Ardern JacindaParts 1 and 2 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): This debate will I imagine be a rigorous one. As the early debates on this bill will attest this has been a bill that has been controversial to say the least. One would have hoped—and I know certainly it was our hope on this side of the House—that we would have been able to find a position collectively where we were able to vote together on such an important piece of legislation because of course we are debating today a fundamental redraft of what was groundbreaking and historic legislation in the original Children Young Persons and Their Families Act of 1989. It was groundbreaking.We had a hope that New Zealand would maintain its positon as world leading in the redraft that we are considering today and yet as this Committee stage will demonstrate rather than working on the strong foundations of that original legislation this piece of law is a retrograde step. In fact it would have been my hope that rather than debating this new bill today—I would rather debate the original Act of 1989 and moved Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on this floor to improve that Act than debate what we have today. There was poor consultation in its drafting particularly with iwi. There was a sense really of urgency in this drafting that has come through which I do not blame officials for but the lengthy SOPs we see today also I think stand testament to the fact that this law has been rushed. We cannot risk making mistakes when it comes to vulnerable tamariki—we cannot—and yet that is what I fear this bill will generate.I want to begin my first contribution on the issue that has been the most controversial for the Labour Party amongst many other elements of this bill because there are a few things in there that we do support. The one issue that on principle has led us to vote against this entire piece of legislation are the elements of the Principles" clauses that fundamentally change the relationship between the State and children and their iwi—fundamentally changes that relationship. I want to speak to that in my first contribution.When we reflect on what made the original Child Young Persons and Their Families Act groundbreaking it was the acknowledgment of the range of elements that allow a child to thrive—the acknowledgment that when we have a situation where a young person or a child is not safe there are certain things that the State should strive to achieve before we get to the point where a child is removed and then certain things that we should strive for at the point that that horribly traumatic decision is made. Originally of course there were purpose sections at the beginning of the Child Young Persons and Their Families Act but then contained in Part 2 in section 13 "Principles" it really set out the consideration that must be given when a child faces potential movement or housing under different circumstances.It states in section 13(2) that "In determining the welfare and interests of a child or young person the court or person must be guided by the principle that children and young people must be protected from harm and have their rights upheld". I want to state that again: "must be protected from harm and have their rights upheld". And it is also in the principles in section 5 as well as the following principles. So we have right from the outset—right from the outset in the original Act—the primary consideration being that a child must be protected from harm and have their rights upheld. Nothing stands as more important than those two principles in the original Child Young Persons and Their Families Act. The reason this is important I will come to.It then goes on to state in the Child Young Persons and Their Families Act of 1989 in section 13(2)(b) "the principle that the primary role in caring for and protecting a child or young person lies with the child's or young person's family whanau hapu iwi and family group" and accordingly that they should be assisted and supported to essentially do the role that is there and that intervention into family life should be at a minimum.Then section 13(2)(c) states: "the principle that it is desirable that a child or young person live in association with his or her family whanau hapu iwi and family group and that his or her education training or employment be allowed to continue without interruption or disturbance:". And then paragraph (d)—this is where it really hits home—"where a child or young person is considered to be in need of care and protection" where it is considered that they need to be removed from their home "the principle that wherever [possible or] practicable the necessary assistance and support should be provided to enable the child or young person to be cared for and protected within his or her own family whanau hapu iwi and family group:". There it is.That was what was groundbreaking: the acknowledgement that a child does not exist in isolation that if there is harm that we suddenly prevent future harm simply by removing them and placing them somewhere else—wherever else. This law acknowledged that actually that had the ability to further traumatise a young person and that if we truly wanted to make sure that we listened to all of the research and evidence (a) we should do everything in our power to prevent a child being removed in the first place and (b) if they were whānau mattered. We had an obligation as the State to make sure we did everything in our power to make sure that a child was placed within that kind of environment.So what was the problem that the Minister tried? Why have we redrafted this new law to remove that principle? Why? When you ask the Minister she states that she thought it was more important that a child's safety was the paramount consideration. She blatantly misunderstands the law. The law always said that a child's safety came first; their rights came first. Then when it was possible and practicable to place them within whānau iwi or hapū that was our next obligation. The Minister redrafted the law without understanding how the law was meant to work in the first place and if that was not what was happening on the ground that was a problem with practice not with the legislation.I absolutely agree that there have been issues with practice. There has been a risk aversion I think amongst some because we have created such a risk-averse environment for our social workers so much stress and pressure around them that there is a perception that if you place children within whānau then perhaps you do not need to do the same level of rigorous checks with the same level of support placed around those iwi and hapū placements. That was the problem not whānau or iwi in the first place—that was the issue. Not nearly enough support was provided to them.I have seen cases where we have had family members who suddenly have a child placed in their care and then they will not hear from Child Youth and Family for months—months go by. This will often be a child with high needs. There is no respite there is no support there is no guidance there is no anticipation of what the long-term plan is—there is nothing. The Children's Commissioner identified it as a "dump and run" problem and the Minister's response has been to blame whānau. Well that was wrong—that was patently wrong.Our view is that a bill that does not contain a "whānau first" principle—as this bill does not—is a bill that fundamentally fails children. It fundamentally fails to understand what helps them to thrive in spite of trauma. It fundamentally misunderstands the importance of their cultural connection. It fundamentally misunderstands the trauma of removal from a family in the first place. We stated from the outset and we continue to state today that we cannot and will not support a bill that takes such a retrograde step right at the first mark right at the first test.I can tell you that when Labour is in office we will not preside over a Ministry for Vulnerable Children; we will preside over a ministry for children—Oranga Tamariki the ministry for children children's well-being. We will reinstate the "whānau first" principle. We will put children and family at the centre of that ministry. We will do everything in our power to have a ministry that focuses on supporting whānau so that children are never removed in the first place. That should be our ambition and goal: prevent the trauma prevent the harm and put that right at the beginning. That is why we will be opposing this bill."