Commissioner for Children Bill

I move, That the Commissioner for Children Bill be now read a second time. Before I get into my notes can I just mark the fact that the time that it has taken for this bill to move through the House means that we have seen the departure of one Commissioner for Children. I want to thank him for his outstanding service in the time that he was in this job, and to welcome into the role Cindy Kiro, who is now the Commissioner for Children, and who I think has already, probably in the eyes of everybody in the House, begun to stamp a very independent position for herself as well.

The Commissioner for Children Bill re-enacts the commissioner’s functions as set out in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act with enhancements that are consistent with the commissioner’s primary role as an advocate for children. The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the provisions relating to the commissioner in a new, separate statute with explicit statutory powers. The bill also changes the commissioner’s current investigative function so that the commissioner can investigate any decision or recommendation made, or act done or omitted, in respect of a child. This means that the investigative function is not limited to decisions made under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act.

The bill provides the commissioner with additional statutory functions and explicit powers to give better effect to the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention is one of the United Nations’ core human rights instruments. It has 54 articles that set out a wide range of agreed rights to protect the entitlements and freedoms of children. New Zealand is required to report on progress in implementing its principles every 5 years. The convention is included as a schedule of the bill for information and reference purposes, in order to increase the general knowledge and understanding of the convention within New Zealand, and to reinforce this Government’s commitment to that convention. Through this bill the commissioner is given a major role in raising awareness of the convention and in encouraging others to apply it in their work. In this way the bill is contributing to endeavours by New Zealand to strengthen the observance and implementation of the convention’s principles with regard to the protection of children’s interests, rights, and welfare.

There has been widespread support for this bill in the House. A member’s bill sponsored by John Wright MP of the Alliance was introduced during 1999. On 25 May 2000 the Social Services Committee presented its interim report on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Children Bill with the intention that the interim report would serve to inform the drafting process for this Government-sponsored bill. This bill goes much further and provides the commissioner with new functions that include promoting the establishment of accessible and effective complaints mechanisms for children, and monitoring the nature and level of complaints; acting as an advocate for children’s interests, rights, and welfare generally; promoting children’s participation, and following an approach that gives due weight to their views; consulting children; presenting reports to any court or tribunal; and reporting to the Prime Minister on matters affecting children’s rights. In short, this bill is evidence of this Government giving practical effect to its stated commitment to children, and to making life better for them in this country.

The Social Services Committee received 23 submissions on the bill. As a result of the submissions received and the Social Services Committee’s own deliberations, it has recommended a number of changes to the bill, all of which are supported. These changes strengthen and clarify the intent of the bill. There are three changes that I would like to mention.

A change that the Social Services Committee recommended, which I support, is a change to the title “Commissioner for Children”. It has been changed to “Children’s Commissioner”, and the title of the bill changed to “Children’s Commissioner Bill”. I would like to emphasise that the change to the title of the commissioner is quite significant and is no mere semantic. It gives the effect of placing greater emphasis on children as opposed to the commissioner. In addition, it better conveys the notion that the commissioner is representative of all children, and moves away from the notion of children being objects of concern who are dependent on the commissioner’s protection. The amendment brings the name into line with those of other statutory office holders such as the Human Rights Commissioner, the Retirement Commissioner, and the Health and Disabilities Commissioner.

Another change that the Social Services Committee recommended is the insertion of a new provision in the bill that requires that the responsible Minister advertise the vacancy or prospective vacancy of the Children’s Commissioner in a manner that would enable suitably qualified individuals to apply for the appointment. A further amendment calls for the responsible Minister to have regard for the desirability of consulting organisations or persons who have a special interest in the functions of the commissioner, including organisations representing children, and children themselves. Overall, the comments in the submissions called for a more transparent process for the appointment of the commissioner. I fully support this change, and consider that it will further strengthen the perceived independence of the Children’s Commissioner and the functions and powers of the office.

Finally, the Social Services Committee recommended the insertion of a new clause in the bill that requires the commissioner to develop means of consulting children. The Social Services Committee considered that in a bill focusing on welfare, rights, and the interests of children there should be provision for avenues through which children can contribute their own perspectives and concerns on an ongoing basis. This is in keeping with articles 12 and 13 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which require children to be heard in decisions affecting them and to be accorded the right to freedom of expression.

