Adoption Amendment Bill

I move, That the Adoption Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

At its core, this bill is about preventing the risk of significant harm to children and young people. While most children and young people adopted overseas and brought to New Zealand are adopted by loving families, some are subjected to neglect, abuse, or exploitation by those who should be caring for them. That our adoption legislation can be used in this way is unacceptable, and I cannot allow it to continue.

As I’ve noted, the bill amends the Adoption Act to immediately suspend recognition of unsafe overseas adoptions for citizenship and immigration purposes. This will prevent further harm while we develop a permanent solution to the problem. I’m pleased to inform the House that officials are already working on a permanent legislative solution. This temporary suspension will provide the time they need to ensure that this solution is thoroughly considered and that there is time for consultation and scrutiny.

I want to thank my ministerial colleagues for their support and engagement on this issue, with particular thanks to the Ministers of Immigration, Internal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and for Children, all of whom have been generous with their input. I also want to thank members for their time and focus during the early stages of this bill and for the keen debate during the committee of the whole House. I know urgency isn’t always welcome, but in this case it is entirely necessary. I thank members from all parties for working together to prevent the risk of future harm to children and young people. I particularly want to thank MPs from around the House who have spoken in support of this bill.

Before I close, I want to thank officials from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Department of Internal Affairs, Oranga Tamariki, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their collaborative approach to this work. I also want to acknowledge the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work on the bill.

All children and young people deserve to grow up in a safe and loving family environment. This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to the safety of children and young people in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana and kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā.

We do support this bill, but I do want to just record a few reservations. First of all, in terms of process, I can understand why this bill’s been done under urgency. It’s one of those rare occasions where if you were to take a normal process with a select committee, there would be a rush for the court and the very evil that you were trying to avoid would be compounded. Having said that, having looked at the bill and understood as best I can in a short time the work that has been done to consult on it, I think more could have been done. It doesn’t appear the Children’s Commissioner was consulted. It doesn’t appear that communities were engaged, even without the detail of the bill being discussed, but in terms of how adoption works.

I do think that this is a blunt tool, and I know the Minister is working on a more permanent fix and this is a temporary fix, but I just want to recognise really that this will cause worse outcomes. It will protect a number of children and young people from genuine harm—I accept that, and I commend the Minister for that—but it will also lead to worse outcomes for other families who have been using this adoption process for entirely legitimate reasons and they’re now going to be shut out. So as a Government, you’ve chosen that path, and I’m not sure we support the overall intention. I’m not sure we’d have done it that way. I want to recognise that.

I do think that the workability of this bill, at least in terms of New Zealand adoptions, sits on the fulcrum of exceptional circumstances. It is my view that when the courts come to ask themselves whether there are exceptional circumstances, they should do that against the background of New Zealand law and our international obligations. New Zealand law and international child and human rights make it clear that the centrepiece is the interests of the child. I can understand why, in committee stage, the Minister didn’t rise to my bait, so to speak, of whether this case or that case was exceptional, but I think that the courts need to recognise that a case in which a child is worse off by an adoption order in New Zealand not being made is an exceptional thing. That if we can save a child from harm in another country or if we can put them in a family setting where their culture is recognised and they can be best nurtured, that is a good thing. To not make an adoption order in those circumstances should only be done where it must, and so I think we need to look very carefully at that.

The list in Schedule 1AAB is the other part of this legislation that really does the work. The Minister has to be careful with her words because this has international impact. There are countries which are not on that list, which we would perhaps expect to be on that list. Now, Tonga’s on that list, and we’re assured by the Minister that she is satisfied that the adoption procedures in Tonga are such that they can be relied upon. Yet there are other countries, other countries with very good rule of law, very good legal system—Singapore’s a good example, which has an Anglo-American style legal system; Japan has a civil legal system, but again, very robust, but not on that list. Now, it may be that there are international relations reasons for that and the Minister didn’t feel able to disclose those.

