Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I want to make a couple of points—probably three actually—in my contribution to the debate on the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Advocacy Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. The first thing I want to do is congratulate the Minister for Social Development. Raising the age of kids in care is a really positive move and I want to congratulate her on that. She knows that Labour has pushed for that change for a very long time. It is something that we passionately believe in. It will be good. I think most of the submitters—in fact all of the submitters perhaps with a couple of exceptions—supported that change. The fact that the Minister has indicated that there are further steps to take in supporting a better transition from being in care to being out of care is a really welcome move.In fact we had a bill before the House in 2008 that had exactly this provision and then we lost the election and the incoming National Government dumped that bill. I am really sort of puzzled as to why it did that and it is now introducing the very provision that we could have had in place all those years ago—8 years ago. But I guess we have wasted only 8 years and now the Minister has clearly been able to win the argument within her own Cabinet and caucus and has managed to reintroduce the measure that was dumped so long ago. I remember the petition from Lifewise and the Dingwall Trust to do this very thing and I just want to acknowledge the passionate work of those people and many others who signed the petition and have been part of an ongoing campaign over many years to introduce this policy change. I also acknowledge the former Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft. He is the Children's Commissioner now and his has long been a voice for this change and others.I want to acknowledge the sad contribution that Jono Naylor made. I thought Jono Naylor had more experience in this area and would have been able to make a more thoughtful and considered contribution but I was disappointed with it. The idea that currently organisations like the Open Home Foundation and Barnardos can perform core statutory roles that are in the law to be performed only by Child Youth and Family is just wrong. It is incorrect and I saw the Minister nodding. I thought she should know better. She should know better than to agree with the nonsense that that member said—that the issue that is causing such concern for so many people which is included in this bill is currently able to be done. What a nonsense. Why would we be changing the law to allow it if it is currently being done? Jono Naylor said that the Open Home Foundation and Barnardos are breaking the law around the country currently and the Minister nodded her head.Jono Naylor: No I didn't. You should've listened Ruth.Hon RUTH DYSON: There are some provisions—I did listen. It was hard work but I did. The idea that any role can be performed by any organisation is just without moral in my view. There are some actions that should have the accountability of a Minister and the accountability of a department and the accountability to Parliament. In my view the removal of a child from their family is one such provision. We should not say that it should be done by any organisation without any professional qualifications mandated at the discretion of a chief executive who has very limited accountability to Parliament and has accountability only really to the State Services Commission. I think it is wrong.I agree with the differential response model. I think it is a really good programme because it shows that there are lots of organisations that can provide high-quality support to children in our communities who need that support but the differential response model never went as far as saying that the removal of a child is not the responsibility of a State. I want to invite the Minister to consider over the dinner break one single point: the Minister would be celebrated around the country if she persisted with the raising of the age in care. Everyone would celebrate that move and there would not be a negative word against this Draconian provision this regressive provision of saying that a child can be removed from their family by somebody other than a Government department—a statutory responsibility that we would give to a Government department.I think it would be a great thing on an issue that is as important as the welfare the well-being the care and support of children who need intervention in their lives to have a good outcome. We can debate about a whole lot of the other provisions that other colleagues have mentioned tonight but I think it would be a great outcome for Parliament in a week when we have shown that with natural disasters we can present a unified response because we are more mature than the way that we often behave in this Parliament. We can rise to the occasion. I think it would be a great move for the Minister to rise to that occasion to put aside that section of the legislation that gives other than a statutory responsibility to a Government department an intervention in a family without any accountability to this Parliament. That is a step too far and it has caused Labour to say that because of that step we are unable to support this bill—a bill that has got the raising of the age of children in care which we have campaigned for for so long.It is a mistake. We would love to support this bill Minister—and we do not often say that about National bills. We truly do not. We say it when it is true though and in this case it is true. With the removal of that one provision this could send a really strong message to families in need to Child Youth and Family as an agency and to the non-Government organisations—the community and voluntary sector—which do so much good in our society. We could say to them: Parliament as a whole listened to you."We think there are some issues that would be a step too far in this bill and allowing the chief executive at his discretion entirely to delegate any of the core roles of Child Youth and Family to another organisation or individual—there is not even a qualification put in the legislation. They do not even have to be of any particular age let alone have a qualification. That is wrong. I think the Minister has been advised incorrectly on this issue. I think she needs to have reflection time between 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. and come back and say that the Government will reconsider it in the next piece of legislation which she has said is coming down the track. That would give her time to perhaps listen to the genuine concerns.There is not a single member in this House in my view who does not want better outcomes for children who have been in care who are in care or who will be in care in the future. We all know that we have done badly in this regard and I know that the Minister wants to spend her time in this House making a positive difference. That is a good thing for a Minister to want. I am delighted that she has done that in so much of this legislation.I think the Social Services Committee has done a jolly fine job. I wish I had been able to sit on it. It has got some competent members on it and it has clearly worked hard on this bill.Just one change Minister: take that clause out. It is a step too far it is regressive and it is dangerous. We should not do it. If the Minister does not reflect well and change her mind I will be very sad if we have to vote against this bill.I was the Minister who introduced the 2008 legislation to raise the age. I was really annoyed that National came in and dumped it. There was no good reason. It just decided it was Labour legislation so it would get rid of it. I think the current Minister is better than that and can show that by listening to the concerns we have about giving away core statutory responsibilities in terms of care and protection to unnamed and not even known organisations that do not even have to have a profession identified.The Minister might have confidence in her chief executive and I think that is a very good thing. That is not the point. It is a step too far to opt out of the current statutory responsibilities. Jono Naylor was wrong—we do not do it currently. Barnardos is not acting illegally. The Open Home Foundation is not acting illegally. They cannot do it they are not allowed to do it they do not want to do it and for very good reason. We should have the accountability of the department and the Minister to this Parliament for something as critical and important as removing a child from their own family. Thank you."