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:14248. Text is subject to correction.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I thank members for their contributions to this debate—with the exception of Tau Henare. I think it is a low point in this House to be called lazy by Tau Henare. That is definitely going down in my book.I think the ultimate frustration for me in this debate has been that there is an acceptance across this House that our adoption laws need to be updated. That did not seem to be something that was disputed in this debate. No one seemed to argue that point. So there is agreement generally that our adoption laws need to be updated yet still nothing has come before this House in the way of reform in this area.The last time that I approached a Minister in the National Government and asked about it I offered to them and said: “Look we are looking to progress this piece of work. We want to get it right. Ultimately we would prefer it if the Government did it. You are better placed to do something of this complexity because members’ bills are drafted by members not using the expertise of parliamentary counsel and drafters.” We went to the Government. We asked it to pursue this. I had a meeting with the Minister. His response was this: “It is not a priority for this Government.” So I find it absolutely offensive to have members on that side of the House abuse Labour members for trying to pursue this issue and for trying to claim that we do not care about it when that Government has refused to further this any more than it has in the last 5 years which has been absolutely nothing.I want to refer to some of the comments that were made by the likes of people like Scott Simpson who claimed that this bill the Care of Children Law Reform Bill was a blank piece of paper. This bill essentially enacts 350 pages of work. So my question is this—because it was not only Scott Simpson who made that claim; it was Tau Henare as well and Tau did not even mention adoption I should add—how many of the members across that side of the House have read the Law Commission’s reportAdoption and Its Alternatives? Who has read it? Who has read it? No wonder they do not understandwhat this bill does. This bill is essentially saying that we agree with the 350 pages of policy work that has already been done. We agree to the point that it is about time that it was progressed by this debating chamber.If members on that side of the House like to claim that adoption is a cross-party issue that we all agree on why would they have any objection to adopting the work of the Law Commission? So for members on that side of the House to claim that there was nothing in this bill and for that side of the House to claim it was a blank piece of paper all that proves to me is that they know nothing—know nothing—about the history of the work that has gone on in this area and that they would rather sit back and say: “It’s not a priority.” than use a mechanism to fast track a piece of work that is well overdue. So quite frankly I found that offensive to say the least. Let us be honest—let us be honest. If we had translated the Law Commission’s 350 pages of work including its recommendations which essentially is a bill—if we had presented that to the House I can bet your bottom dollar that the first thing members on that side of the House would have said is: “There is an error in paragraphs 4 5 12 10 and 18. We cannot agree with this piece of legislation.” I can guarantee they would not have supported it to go further to a select committee.And what am I basing that argument on? Well there is another bill currently on adoption reform—there is. It is in the ballot right now. It is sitting there wasting away taking a gamble to be drawn and members on that side of the House had the audacity to say: “Well why don’t we use that instead?”. Well why do they not? If this Government genuinely believes in adoption reform and the paramountcy principle in putting children first I challenge it to adopt Kevin Hague’s bill tomorrow as a Government bill and progress this work; otherwise everything that Government members have said in this House tonight is utterly hollow if they are unwilling to do that.Ultimately the people losing out as the result of Parliament being unwilling to progress this work that everyone agrees needs to be done—ultimately the losers are not me who was ritualistically abused by some members of the House tonight. It is not me; it is those families who desperately want a law change in this area. I challenge the Government members to respond to the kinds of emails I got through this debate and tell them that this work is not a priority. I challenge them to adopt that member’s bill that is in the ballot if this one is not to their liking. Or I challenge them to present a bill of their own before the next election when we finally get the chance to do the work ourselves.