Certainly, in the Attorney-General’s report there are redactions there which were on grounds that you don’t see that often, which are based on protecting relationships with foreign countries and New Zealand defence and security. So I can accept that, but I do think we need to be very careful and that we should be absolutely open, Minister, if I may say, to adding to that list where we can reach a conclusion that those countries do have robust adoption systems which would be consistent with looking after children and putting them in the best family setting that we possibly can.

We do look at this bill and it is a little bit regrettable that we saw this bill in its final form because the kind of things that were raised in good faith at committee stage—but look, I’ll admit my amendments were cobbled together this afternoon because that’s when I saw the bill. Had we had, you know, either me as justice spokesperson or another of our members as an appropriate spokesperson, perhaps for children, engaged on it, that testing of ideas that happens here in this House and in select committee might at least have been mimicked in some kind of exchange. I accept that it requires a degree of trust, but I must say, I think that we can engage in those kinds of conversations. It’s perhaps a little disappointing that we didn’t.

This bill, you know—I don’t want to criticise drafting too much but—this bill is complex. It’s actually quite hard to follow the interplay between the Schedule 1AAB, the Hague convention countries. Thank you to the Minister for providing the flow chart, but I’m always a little—with respect to your officials who’ve been clearly working very hard—suspicious of materials provided by officials, which is kind of a shortcut to the legislation itself, because it’s not always actually accurate, and I’ve seen that myself. So we do need to be cautious and not take the flow chart as the final word. I do have some suspicion that once we throw this to the lawyers, and lawyers will be involved in this no doubt, that they will be looking at it and finding some inconsistencies, because even for myself, I still can’t quite reconcile all of the provisions of the bill and the interplay between overseas adoptions, Hague convention adoptions, and the provisions here in the way they’re amended. So it is yet to be seen exactly if this bill falls as it is intended.

In closing, I do want to say this: the adoptions that have led to this legislation are heinous. The suggestion that we should in any way tolerate adoptions which are intentionally exploitative of children and young people is to be abhorred. We absolutely oppose those, so I commend the Minister for taking action on it. We need to take every step in New Zealand, including in some senses reaching overseas where we can, and this is what this bill does in terms of reaching to non-recognition of overseas adoptions to stop those exploitative practices is entirely appropriate. I do think that when we come to this, and when we come to look at the further legislation that the Minister has prefaced, we must put children at the centre of the discussion. The only question is: what is in the best interests of the child? From that starting point we can answer the question of how we weed out adoptions which are illegitimate, in bad faith, and exploitative.

At the same time, we need to promote relationships and adoptions that enhance the welfare of children and that’s what this doesn’t do. It stops exploitative adoptions, but it doesn’t actually promote and allow those adoptions that do promote the interest of the child. So there is work to be done. I know the Minister said that the Children’s Commissioner was supportive of this legislation and I’m glad about that. That’s a good thing. But I’m sure the Children’s Commissioner will have much to say about how we can address this in a way that is both culturally sensitive and child-centric. So I look forward to this legislation being replaced with something that’s even better.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party support this bill in its third reading. I really appreciate the Minister for her engagement throughout the committee stage in clarifying a lot of the questions we had posed to the Minister during the first and second readings.

I think it is important to sum up some of the clarifications that have been provided as a part of that process, understanding that this bill came to the House under urgency in order to address a loophole in our current system that has seen harm and suffering of our tamariki as a result of the system that we have created. That is an important loophole for us to address.

But just going to some of the clarifications around the committee stage: in terms of the question that has been posed as a part of a lot of our contributions in the second reading which was around the countries that were included as a part of this, particularly around what is considered countries that have signed up to the Hague convention and countries where some of the Hague convention adoption works, and some of our collaborations and agreements within that convention. I think the Minister has explained, in terms of the reasons, why some of the countries were excluded, that may be a part of the Hague convention, due to conversations and reports of potentially problematic adoptions or concerns that have been addressed about those specific countries, so they have been left out. At the same time, there are countries—I think Tonga was the example that was given by the Minister of a country that isn’t part of the convention—that has been included as a part of this.

