Moroney Sue: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionMoroney Sue: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14239. Text is subject to correction.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): Talking about a light piece of work the member who has just resumed his seat Scott Simpson could well apply that definition to himself instead of using it in this House against other members. He is indeed a light piece of work. I am normally really reluctant to attack members opposite using pieces of legislation that are here to assist and support children but that speech I am afraid deserves a firm response. If that member his Government and his colleagues firmly believe that Kevin Hague’s bill is what they want to pursue make it a Government piece of work. Put it on the Government orders of the day Mr Simpson. Will he do that? No because he is a light piece of work. And he is the chairperson of a select committee that I am informed by my colleagues has very little work in front of it. Talking about lazy and sloppy he is the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee which I am reliably informed has very little work in front of it.That is the mark of a lazy Government. There are many many things that should be getting addressed in the justice and electoral field but is this Government doing any of it? No.Hon Member: What has this got to do with the lazy member’s bill?SUE MORONEY: It has got to do with that member’s very vitriolic speech when he should have been talking about an issue that actually affects families and children in this country. So having put that on the record now I will move to debate the actual Care of Children Law Reform Bill. This bill is about actually updating the abortion laws and even the member the light piece of work opposite—Hon Members: The abortion laws?SUE MORONEY: Adoption—the adoption laws. Even the member opposite said that this was a piece of work that needed to be done by the Government. Even the member opposite said that and then he said that the Government would not support this bill.Hon Member: It’s on the work programme.SUE MORONEY: Oh it is on the work programme. How often have we heard that? We are going to hear that a bit later tonight by the way—“It’s on the work programme.” It has not been tabled and there is no work in front of the Justice and Electoral Committee but “It’s on the work programme.” Well this is on the debating floor of the Chamber right now and Scott Simpson could move to actually have it put before the select committee and that Government should do it.The member opposite Scott Simpson was criticising the Law Commission and its work. He criticised it and said that the Government should never be put in the position where it has to introduce a law that has been prepared by the Law Commission. Well this is not the first time we have heard that from this Government because it would not do it with alcohol law reform either. The Government took the Law Commission’s work on alcohol law reform and gutted it—the Government absolutely gutted it. So it is no wonder that my colleague Jacinda Ardern wants the Law Commission to do the work on this complex piece of legislation and she wants the Government to introduce it without amendment for its first reading. Without amendment at its first reading means that in the select committee process if there were issues to be addressed then that is the very time at which those issues could be addressed.Adoption law as Jacinda Ardern said is something that does need updating. It seems to be that we have agreement across the House on that. Here we have a piece of legislation that will actually begin that process but it will do it in such a way that a comprehensive body like the Law Commission actually can draft this because it is complex. It involves whāngai adoption surrogacy issues and intercountry adoption—a whole range of issues around who can and who should be able to adopt children and to fix up the irregularities.That is not a piece of work to be done lightly. It is a piece of work that an organisation like the Law Commission should be involved in and if the Government opposite was prepared to actually engage with the work of the Law Commission in a way that it was not prepared to engage with it on alcohol law reform then we would have a very good start to this complex issue.