Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): I want to speak briefly in response to some of the comments that the Minister in the chair Anne Tolley made around changes to clause 13 and the whānau first" principle. The member Darroch Ball is absolutely right. If we are wrong then almost every single submitter to our Social Services Committee misunderstood the Minister's intention with this legislation. So I want clarity on that.Beforehand though I want to begin by acknowledging the incredibly important role that the Youth Advisory Group that worked alongside the Minister—the contribution it has made to this legislation. There are elements of this bill that the Labour Party wholeheartedly supports that we wish we could vote in totality in favour of if other elements of this bill were not letting it down. But those parts are so important—things like extending the age of care and protection things like putting the child's voice at the centre of decision making and things like the establishment of VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai which should be well supported by every member of this House. Elements of this legislation I have to acknowledge and we acknowledge are a vast improvement. I would not want our opposition to other clauses to diminish that so I want to state that and thank the group for the incredible work that they have done and will continue to do.But we do have to have clarity on some of the really important principles that are set out in the beginning of this legislation because they will fundamentally change the way that we work on the ground with families in particular. The Minister claimed that the "whānau first" principle had not been removed. Why then in the departmental report does it acknowledge the many submissions that talked about the removal of the "whānau first" principle? It even quotes the Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley submission which states: "the bill removes the section 5 'whānau first principle' that requires consideration to be given to how a decision will affect the stability of a child or young person's whānau hapū or iwi." and of course indeed the degree to which priority is placed on placement with them. There is no dispute about that being the position of many submitters in the departmental report.The Law Society in its submission reading from paragraph 108 stated: "New section 13(2) removes reference to some principles from the existing legislation that are protective of Māori children. These include the principle that provided children and young people can be kept safe from serious harm priority should be given to family whānau hapū iwi and family group as caregivers and that only as a last resort (when children cannot be kept safe by family whānau whānau hapū iwi and family group) should other non-kin placements be considered". The Law Society noted the removal of that principle. Was it wrong too Minister?The Children's Commissioner in his submission at paragraph 14 stated: "There are many positive additions in the Bill that affirm the role of whānau hapū and iwi. For example the new section 5(d) makes it clear that decisions about tamariki and rangatahi Māori must recognise the whakapapa and whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau hapū and iwi … These new elements while referenced at the start of section 13 do not clearly and adequately offset the removal of the priority for kinship care placements as described in the Act … In my view the Bill as currently drafted could lead to whānau hapū and iwi being excluded from decisions about where to place a child who has been removed from their usual caregivers."The Law Society the Children's Commissioner the Labour Party the Green Party—almost every single submitter recognised the removal of the "whānau first" principle.Hon Member: And the Māori Party.JACINDA ARDERN: And the Māori Party—all of us. Minister are you stating that we are all wrong? Every single one of us is apparently wrong. If we are I would welcome that. I would welcome being wrong if we have missed something. I would welcome you standing on your feet and telling me how this bill keeps that priority. Because Minister what we would have liked to see is this: a simple set of principles and purposes that say the primary things we must consider if a child has to be removed—has to be removed—and we have done everything we can to prevent that. First is their safety—their safety. Second is their rights and their views—what they want for their life what they want for their future and where they want to be. Third is whānau placement. If we can do it under those circumstances it is what the young person wants and it can be done safely—whānau placement. Why is that not set out in the legislation? Why is that not what we codified? Why was that removed?And finally Minister no one in this House will disagree with the concept of loving and stable homes. But this is the law we are talking about."