The big question that we’ve had during the second reading, and I think is something that was discussed at length in the committee stage, was around some of the other countries, Samoa being a really good example of that, where the Minister has assured us of the ongoing conversations and work that has been done with those jurisdictions to ensure that the adoption process is robust on both ends, to be included as a part of the list in the future. Because, again, in terms of the exemptions and the countries that are exempted under Schedule 1AAB, those countries can be added on, or hopefully not removed—but countries can definitely be added on by Order in Council.

The other key area I want to sort of draw attention to is something that we did discuss a fair bit around the definition of the terminology. I think particularly when we’re looking at the definition specifically around “habitually resident” and “ordinarily resident” as well as “national”. We are quite comfortable with the Minister’s rationale and explanation for a lot of these terminologies. I think particularly, when we’re looking at the definition of overseas adoption, I really appreciate the honesty of the Minister when it comes to that these are the terminologies that are being drawn from the existing legislation. There is bigger work—there’s more work to be done in this area, but for the interim measures, those terminologies and definitions are taken from existing legislation. So, again, really grateful for that engagement with the Minister.

The next thing that I think is worth mentioning, in terms of the conversations, is around clause 7, “Section 17 replaced”, particularly around some of the changes to the Citizenship Act 1977 and the Immigration Act 2009. I think those kinds of things, in tangent with, I believe, Schedule 1AA, do provide some clarification in terms of between the first commencement date and second commencement date. If the application is done before then, the application is done during this period and if the application is being processed after the second commencement date, i.e., as part of that bigger work that’s going to be done. Schedule 1AA does lay it out really nicely; however, I guess the encouragement now is—I understand there’s the flow chart that the Minister has helpfully provided for us, but how would that be communicated to the various communities in a culturally and linguistically appropriate way, to ensure that those communities actually understand some of those differences, in terms of the settings, between what is in the first commencement date and what is going to be in the second commencement date?

I think particularly that period in between those two commencement dates, where the ability for a child to have citizenship by dissent is being removed regardless of the commencement date. But the child having access to a particular type of visa and what potentially immigration pathways there are, going forward, that is something that we just have to wait and see how that’s developed. I think that is something—definitely if we’re going to be looking at a bigger piece of work—to consider and flesh out.

Now, there are definitely, in terms of the process, things that I would like to address and potentially recommendations as well. Noting that this bill has been presented to us in urgency, I mentioned in the committee stage that even though the consistency report with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) was presented after the first reading, we, nevertheless, had a copy of it by the time we went to second reading, which, again, was something that we didn’t get to see when we were looking at the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill—that was a secret bill a few months ago. For that, I am impressed by the fact that we’re able to have something that’s available for this House and for the public reasonably quickly, considering the bill was only introduced at 3 p.m. this afternoon.

One of the things that is interesting within that—and I understand in terms of the magnitude and potentially legal implication—are the sections that were redacted as a part of that BORA report. Also, I think, you know, if we’re looking at—I mentioned it’s a great idea for us to be able to have access to the BORA report upfront and particularly during the committee stage. What we haven’t seen, particularly in the magnitude of a bill that is introduced under urgency that we’re seeing for the first time, are the other reports and assessments that have been done as well. In the future, if we do see a situation like this, that is an urgent bill and is unavoidable, I would really like to see a regulatory impact statement that comes along with this, and I would also like to see, when a bill affects the rights of the child, a child impact statement as well. I think that would just give the House more scope and better ability to be able to understand the full extent and the ramifications of this bill, if we have access to those documents.

