Turei Metiria: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionTurei Metiria: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14240. Text is subject to correction.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party agrees with Jacinda Ardern that the Adoption Act 1955 is obsolete and not fit for purpose. Just as with the Marriage Act from that same year the values and culture of that era are preserved in that legislation and they fail the test of contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand. The Adoption Act deals with children as if they were the property of their biological parents and adoption as the transfer of that property to a new owner. Birth outside of marriage especially was seen as casting a shadow and disadvantage on both mother and child. Adoption was often seen as a means of providing a fresh start for both of them while also meeting the wishes of other couples to be able to raise children.As the bill before us the Care of Children Law Reform Bill correctly observes these arrangements are very much focused on the needs of the adults rather than those of the children. The Act also embeds other value judgments about the suitability or otherwise of particular parenting arrangements rather than treating each application on its merits and allowing the best arrangement for a particular child to be selected. We have certainly come across situations where adoption under the 1955 Act has seemed to work well but very often it has not and significant harm has resulted to parents and particularly to children. These issues and a number of others were well canvassed bythe Law Commission’s report from 2000. We believe that it was a shame that the commission’s recommendations relating to adoption were not implemented when the Care of Children Act was passed in 2004 as we believe that modern legislation is well overdue.The member Jacinda Ardern announced her intention to place this bill in the members’ ballot back in 2010. On that same day the Greens indicated that we did not support the approach that she proposed. We reiterated that position again when the bill was drawn from the ballot and as a result we will be voting against the bill today. Although we do not doubt the member’s sincerity—and we certainly are not as abusive as the opposite side was over this—in wishing to address the issue and we do commend her for doing so we believe that this approach to reform is not the right approach to take.First and foremost the Law Commission has already expressed its views and any changes in law or public opinion since that time that might alter those views are minor. The ball has now been in Parliament’s court for 13 years and it is our responsibility to take action. We believe that batting the issue back to the Law Commission is an abdication of the responsibility to act now. One of the reasons that this is important is that drafting a bill to give effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations requires political judgment calls to be made on many policy issues not just legal or technical ones. It is Parliament that has the mandate to do this not the Law Commission.Secondly this bill incorporates another form of abdication of responsibility to a future Parliament. A future Parliament cannot be bound of course—we know that well enough—by what we decide today so there is no greater likelihood that the process will advance the cause of adoption reform any further than the Law Commission’s 2000 report did. More to the point although it is inevitable that issues first raised by a particular Parliament will not be completed until a future one some time this bill would effectively defer any action to a future Parliament. We need to take action now.Thirdly the Law Commission already has a busy programme and even under the very best of circumstances this bill will not result in an actual bill on adoption for us to debate for at least another 2 to 3 years. In other words this bill delays law reform further. There is no reason why a bill cannot be drafted now and indeed one already has been saving us those years.Back when the member first announced this bill colleagues from Labour and National had joined Green members in a cross-party approach addressing adoption reform. We still believe that this is the best way of pursuing the change and indeed have continued to work with National and other parties in the House and with community organisations to develop a bill. Today the bill that was developed in this collaborative way sits in the ballot under the name of Kevin Hague. We would certainly welcome the Government’s intention if it chose to adopt it as a Government bill and invite the current Minister of Justice or the next one to pick up that bill and advance it as a Government measure.We need to take action. We can take action. We have legislation that is available to the House. We have cross-party agreement that action is necessary and can be taken now. There is no justification for any further delay. Thank you.