Ngaro Alfred: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14247. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker.Meitakimaata. I stand to take a call on the Care of Children Law Reform Bill. The previous speaker Rajen Prasad has been talking to us tonight about his concern about the way that the Government—and not only him but also other members the Greens have noted that it is not only about the baby that has been thrown out; it is about the bathwater. It is about the process. Although I do know that Ms Ardern has a true intent and would like to see legislation that does address this issue around adoption I think it is fair to say that it is the process we object to—hence the reason why as a Government we will oppose this bill.The purpose of this bill indicates that it is to facilitate an evidence-based modernisation of the law relating to the care of children in New Zealand. We would agree with that but I think what is quite clear is that the bill again is requiring the Minister responsible for the Law Commission to ask the Law Commission to review the law relating to the care of children. In a sense it is creating a bill to get the Law Commission to write a bill. I think that is where the concern has come from.Mr Prasad talked about the fact that the Government has not talked about the things that it is doing. In fact I think that my colleague here—my learned colleague Paul Foster-Bell—actually talked about those things. He talked about those things. He talked about things that are important such as the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that is in place around family disputes resolution and refocusing on the Family Court. He also talked about the Crimes Amendment Act that is there and again more work that the Government is doing in this area. There is the Vulnerable Children Bill which is quite conclusive in its role and also the Children’s Action Plan.This Government has been and is looking at the care of children—very much so. But in relation to this bill there are three key reasons why we oppose it. First of all the bill requires the Minister responsible for the Law Commission to ask the Law Commission to review the law relating to the care of children and update its September 2000 report on adoption. We know that the Law Commission produced a report around adoption and its alternatives. But in actual fact—and it is clear—it said firmly that all decision making around the care of children is to be based on the principle that the interests of the child must be regarded as the paramount consideration when making decisions affecting the child’s health and the child’s welfare.However adoption was left out of the Care of Children Act 2004. In a sense this is the response that is coming from Ms Ardern as well. Therefore this bill requires the Law Commission to update this. In our view this is a complete contradiction to thework already being undertaken by the Government on the care of children by way of the Family Court and also the Ministry of Social Development reforms.The other thing that we are also concerned about is that the bill requires the Law Commission within 12 months to report recommendations and draft legislation. This does concern us because again this legislation has only nine clauses. So the bill in itself is incomplete. We feel that it is incapable of addressing some of the concerns that even Ms Arden has put up as well.The last thing is that the bill requires the Minister of Justice to introduce legislation as drafted by the Law Commission without amendment and within 7 days—within 7 days. Again this is the reason why so many of us oppose this. The reality is that if this law were to be introduced it would take at least 4 years. So let us take this. After its introduction it would probably be 3 months before its referral to a select committee—around about 6 months just in the traditional process. The second and third readings would be around about 3 months. The Law Commission report would be around about 12 months. The Government bill then in its first reading schedule would be up to another 12 months the select committee another 6 months and second and third readings would be 3 months. In total we are probably talking about 4 years before legislation was introduced.That is a very good reason why the majority of the House—not just the Government—is opposed to this bill. I would have to say that we are not opposed to the intent of the member because I have observed that the intent of the member has always been the right intent. What we are opposed to is its process. I know that this member can do better and does do better. But in this instance I would have to say as is the majority of opinion in the House tonight this is not appropriate. This is not a bill that we feel will address that issue. So quite clearly we oppose the bill.