I guess the other thing is that I would also like to commend the Minister on the transparency that has been provided as a part of this bill. I think the fact that we saw in the committee stage that the Minister was really open and honest about her contribution and responded to our questions diligently. Again, I want to thank the Minister for that and also for being able to proactively provide us this information, such as the flow chart, that will be available on the website tomorrow. I do appreciate the openness and transparency of the process.

The last couple of things, in terms of recommendations, in terms of the process, are—I did mention that this is something that has been alerted and the Government has commented on it back in May. If something like this does happen, where we are expecting to see something coming to the House under urgency, it would be really good to know that more consultations have been done with the relevant stakeholders—Mana Mokopuna being one of the examples that has been provided by the previous speaker, but also affected communities and ministries that are potentially being affected by this. I know there are a number of Ministers that have been named in the bill as ones that will be consulted as part of the broader project. It would be really nice to see them being consulted earlier on.

Finally, while we are putting this system in place—an interim thing in place—that will, hopefully, stop any future or further abusive or exploitative cases happening, we must always remember how we’re monitoring existing cases as well. I’m really looking forward to what’s going to happen on that front in the next step. With that, we do support the bill, and I do thank the House for their contributions.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the House for the pace at which it has worked this evening in order to get this piece of legislation through. I thank the Minister and the officials in advance for the work that’s going to happen in the next stage of this process. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in this third and final reading of the Adoption Amendment Bill. I think that we have summed up the perfect words earlier in the contribution, which is what is in the best interests of the child. I commend the Minister for doing exactly what was needed in the best interests of the child in the now, in the immediate. Rather than commentating and navigating the perfect solution, we have taken immediate action, and that was what needed to be done. We have been given clear assurance that not only work will be done, but work is being done to make that final position of where we need to be. It is critical at this stage that we put the child first; it is exactly what has happened. We need to put a stop to this and we’ve taken decisive action. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak at the third reading of the Adoption Amendment Bill. Let me be clear: the protection of children to be free from exploitation and harm is paramount. This bill takes urgent action to close loopholes that have, in the past, allowed exploitation, trafficking, and harm to occur. The Green Party continues to support this bill and raise concerns throughout the committee of the whole House stage. In good faith, we will continue to support this bill. I commend the Minister, for her mahi to halt these heinous crimes against children, and everybody who participated fulsomely in the committee stage.

Cases before the courts have shown that children can be brought to New Zealand through overseas and intercountry adoptions where proper safeguards are missing. We know of instances where adopted parents with prior convictions for violence or abuse were able to adopt children into New Zealand. This bill immediately suspends those intercountry adoptions.

However, urgency as a means to pass this legislation has its downfalls. This bill has moved through all stages in a single day without a select committee, public input, or an independent child impact statement. This would have given us a greater depth of knowledge and understanding into this bill. Questions do remain about whether all relevant consultations have taken place. Have Pacific Governments been properly consulted? Has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade been engaged regarding international and diplomatic implications? Have child protection experts and other agencies been able to advise on whether this is the most effective way to protect children?

While the intent is absolutely correct, the method must be assessed carefully to ensure it does not unintentionally harm children or families acting in good faith, making sure that kids that need a safe home in New Zealand are not left in crisis. Oranga Tamariki is already actively working with the Samoan officials through a cross-agency group to ensure that adoptions are in the children’s best interest. The Minister did answer those questions earnestly about how to work with Samoa to make sure that they can get on to this list and make sure that these kids do have pathways to these safe whānau here in Aotearoa. This includes developing an information-sharing system so that New Zealand courts can access relevant details on prospective adoptive parents, such as criminal histories.

We still remain concerned that the way this bill is being implemented may undermine the constructive work or the potential for safe, culturally grounded adoptions to continue where appropriate. We must also recognise the cultural significance of intercountry adoptions for Pacific whānau. Many Samoan, Tongan, Tuvaluan, and Kiribati communities have legitimate adoption practices that strengthen whānau, provide children with education and opportunity, and honour whakapapa, as the Ministry of Justice heard in 2022 during those public consultations. Stopping unsafe practices is critical, but we must be careful not to penalise families or children where safe and culturally aligned pathways exist.

