Ardern Jacinda: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionArdern Jacinda: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14235. Text is subject to correction.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I moveThat the Care of Children Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. Adoption law in New Zealand was set in the 1950s. As you can imagine at that time the circumstances under which a biological parent sought to adopt out their child were often very different from what they are today. The law was predominantly based around the idea of stranger adoption—the notion that women often young women may need to adopt out their child quickly and in secret to avoid what was then perceived to be the shame of a child born out of wedlock with these young women often never seeing their child again. I want to put on record my acknowledgment of people in those situations who have shared their stories with me in light of this bill coming before the House.Children were given at that time entirely new birth certificates. A father’s permission was not needed prior to an adoption order and nor did the law stipulate that the best interests of the child were the primary consideration when considering the long-term legal relationship between a child and their future guardians. The law did not then and does not now cater for whāngai adoption. It has struggled to grapple with the complexity of intercountry adoption and it certainly is not up to date when it comes to surrogacy and new developments around assisted human reproduction.In short our law in New Zealand is antiquated at best and certainly not fit for purpose. It is time for that to change and I acknowledge all of those who have lobbied long and hard for that change to occur.The purpose of this bill is to carry out a complete overhaul of our adoption laws in New Zealand by making use of the work already carried out by the Law Commission over 10 years ago now. My bill will see the Law Commission update the work that it has already carried out and will turn it into legislation to be tabled in Parliament for debate. I acknowledge that this is an unusual approach but it is one that we on this side of the House have ultimately deemed to be necessary. Let me explain briefly why.The Law Commission’s report if anyone has seen it or indeed dared to read itAdoption and its Alternatives: A Different Approach and a New Framework which is what the report is titled is an almost 350-page report. The contents page goes on for pages and pages. It demonstrates the considerable work required to overhaul our adoption laws. Although the commission’s report led to the introduction of the Care ofChildren Act when Labour was in office this Act did not include adoption at that time. There are many reasons why this work was not completed not least the additional consultation that was required over the issue of whāngai adoption. My hope is that under this bill this large and important piece of work will continue but will be completed.It is also important to note that since the Law Commission’s first piece of work it has also published report No. 88New Issues in Legal Parenthood. Many of the issues that it addresses arise in the context of adoption and that is before we get into the additional issues around surrogacy. Again I have seen cases there particularly where you get the added complexity of international surrogacy and the issue of intercountry adoption as well. All of these are issues that need to be included in the Law Commission’s update but ultimately need to be taken into account in our legal framework. Currently they are not and that is leaving many families without any legal certainty and without any legal framework for providing a stable relationship for their child.I mention this because there are those who believe that modernisation of adoption simply requires the Adoption Act to be amended to modernise provisions that are inconsistent and out of date—for instance around just who can legally adopt children. But it requires much much more than that. Our adoption laws need to be fully integrated into the Care of Children Act which has children at the centre of all decision making. The concept of enduring guardianship best describes the modern open adoptions that have replaced the closed stranger adoptions that were the norm in the 1950s when our current and existing law was drafted.It makes sense that as Parliament we make use of the expertise of the Law Commission and the work that has already been done. Doing so would be an unusual practice though and I do acknowledge that. Embedding this process into a member’s bill is however a very very unique approach but as I have said given that this work is so overdue anything that can help us speed up reform in this area surely must be welcomed.Some have argued that adoption is nowadays so rarely used that reform is simply not necessary. It is true to say that last year there were fewer than 150 adoptions in New Zealand but I would argue that we simply do not know to what degree this is a result of the fact that we have a completely antiquated legal framework that is not fit for purpose. As I have mentioned it does not even cover whāngai adoption.In the past there has also been some debate over the effect this bill would have on the inconsistent and discriminatory approach as to who can and cannot adopt. In fact when this bill was first introduced unfortunately the debate was seen to be solely around that one question which although important—extremely important from an equality perspective—is only one part of the debate.I sought permission from the Business Committee because of this element of the debate to delay the first reading of my bill until after the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill so that there would be greater clarity around this point. It is with delight that I now come back to the House with that bill now passed and I am able to give greater certainty to that part of the bill. The passage of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act essentially means that same-sex couples who are married will be considered spouses under the Adoption Act and will be eligible to adopt. Ambiguity however remains—and this is where it gets a bit farcical—for civilunioned couples because there was an explicit reference during the debate around civil unions to exclude adoption for civilunioned couples. That leaves us with a situation where a married same-sex couple can adopt but a civilunioned same-sex couple cannot—where even now a de facto heterosexual couple can adopt but aheterosexual civilunioned couple cannot adopt. And then you get into the farcical nature of where our laws sit in this area and why they absolutely need to be fixed.But there is the wider question though that even just fixing up the inequality that exists in the law does not necessarily mean that couples will want to use it because of the way that it is currently shaped. Take for instance the situation of a same-sex couple with children. They may care for that child but they may have an ongoing role for instance with the biological mother in that child’s life. If however that couple wish to be recognised in legal terms in their relationship with the child and they seek an adoption order that would have the effect of severing the legal ties that child has with their other biological parent. That is simply not a track that many couples want to go down and this is why I believe that our adoption laws are not being fully used.It has been as I have said unfortunate that this debate has been narrowed solely to around who can and cannot adopt but I do want to address the issue though. I do believe that allowing access to adoption for all couples is a basic human right and that ultimately the decision that should be made by the courts is solely whether or not the best interests of a child are being served in that decision. I want to step away from any moral arguments because when you put the simple fact that there are 5000 children in New Zealand in State care who would not want the best interests of those children to be served by the most able and loving couple available to care for those children?I know there are concerns on procedural grounds around my bill. I would ask members in this House to put those aside to give this bill a chance to go to select committee.