Ardern Jacinda: Child and Family Protection Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Child and Family Protection Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13865] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and speak to the Child and Family Protection Bill as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered the bill. I will say up front that Labour will support the bill as we support any measures that are aimed at preventing and mitigating the harm done by domestic violence. 
It is fair that I also state up front that we continue to urge the Government to take up some of the other opportunities in respect of existing legislation in this incredibly important area. At this stage I do not believe we have had an adequate response from the Government as to why it is unwilling to progress some of the legislation on the Order Paper. I will briefly highlight some of those bills. The Domestic Violence Reform Bill has not yet been progressed. When the Minister of Justice appeared before the select committee we asked him why that bill has not been progressed. He stated that there are insufficient resources within the Ministry of Justice to pursue that particular bill. In fact he gave that same reason for why provisions in legislation relating to the Family Court which has already been passed by this House under Labour have not yet been enacted. That legislation would give the Family Court the power to use registrars as mediators in order to reduce the caseload in the Family Court. Again I would have thought that particular scenario would ultimately save time and money for the ministry so I do not understand why the Government has not progressed that legislation. 
I am also concerned that the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) is still languishing on the Order Paper but I might come back to that one because it bears some relevance to this legislation. 
I will talk briefly about some of the differences between the Child and Family Protection Bill and the Domestic Violence Act because they demonstrate where there are still some obvious differences between where Labour and National would like to see us go. The Child and Family Protection Bill omits five important clauses that were included in the original legislation. One clause related to the definition of the age of a young person within domestic violence legislation which is set out under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In this bill a child is anyone under the age of 17. Labour has continued to push for that age to be lifted to 18 in line with our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That definition applies not just to domestic violence legislation but also to matters before the Youth Court. We continue to push for that age to be lifted and we may see some amendments in that regard. 
The Child and Family Protection Bill does not provide the court with the power to direct respondents to an addiction treatment programme. That provision may have been more fitting in respect of domestic violence legislation that we dealt with earlier in the year but the issue was not addressed then so I wish to raise it now as it is the Opposition’s prerogative to do so. 
Labour’s original domestic violence legislation introduced a provision requiring any judge who declined a without notice application for a protection order to at least provide a written reason for declining that application and that would enable the applicant to decide whether to proceed on notice. I am interested to hear why the Government continues to cite resourcing as the reason for not pursuing that provision when the work has already been done—the bill exists. 
Labour has also proposed to make provision for applicants to be able to attend information sessions that would provide advice on making effective use of protection orders and any social assistance that may be available. This issue is raised almost every time that we deal with domestic violence legislation. It was raised with regard to police safety orders. There is ongoing concern from the National Council of Women and Women’s Refuge that when we use tools of the law we need to provide women with adequate information and support to navigate their way through the criminal justice system because they undertake an incredibly difficult process to pursue forms of protection. Unfortunately I have heard reports in Auckland in particular that with regard to police safety orders wraparound services are not being provided. Women fear taking out police safety orders because they are temporary. That concern was always discussed by the select committee but our view was that we could mitigate that factor if women were provided with support to pursue a longer-term protection order during the 5 days that they were covered by the police safety order. Unfortunately it seems anecdotally that that is not happening and perhaps we as members of this House should be investigating that in our electorates. 
As the Minister has pointed out we are dealing with an incredibly large number of incidents through legislation like this. In 2008 police responded to over 82000 incidents of domestic violence. Although I express my reservation that the Government is not going far enough with bills that have already been drafted I am still pleased that we have this bill before us at this time. 
I thought that it might be useful to talk in a little more detail about one of the clauses that has caused some disagreement between Government members and Opposition members. In some ways this provision is not the most significant part of the bill but it happens to be the provision on which there were divergent views. Clause 6 extends the protection of children under the Domestic Violence Act amending section 16 of the Act to clarify how protection orders work for an applicant’s child who is under the age of 17.  
The bill in its original form covered a child up until only the age of 17 not 18 and then the order immediately expired regardless of where that child resided. Even if the child was still living at home under the care of the individual who took out the protection order the protection order would expire because of the child’s age. 
The committee decided that it would be useful to ensure that the protection order goes beyond that age if the child ordinarily or periodically continues to reside with the applicant. I think that was a good decision. However Labour and I believe the Greens advocated that the provision go further. It was our view that if a child who ordinarily is covered by a protection order chooses to leave home and live independently in many ways that child becomes more vulnerable not less vulnerable. We agreed with a number of submitters who suggested that protection orders should continue to apply to a young person after he or she turned 17 whether or not he or she resides with the applicant. We also agreed that protection should be maintained until the young person decides that a protection order is no longer required. Opting out of a protection order is much simpler and much less bureaucratic than having a young person pursue a protection order in his or her own right. We will be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper on that matter. We will also be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper proposing that this provision should apply to children up to the age of 18 years not just 17 years in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
I want to very briefly mention the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) which was introduced in December 2007. It goes to the heart of some of the issues of the care and protection of children. It is timely because today the Children’s Commissioner released a report of an interview of over 5200 children who are in the care of Child Youth and Family Services. The report highlights the inadequacies in the way that we deal with children in foster care. I acknowledge the work that the Minister has done in terms of continuity for children but more work can be done if we progress the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) which addresses several of the recommendations made by the Children’s Commissioner especially around the transition into independent living. I have seen damning cases where 17-year-olds have come out foster care and have moved into prostitution or have committed suicide because they have no longer had any support from anyone. Their biological families are not in their lives their foster parents no longer have any obligation to them nor does Child Youth and Family Services and they have simply dropped out of the system to their detriment. 
The issue of children’s participation in planning and decision making which is a recommendation from the Children’s Commissioner is also in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6). If this Government is serious about children and young people who are in the care of Child Youth and Family Services it would do well to bring that bill before the House so that we can incorporate those further recommendations.