This bill is an interim measure. It buys time to implement comprehensive rights-based reform of the Adoption Act 1955. The Green Party calls for, and will continue to call for, full replacement of outdated adoption laws centring children’s rights, safety, and wellbeing; strong, transparent safeguards against trafficking and exploitation, which I know the Minister is working on with her team; partnerships with Pacific nations, including robust consultation with Governments and community leaders; and recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori practices, including whāngai.

The Green Party supports this bill at its third reading while continuing to push for a system that keeps children safe, honours culture, and ensures their rights and wellbeing are centred.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to contribute to the third reading in the Adoption Amendment Bill. Indeed, there’s a lot of parents that have adopted children that are the most beautiful parents one can hope for. But for those that are not, we need bills like this—anything and everything to protect children. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a final call at the third reading of this bill, a bill which we are supporting. I might just go back to where I started at the first reading in terms of why this bill is here and addressing the very serious issues in front of us. A number of us in the House spoke to cases that had presented in the media of, essentially, adolescent young people who were in the most horrific of circumstances. I think, for me, what comes to mind is that while through the diligent work of the police and others those were cases that were identified, there may well be ones that haven’t been. For me, that is really what this bill is addressing. It is putting a pause on things so that we are able to get the settings right, because we recognise that once those young people are in the country, it is very, very difficult to identify who is at risk.

I spent almost a decade as a lawyer and then manager at YouthLaw Aotearoa, and our job was to provide legal advice to children and young people under 25. One thing that was very clear through that time was that some of the most vulnerable young people, who were subject to the most abuse, were the least likely to contact us. Even if they did, even if they were interviewed, they were the least likely to present their cases and raise issues with us. So if it’s possible to take a preventative approach, which is what the Minister is doing in this case, then I absolutely support that.

Colleagues have raised, as have I, issues of process and urgency, and I think those have all been raised in entirely good faith, because we do recognise that this is an important area for us to address. Like colleagues, I’d like to thank the Minister for her diligent answering of questions in the chair earlier this evening, which was comprehensive. No doubt there will be conversations to come. I appreciated her sharing that the Children’s Commissioner has released a press release in favour of the proposed change, but also her indication that officials are already under way drafting legislation. So we look forward to seeing what those changes are.

Just prior to the dinner break, the Minister also referenced this flowchart [holds up flowchart], which is two pages long. I think what many of us on the side of the House were trying to get our heads around were the particular circumstances for people and whether they would be included or excluded. This flow chart is excellent, this is very good, and I understand it will be on the Ministry of Justice website tomorrow. One thing I did notice, just reading through it, is—quite rightly so—at the end of many boxes it says “seek expert legal advice”. I did just want to acknowledge the many families out there who are wonderful potential adoptive parents who are diligently going through the process, who will be faced with this tomorrow and just getting their heads around what their position is. Hopefully, this will be somewhat of a support.

I indicated, in terms of the potential legislation that’s being drafted, some of the gaps that I saw in section 17 of the Citizenship Act. Dr Duncan Webb has referenced some of this as well. This is the best interests of the child test. I hope that there’s opportunity to include that in further legislation, along with an examination of the suitability of the parents and potential DNA testing where there is an assertion that the child is a blood relative of the potential adoptive family.

Through committee stage, I also asked whether the principles of the Hague convention—one in particular—would be involved when a Family Court judge or an associate makes a decision in terms of the exemptions. I would just suggest that there are other provisions that the New Zealand Central Authority is subject to under the Hague convention, that could also be useful, either to weave directly into legislation or into policy and practice. Just looking at a few in particular, there’s one around the exchange of reports from both sides where there isn’t a central agency present or perhaps one that’s not quite well set up yet. There is the specific decision by the child’s country to entrust a child to specific adoptive parents—so, obviously, quite a detailed agreement. There are assurances from both sides about permanent residence. There is something I mentioned earlier, which is the obligation to continually keep countries informed about post-placement wellbeing. The reason I mention that one is that I think there’s also an opportunity to bring some of these other countries who may not yet be signatories to the Hague convention into best practice procedure. This may be a way of doing that.