I once again want just to note Cindy Kiro’s appointment in August as the fourth Commissioner for Children. She brings to this role her extensive public management and child advocacy experience, excellent academic qualifications, and a strong working knowledge of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, children’s rights, and New Zealand’s UN obligations. She is the ideal commissioner to undertake the responsibilities inherent in this bill.

I thank those organisations and members of the public who made submissions on the bill. I also thank the Social Services Committee for its work and the considered changes that have been recommended. The changes made by that committee further enhance the intent and value that underpin this Government’s commitment to the well-being of children. I commend this bill to the House.

First, it is not before time that this bill has come back in the House. The first reading was on 10 October 2001, so there seems to have been a long period of time between the first reading and getting the bill back to the House today.

I have to say the Minister has probably chosen the wrong time to bring this bill back to the House. It is somewhat ironic that we are talking about the welfare of children, advocacy for children, and the Commissioner for Children in a week where the main debate has been about the whole Department of Child, Youth and Family Services—a department that is very much in crisis. We have seen the department this week try to rebut many of the criticisms that were brought up in the First Principles Baseline Review. We have heard of a department that is having difficulty in both keeping staff and attracting new staff; a department that is finding it extremely difficult to protect those children who are the most vulnerable in this country; and, of course, a department that has been unable to keep its chief executive, who resigned this week.

It is important that the Commissioner for Children is able to maintain the important advocacy role he or she has in this country. But I do think that when many people first supported the establishment of a Commissioner for Children, they did not believe that the No. 1 group for which the Commissioner for Children would advocate would end up being children under the care of the State. It is an alarming fact that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services does not know how many kids are in its care today. It is an alarming fact that the department is not aware of whether children in its care are in school or enrolled at a school. We have seen a rapid increase in notifications and in the length of stay of kids in care. Those are the sorts of issues that I am sure the Commissioner for Children will turn her mind to over the next few months of her tenure.

It is important to recognise the work done by the Hon Roger McClay in his position as the Commissioner for Children. He was a very tireless worker for children and a very enthusiastic advocate for a wide range of children’s issues. I think Dr Cindy Kiro should be very much welcomed into the role. After her appointment I sourced and read most of the papers she had published. Although I did not agree with some of the content, particularly her blaming the 1990s for everything that has gone wrong with children, I do very much respect the vast amount of work she did before coming to this particular role.

It seems that this bill is very much a diluted version of that presented by John Wright of the Alliance party. He wanted to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament, and that was debated to and fro in the select committee. Interestingly, if one looks at the 1999 Labour Party election policy one sees that it states very clearly that one of its key goals is to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament in order to ensure complete independence. Labour has not done that with this bill. It has failed to keep an election promise, which was to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament. What it has presented today is very much a diluted version of what the original intention was. It is important, though, that the Commissioner for Children does maintain his or her independence. Some of the provisions in the bill will strengthen that role, although they will not give the commissioner absolute independence, which was the original intention of both the Alliance and the Labour Party before they got into office.

If members look at what the bill aims to bring, they will see that, yes, there are some provisions for increased consultation with children. That is quite an important step forward. But I do hope there is a realistic approach to that consultation, because sometimes children are unable to judge what is best for them. I shall give one example. If I asked my son what he would like for dinner every night, his first answer would be lollies. Quite clearly, although the views of younger New Zealand citizens are important, we need to take into account the fact that some of them are not able to judge all the time exactly what is best for them. There is also the pressure of decision making. Sometimes I think that, with regard to the Family Court, if we continually ask very young children which parent they want to go with, or to make high-pressured decisions about their lives, that can be to their detriment.

The bill also establishes a deputy commissioner, and that is quite an important addition to the Office of the Commissioner for Children. Quite often the commissioner travels overseas. There were occasions when the previous commissioner was not present, and there was nobody able to represent him when he was away. I think having a deputy commissioner is a step forward and provides another option for the office when that situation arises.

