. Some might think that in referencing Serco I am simply being inflammatory but I want to talk about what the delegations that we are talking about at the moment which are just numbers in a bill actually allow these unknown professionals to do. The bill sets out in new section 7BA(1) in clause 7 that "The chief executive may delegate his or her functions and powers under all or any of sections 39 40 122 157 181 205 386 …" of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act—they are just numbers. It feels meaningless perhaps. What harm could be done by a few clauses? Let me tell you. Section 39 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act is the place of safety warrants. Those are the provisions that say that any District Court judge can issue a warrant to an officer under the Search and Surveillance Act if they are satisfied on reasonable grounds for suspecting that a child or young person is suffering or is likely to suffer ill-treatment neglect or deprivation. They can issue a warrant to a constable or a social worker that then allows them to enter and search by force any dwelling any building any vehicle any premises. If that person—a constable or a social worker—believes on reasonable grounds that the child or young person has suffered or is likely to suffer ill-treatment or serious harm they can remove or detain by force if necessary the child or young person from the place where they are and place them in the custody of the chief executive. Removing a child by force because they have used their professional discretion that a child is at risk of harm is something that we must enforce vigorously and ensure that no one other than a qualified professional is able to make that decision. Who is it that the Minister is proposing will have the "professional" or contractual arrangement to adequately do that job? If you cannot tell me now in this House with a good rationale and justification who that person is then we will not sign our name to it. Tell us who it is because otherwise we will lob claims across the other side of this House that it is potentially a Serco or an Armourguard or any number of contractors that this Government has deemed fit to enact similar provisions for in our Corrections laws. If you cannot tell me who it is what faith can we have that that person is qualified to exercise that power? That is just one of them. That is just section 39. Let us read out section 40 "Warrant to remove child or young person". It states: "(1) Where an application or declaration under section 67 has been made in respect of a child or young person any District Court Judge … [or] any issuing officer … may … where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a young people or child is—(a) suffering or is likely to suffer ill-treatment serious neglect abuse serious deprivation or serious or harm; … issue a warrant authorising any constable or a social worker … to search for the child or young person." So then we have got search powers and I go on. That is just sections 39 and 40. Section 122 is about the power of enforcement of access rights to take possession of a child and enforce an access order to say that some other caregiver should have access to that child—to uplift a child and take them to the person who has that access order. Section 157 is about ensuring that a child is physically at a hearing. Section 181 relates to psychiatric care. Section 386 relates to search warrants and recovering a child who has absconded. The examples I keep hearing from the Government around the kinds of professionals it wants engaged in these delegations of powers are people like paediatricians. You are not telling me that a paediatrician is going to search out a child who has absconded—of course they will not. So who are these powers for? Today I am informing this House that unless we have significant reform of these powers the removal of the delegation—or at least the removal of any delegation that allows a child to be removed by any professional other than a constable or social worker—then we are going to have to remove our support of this bill. It is with a heavy heart that I say that given how important lifting the age of care and protection is to the Labour Party. But that is the choice National has given us."