The last one is when the child is placed with prospective adoptive parents in New Zealand before it’s finalised, but it appears to Oranga Tamariki (OT) that the continued placement of the child with those parents is not in the child’s best interest. There’s an obligation, then, on OT to take measures as well. Having those sorts of agreements separately within legislation that none the less echo the methodology of the Hague convention seems to me to be a best-practice way to approach things, and, potentially, also just grow that best practice with countries that haven’t yet been in that space.

Over the dinner break, I did take a second look at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) a bit, and I really appreciated looking at it a second time because it actually really did reassure me, I think, in terms of identifying whether discrimination exists or not. The conclusion, although it could go either way, seems to be that it doesn’t touch the grounds of race or nationality and that it doesn’t touch the ground of familial connection. I can understand the argument as to why. Part of the benefit of reading at post-committee stage was I reflected on comments by Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked specific questions about the location of the child and to what extent that was important in decision making, and said that it didn’t appear to him to be a question of nationality. I did think that was important.

There’s an interesting point in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, for those who are interested, about whether the Act actually applies to a child who’s outside of New Zealand. This is probably a broader question, but certainly some commentary has stretched into this space to say it does in certain circumstances, for example when our military are operating overseas. In my view, this would be a legitimate circumstance as well, because we would be recognising an overseas adoption of a child to New Zealand - based parents. So, potentially, there is some jurisdiction there, but I do think that those were fair conclusions for the BORA vet to draw. Probably the one comment I would have in terms of the vet is on page 7, where they look at the Order in Council provisions and suggest that is part of that reasonable limitation, essentially—that you’re asking for additional people to be consulted as part of that decision to alter the list and for certain things to be considered.

I had hoped that my colleague Dr Duncan Webb’s amendments would have made it through at committee stage, because I do think it would be useful to have the Children’s Commissioner there, the Attorney-General there, as a consultative as well as an explicit reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, I do see that there are provisions there, and, within the second point, where regard must be had to international agreements that the children’s convention can of course sit within that, it will be a matter of policy and procedure, really, to ensure it does.

My last point, because I think we spent a lot of time on it at committee stage, is on deciding when an exemption would be granted and the broad framing around that. I would just hope—and this possibly isn’t for the Minister but as a general comment—I do think it’s an impossibly hard task to be in the role of making decisions where there is a lot of discretion, and so I just hope that those judges, but particularly the Family Court Associates, will be given some training and support in terms of establishing what the parameters are and also whether it’s a high-bar threshold or whether there is more flexibility than the two examples that are provided. But thank you again, to the Minister, for your hard work on this. I commend the bill to the House.

I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora e te Pika. Ngā mihi Te Wiki o te Reo Māori.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Tēnā koe.

Hon JENNY SALESA: I’m really honoured to be debating this third reading of the Adoption Amendment Bill—a really important bill—and, as members know, it is not often that we have such agreement in the House, especially under urgency, like this. I think one of the reasons why we are mainly in agreement is because of the issue that is being debated and because at the heart of this bill are some of our most vulnerable in our society: our tamariki—our children.

I’d like to begin, similarly to when I spoke earlier on, by commending and thanking the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee for her work in ensuring that this bill is actually put before us in the House of Parliament. As you’ve rightly pointed out, Minister, this is an issue that all kinds of Governments of all colours over the past—because the Adoption Act is really old. The Adoption Act is from the 1950s, and so there have been many chances in the past to address this issue.