One enhancement in the bill that I very much support is the idea that the commissioner can now present evidence and reports in a tribunal or a court. There have been situations where the commissioner has been hamstrung in his or her advocacy role because he or she has been unable to do that. We can make use of the fact that the commissioner is able to investigate a wide range of very complex children’s issues. Sometimes the information that is gathered, that expertise, is useful in other arenas, and the commissioner should be able to do that.

Quite clearly, the role of the Commissioner for Children is to be a very strong advocate for children. One of the ways that the commissioner has been very successful in previous years is that he has been able to pick up individual cases and create a high profile for the various causes that he has tried to publicise. Members should look at the James Whakaruru report. That report was very important and drew the whole country’s attention to the issue of child abuse. It is a shame there has been a delay in receiving further reports from the commissioner’s office. We have been waiting for the Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson report since February, when the Commissioner for Children first said he would release it. Once again, the report will be released at a time when the Commissioner for Children has changed, the chief executive has changed, and the Minister in charge of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has changed, as well. This gives the opportunity for the Government to deflect attention away from what I am sure will be a very damning report about the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Of course, the people left to pick up the pieces and present the views will be able to put up their hands and say they had nothing to do with it. That is a shame. The country has been waiting for some answers in that particular case.

The Commissioner for Children is an advocate who should be very much supported by the community. As a result of the good work done by previous commissioners, it is now a role that is very well known throughout New Zealand by the New Zealand public. It is a shame that Labour has diluted its original intention and is now unable to keep its 1999 election promise to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament, to ensure his or her complete independence. But, in terms of what has been presented today, the National Party will be supporting this bill.

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I am amazed at the line from the Opposition spokeswoman, especially as this is way beyond 1999. It is 2003 and Labour is in coalition with United Future, which is delighted with this Commissioner for Children Bill, and has also supported its stand-alone position. The bill also strengthens the role of the Commissioner for Children.

There is another very salutary aspect of this bill, and that is the position in terms of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This bill will explicitly strengthen the powers of the Commissioner for Children to deal with the findings of the United Nations report. It is amazing that the Opposition does not seem to understand that. This bill is a demonstration of this Government’s commitment to the rights of children. It is very poor form to have a slash at the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, when we are celebrating the second reading of this bill, and when we also have it in conjunction with the recommendations of the baseline review. I am proud to be part of a coalition Government that is pushing through this bill, to heighten the explicit powers of the Commissioner for Children. I am proud to support the bill.

New Zealand First supports this legislation. As has already been pointed out, this bill has been languishing on the Order Paper for quite some time—since April 2002. It is pleasing that at last we have the opportunity to progress it. We realise that there are very many issues for the commissioner to deal with. New Zealand First has always said that the quality of our future is determined by the quality of the children we leave to our future. That quality is determined primarily by the way we treat our children, and also by the legislative framework around which we deal with them. Judge Becroft reinforced this message at a Littlies Lobby breakfast meeting, which many of us attended.

It is important to pay tribute to the role of the Commissioner for Children. It is the role of the commissioner to be an advocate for our youngest citizens and to ensure that we are all aware of the issues that affect this group, so that changes can be made. The advocacy role is important. The bottom line is that our success as a society depends largely on our capacity to enable each child within New Zealand to meet his or her potential. The recent horrific examples of atrocities committed against children—and unfortunately there are now an increasing number—show that for some children life in New Zealand can be very dangerous, and it can also be a living hell for them. It is for these children, in particular, that the commissioner can speak.

We must pay tribute to the immediate past Commissioner for Children, Roger McClay. He worked tirelessly among us all to ensure that the interests of children and their welfare were promoted amongst us as parliamentarians, and amongst the many agencies that also work within the field. Thank you, Roger McClay. We have appreciated all the work he did in this field, and his endless enthusiasm for ensuring that the rights of New Zealand children and their welfare were always in front of all political parties at all times—something that we do appreciate.

We notice that this bill gives the Commissioner for Children additional statutory functions, to better effect and promote in New Zealand the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which we definitely support. New Zealand First believes that this legislation will ensure independence, and allow the Office of the Commissioner for Children more easily to promote the protection of New Zealand children. We hope that this office is adequately resourced to ensure that it can meet all its obligations and its goals.