I’d also like to acknowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because I know behind the scenes that he and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade have actually worked really hard on this issue. I know this because we, as a Pacific caucus, wrote to him that this is an issue that gets covered in the media when adoptions are not quite the ideal that we see. As we know, adoptions are something that are used by many families, and most of the time those adoptions are really good. We adopt our nieces or our nephews, and they come over from overseas and have a better life and better access to education. But, as we know from some of the cases that are covered in the media, this is not always the case, which is why this legislation, the Adoption Amendment Bill, is so important to debate in the House.

As you know, Minister, we do have some reservations, which our justice spokesperson, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, has already covered. One of those reservations is the fact that it is coming through the House under urgency. One of the things that you said earlier on, Minister, is that a more comprehensive adoption bill is currently being worked on, so we look forward to when that comes through.

The reason why we’re having this debate, and the reason why I believe that we must have this debate, is because behind every clause of this bill lies a child that deserves our protection, a child that deserves our advocacy as members of Parliament, and a child that deserves our unwavering commitment, regardless of whatever political colours we wear, because all of these children need to be safe, and their wellbeing is actually at risk when adoption laws are not as ideal as they should be. We support this bill because, unfortunately, children are being trafficked, children are being exploited, and children are being abused through the loopholes in our current adoption system.

One of the things that I also wanted to cover is the fact that in Labour, one of the things we’ve valued over many decades is the fact that people matter more to us than property, and children matter most. I’m not going to give the examples of how this has been central, but I do want to cover some of the cases that, unfortunately, have come through, and I’m not going to say the names, because there have been many cases in the media.

One of those adoptions that stands out for me is a case where a person with previous convictions for violence was actually able to adopt three boys from overseas and bring them to New Zealand. What followed was a year of horror: a 12-year-old boy was withdrawn from school and held as a domestic servant, children were forced to work in fields without proper medical care, and there were children who were so desperate that they scaled tall fences at night to escape.

The question that we should answer as members of Parliament is: how did our New Zealand adoption system even allow this to happen in the first place? That is why the answer, in its devastating simplicity, is that the current Adoption Act of 1955—which is older than many of us in this House—absolutely has to be amended. So I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka tautoko i te pire ki te Whare—I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak and take some time to reflect on what this piece of legislation is about, talk about how we got here, and talk about the implications and the impacts that it will have in terms of our society as we move forward.

Of course, legislation and society are always moving and changing, and when you look at legislation from 1955, obviously, the world was different back then. The way people even got around the Pacific, let alone around the world, was different back then in terms of boats and planes and that type of thing, and the connectivity and the connection that the world has now is very different to what it was back in 1955, when the law that’s being amended tonight was put into place.

I was listening to some of the debate this evening and I participated in some of the committee stage, and so, as has been said, thank you to the Hon Nicole McKee for engaging. In Opposition, it’s one of those spaces where you actually get to eyeball a Minister and really critique and challenge but also help shape and ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose. It was appreciated from our side that you have participated all the way through.

As I was listening and understanding the arguments and looking at what this legislation stands for, it reminded me of the early 1990s, and for those who remember, the Berlin Wall fell and the Iron Curtain was lifted with regard to communism, and a whole lot happened at that time. I remember very, very vividly in the news, every other night it seemed, that there were stories about Romanian babies—stories about people travelling overseas to adopt children. Whether it was to New Zealand or all around the world, people were ending up in these spaces, and with as much love as a whānau and a family have to give—as has been said by many speakers tonight—we’ve always got to centre ourselves on the child. Back in the early 1990s, there were provisions put in place, and there were challenges to make sure that the children back then were protected. Again, tonight, as we move through all stages of this legislation, it becomes very clear that we need to have the child at the centre of the decision making and we need to protect them.

Now, I’m sure most people know that Gandhi spoke very clearly about how a society will be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable, and a small baby or a small child represents that most vulnerable. Yes, there are questions and, yes, there are things that we’ve critiqued and, yes, we’ve pushed back on why we need to go through so quickly, but, if it comes back again to how we treat our most vulnerable—that small child—then we, on this side of the House, have to step up and stand up and say that, yes, we will support this legislation. As the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, our justice spokesperson, has said, there are things we want to continue to discuss and to talk about. On the front page of the amendment bill, it says that these are temporary amendments, and so we look forward to seeing how we move forward with them.

Again, 1955 was a long time ago, and the world was different, as I’ve already said. But also, families and whānau were very different back then, as well, and the make-up of a family today can look quite different to what it was back in the 1950s. Therefore, it is important for us to move and to come to a space where adoption is just part of everyday life. In Aotearoa, often, children are whāngai-ed to whānau and there’s foster care, and there are all types of family make-ups in what they look like. In many ways, this is no different, because it is looking at what it means for someone to adopt a child and bring them into their home but also bring them into New Zealand, and there is how we make sure that they are protected. It’s not just that momentary moment of signing a piece of paper and allowing them access, but it actually is around how, once a child is adopted and is in Aotearoa, we make sure that they are protected and looked after.

Now, I take my hat off to families who put themselves out there to adopt. It’s not easy. Within the New Zealand context, it’s not easy, but then if you bring in different cultures and different parts the Pacific, definitely, it can be a challenge. Therefore, as we support this legislation and as it passes through all stages this afternoon and this evening, we want to make sure that the Minister is focused on making sure that that this isn’t the end; this is just the next step. I guess it’s a stop-gap measure right now to ensure that the legislation can continue to be shaped and moulded so that it has longevity and it keeps everyone safe.

Having a look at the legislation, there are things that happen and things that go on in the everyday world and you don’t realise, and so it’s fascinating to see that there are around a thousand overseas adoptions that are recognised in New Zealand each year under section 17 of the Adoption Act. It’s always fascinating to see what goes on, especially the fact that there are all these people engaged in making sure that they build family and they build connection.

Now, as has been said and as is in the explanatory note at the start of this bill, the aim of this is to prevent the harm to children and young people who are adopted overseas and are brought back to New Zealand to live. Because I’m a visual person, I like to have a look and spend some time going through the flow charts that have been put together around this legislation that go through the New Zealand Family Court. It’s really helpful just to look at the ways and means to make sure, again, that we not only protect the children but we also protect those who are making choices on behalf of them, and we see that there are different ways and different methods that need to be taken and flow charts that need to be followed to make sure that it is done right.

The Adoption Amendment Bill will pass tonight. There are times when politics do need to be put aside, and, as I said at the start, we need to make sure that our children are at the front and centre of that. It is good to listen to the speeches, listen to the intent, and understand why it is we’re doing what we’re doing tonight. For us, we want to make sure that children are front and centre. We want to make sure that the New Zealand law has checks and balances in place that will protect people.

As always with any legislation, we often do things in this place not to celebrate our most able and wonderful people, but often we have to put laws and legislation in place for those who make choices that aren’t right, and so this legislation is to make sure that there are protections. This legislation is put in place to make sure that for those who do often want to rort or play the system, for those who do want to abuse the system or others, there is a stop-gap measure and there is something to protect our young people. We support this bill, and we commend it to the House.

Tuatahi e mihi ana ki te reo taketake, ki te reo o te Whare, ki te reo o te whenua, ki te reo o te rangi. Ia wā ka rere te reo, ki a au, ka piki te ora, ka ara ake te wairua.

Tuarua, ko au te kaikōrero whakamutunga o tēnei pire e pā ana ki te āwhina mō ngā tamariki whāngai. Nō reira nōku te maringa nui kia tuku i a ia ki te Whare.

[First, I would like to acknowledge the indigenous language, the language of the House, the language of the land, the language of the sky. Every time that the language is used, to me, health is improved and the spirit rises.

Second, I am the final speaker on this bill regarding support for adopted children. And so it is my great fortune to commend it to the House.]

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.