It is really pleasing to see the provision for a Deputy Commissioner for Children. New Zealand First was disappointed that the role of the Commissioner for Children has become a political appointment, rather than an appointment requiring cross-party consultation. The fact that the appointment has a 5-year term, and therefore straddles election cycles, means that cross-party consultation on this matter is vital. It is really important that the Commissioner for Children remains independent. New Zealanders all need to know that the Commissioner for Children has been appointed because he or she is the best person for the job, not because of political connections. Cross-party support for the recent appointment of a new commissioner would have allayed those concerns. We all want to see the best person in the job, and we are looking forward to working with the new commissioner in her role.

It is interesting to note that there are many issues concerning children about which there is no political disagreement, and we often see that in this House. Children’s issues often wait far too long for action when there is no disagreement about what is needed. We all agree about what is required and how to go about it. The philosophy behind this bill is very clear: we value our children. The legislation gives the commissioner the mandate to ensure that the rights of New Zealand children are enhanced in the future. New Zealand First definitely supports this bill.

When the Minister took the floor to talk about the Commissioner for Children Bill, he said that it is evidence of the Labour Government’s commitment to make life better for children. I remind the Minister that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper, ready to be debated in Parliament and passed by the House, for the last 18 months. That is 18 long months that the Labour Government has failed to deliver on its so-called commitment to children. It goes further than that. The bill was introduced to the House in its first form as a member’s bill 5 years ago. Labour has been in power for 4 years. It could have fast-tracked this bill through the House 3 years ago. All I can say is that the Minister’s words in saying that the Government has a commitment to children are hollow words, and that if he does not believe that, all he has to do is re-read the baseline review on the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in order to see what an appalling mess the Labour Government has made of child welfare in this country since it has been in power.

There is a deepening crisis in child welfare in New Zealand, and I will put on record in this House that the Minister, Steve Maharey, is responsible for it. For most of that time, he was the Minister in charge of that department. He was essentially in charge of child welfare in this country, and he has failed miserably not only the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services but also every family and child that has been through the mill of that department.

I will look at the history of that. We have a Minister who says one thing and does something different. When he was in Opposition, Steve Maharey said that he would improve the lot of children in New Zealand. He was going to rebuild the department that deals with at-risk children in this country, and he was going to develop a new culture. Well, 3½ years on, what do we see? There are more notifications—many of which are being referred to the Commissioner for Children—and a never-ending list of tragedies, which were all referred to the commissioner. We have social workers leaving and the lowest morale in the department that we have ever had. That Minister sat there making all those promises and saying he would make things better, but it all went to pieces and turned to custard around him.

What happened? Did he stand there like a man should and take the rap? Did he sit in the House while we called for his resignation? No. He was saved by the Prime Minister, because when the Government found out in May of this year how bad that baseline review would be, all of a sudden, he was stood down and a new Minister was put in his place. The new Minister will not be able to take the rap, because she is brand-new.

I put on record what the new Minister said about Steve Maharey. When she took over, she said: “He wasn’t able to devote the time needed, which is why he decided to move on.” How irresponsible is it for any Minister in a Government to not devote the time needed to the very agency that looks after the most vulnerable children in this society? How can he sit there, knowing that he did not put in the time to give that department what it needed to be able to do the job and to be able to look after those children who most needed help?

During the years we have seen the Commissioner for Children come out and try to do something about those children. He has put out reports—I think we all remember the report on James Whakaruru, which showed a little boy who had been so many times in places where help could have been given to him, and it all failed and he died. The Minister, who knew and saw all of that in Opposition and promised to do something, failed. Now we have a deepening crisis in child welfare and I would never have thought I would see that when a Labour Government was in power. I find it really worrying that the Minister can stand in this House and pay lip service to thoughts about needing to do better for children in this country, when he holds the responsibility for the failure of that department on his shoulders.

Sadly, tomorrow, when the department comes in front of the Social Services Committee for the financial review, not only will we not be able to question a Minister who was responsible, because Steve Maharey was the Minister for 10 months of the financial year and Ruth Dyson was there for only the last 2 months so we cannot hold her responsible—we have to hold Mr Maharey responsible—but now we have had the sudden resignation of the chief executive. The day before yesterday she suddenly went off on holiday, so we cannot question her.

So Parliament has a huge problem. Any select committee of Parliament is charged with the responsibility of examining the work of a department of the Government, and tomorrow we have a situation where there is nobody who will say, “Yes, I can answer your questions.” That is because this Government is so cunning. It is so cunning that it wanted to avoid all responsibility. It knew what a crisis the department was in, but it wanted to avoid all responsibility, swap portfolios and ministerial responsibility, get rid of the chief executive—hang her out to dry so she was on her own and so she leaves—and nobody is held accountable.

I say that Labour is responsible. This Government is responsible for the problem we have in this country. What really worries me is that if Roger McClay were still the Commissioner for Children, he would have something to say about this. One thing about the previous commissioner is that he was not afraid to put his neck on the block and say what he believed. Will the new Commissioner for Children have something deep and meaningful to say about what the Labour Government has done in this area? I think the answer is “not likely”.

That is the problem when we have a Government that appoints to key positions in a Parliament and does not put in people who the whole of Parliament agrees have the courage to make the sorts of statements that New Zealanders want to hear, but puts its cronies into its jobs because then it will know it will get reports and statements it can live with. That is wrong, and that is one of the reasons our party does not support this bill. If we had a totally independent Commissioner for Children, we might have relitigated it and looked to agree that the commisioner’s office would have the courage to say the right thing, not what its political masters want it to say.

The other point I would like to make here is that the bill gives more power to the Commissioner for Children to introduce the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although I think everybody would agree with many of those rights of the child, I believe that this is part of Labour’s back-door conspiracy, if one likes, to introduce anti-smacking legislation. They will get the Office of the Commissioner for Children to look into it, because that is one of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and, lo and behold, all of a sudden there will be recommendations coming out of that office to stop New Zealand parents from being allowed to smack their children. We are talking about smacking children, not about child abuse. There is a complete distinction between those two things. Soon we will see the Labour Government intruding into the homes of every single New Zealander, just as it has already intruded into so many walks of life since it has been in power. There are new laws, regulations, costs, and inspectors, and all of a sudden we will find that inspectors will come to our homes to see what is happening inside the family door. I finish by saying how disappointed I am in Labour for its record in child welfare.

I am pleased to stand in support of the bill, and proud of the Government’s record of support for New Zealand families and children. This commission for the family will be a further step in providing support for the families of our country. We have just heard a contribution from the ACT speaker, who, in a curious contradiction, said that the Minister and the Government were not doing enough, and, the next minute, finished off her speech by saying that they are doing too much and are interfering in the lives of New Zealanders. Once again, it was a confused and muddled message from the ACT party. This legislation is about improving the quality of life for New Zealand families. How could one not support it?

That was an interesting speech from Chris Carter about the Families Commission. Unfortunately for the Minister, this is the Commissioner for Children Bill, but let us not devalue his contribution.

This bill is finally back in the House. I say to Mr Maharey that I think he has been an absolute and total failure, in that he brought in a piece of legislation on 10 October 2001—over 2 years ago. The select committee heard 13 submissions, sat for 2 hours, and reported back to the House, and it has taken Mr Maharey 2 years to get this bill back before Parliament. It came back only when he was relieved of responsibility for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

Mr Maharey has failed children in this country, and he knows it. It is a tragedy that Jackie Pivac is wearing all the responsibility for the dysfunctional department that let Coral Burrows slip through the net. The Minister sits there, puffed up in his own importance, having taken 2 years to do this, and he is not responsible for anything. He is laughing. He is not responsible. His chief executive resigned, and Mr Maharey is not taking any responsibility at all.

I do not know how Mr Maharey, as a Minister, can sleep at night, knowing what has gone on in that department for the last 2 years. He may find it funny, but he failed the young children of this country. He failed some individual children in this country. Mr Maharey may think it is funny, but those families do not. [Interruption] Mr Maharey’s interjection was that more children died before he was the Minister. I say to the Minister to get real.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.