Commissioner for Children Bill

I want to make a couple of comments on this bill. I start by saying that the National Party supports the Commissioner for Children Bill. We support the office of the Commissioner for Children, and I, as a previous Minister of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, was pleased to work with two former Commissioners for Children—the late Laurie O’Reilly, who brought to the office his considerable legal experience and did an outstanding job in developing advocacy services for children, and the recently retired commissioner, the Hon Roger McClay.

Roger McClay brought both parliamentary and ministerial experience, and his education background, to the office, and became a very strong advocate for the independence of the role. He achieved a considerable amount, not the least of which was a substantial amount of funding for the office, which I know he was particularly pleased with. Many of the aspects of this bill pick up on the work that was done by Roger McClay. I think, in particular, of the consultation with children that is included in the bill. That is something that Roger McClay was particularly keen to see developed, and it is good to see that that is now required in the bill. National certainly supports that.

A large part of the bill spells out the way in which the commissioner will be appointed, and that is a step in the right direction, but I regret that the bill has not gone further and required that there be multi-party consultation and consideration around the appointment of the commissioner. It is my view that the Commissioner for Children needs to be somebody who has the respect of all sides in Parliament. Previous commissioners have enjoyed that, and it is fair to say that they have had to earn it, which is right, but we should be moving to a position whereby the appointment to the commissioner position is done more on a multi-party basis. The role is too important to be seen as one that does not enjoy the confidence of all parties in the House. The bill goes some of the way in that respect. It states that the vacancy should be advertised, and I note that the position of the current commissioner was advertised even though the bill is not yet law. It was good that the Minister at least followed what will be the law when he went through the process of appointing the current commissioner.

I want to say to the Minister, Steve Maharey, that it is an absolute disgrace that a bill that was introduced to the House on 29 August 2001, and that has had only 2 hours of submissions, has taken until 6 November 2003 to be passed. It is not as if anyone will vote against it. Everyone supports it, yet it has taken that Minister over 2 years to get it to the second reading stage. That is hopeless and it is a tragedy, given that that Minister really has not had his eye on the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, which the Commissioner for Children’s office is set up to monitor.

We have a bill that will strengthen that office. The office’s role is to monitor the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, but that department is almost more dysfunctional than the kids it is meant to be looking after, and the Minister has done nothing. A report was done by Mick Brown, but Steve Maharey ignored the vast majority of its recommendations. He did not do anything to make sure that the department was strengthened, but sat on his hands rather than get this bill through Parliament. Steve Maharey has overseen tragedies in children’s lives that mean, quite frankly, that he should be resigning. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the chief executive of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, Jackie Pivac, has been required to fall on her sword, while the Minister, Steve Maharey, wanders around preening himself and pretending that none of it happened on his watch.

This is a Minister who has not introduced one new Social Workers in Schools programme. He has not introduced one new Family Start programme. Those are all programmes that were designed to take pressure off the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and when operating, they do. In Porirua City, in Rotorua, in Hamilton, those programmes work stunningly well. This Government has huge surpluses, but it has not introduced one new programme in that area. It has done nothing to take the pressure off the entry points for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and now the Minister takes over 2 years to get to the second reading stage of a small bill that will strengthen the monitoring procedures of the agency—the office of the Commissioner for Children—that looks over the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

Steve Maharey has been a total failure as a Minister. That is why he lost the portfolio of Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. He should be apologising. He should be tendering his resignation, because there has been horrendous misconduct against young children in this country. The department that has had the responsibility for overseeing the care of those children has not done it. If the Minister stood in front of the mirror and looked at his own actions, rather than at the cut of his suit and his haircut, we might get someone who, along with the Commissioner for Children, is prepared to stand up and protect children.

The Green Party welcomes the long-overdue return of the Commissioner for Children Bill to Parliament for its second reading today. We first considered this bill in the House in October 2001, so as the previous speaker has just pointed out, it has been a bit of a long haul since then, especially given that the Social Services Committee reported back in April 2002. This is one of those useful pieces of legislation that seems to have really good cross-party support. I know that most people on the committee in the previous Parliament were pretty supportive of the overarching purpose of the bill: to strengthen and clarify the role of the Commissioner for Children.

As a number of submitters pointed out, despite New Zealand having first established a Commissioner for Children under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act in 1989 and ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993, the commissioner’s efforts to advance the rights of children in this period have been hampered by a number of factors. These included a lack of statutory independence for the office, underfunding, a dearth of any real willingness to involve children themselves in decision-making processes, and an overall relative lack of power in advocating for the interests of children. By the late 1990s, a number of organisations in the community were so concerned about the comparatively low-level status of the commissioner that they were lobbying hard to convert the role into an Officer of Parliament—like, for example, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—and a member’s bill to that effect was put together by the Alliance.

The Social Services Committee heard submissions and considered that member’s bill, and through the process we came to understand that turning the commissioner into an Officer of Parliament simply was not the way to go. Instead of the role being expanded and strengthened by that course of action, the commissioner would lose much of the ability to advocate on behalf of children, which is a huge and core part of the job. Thus the Green Party, like a number of groups that gave submissions, turned with enthusiasm to the new Commissioner for Children Bill that is before us today. Our overriding concerns were that the office of commissioner be strengthened, and that its independence and autonomy be reinforced.

One of the best features of the bill is that the office becomes independent of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, as there has always been an underlying tension between its advocacy function and its structural dependence on the department. That has been particularly highlighted in cases, for example, where the commissioner has reported on problems relating to the department itself. A second key feature of this legislation is the way in which it entrenches in New Zealand statute the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we are a signatory. The convention is actually written into the legislation as schedule 2, and will in future act as a set of guiding principles for the commissioner. That is a great step forward for the children of this country, as the convention enshrines, among other things, the right of children to be heard where they are capable of forming their own views, the right of children to be free from violence, and the right of children to a standard of living “adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social development”.

This is a wonderful manifesto to be held at the heart of this new law, especially at a time when nearly one-third of our children live in poverty, and when so much of our society seems wracked by a culture that sees abuse and violence against children as acceptable. One has to look only at the current pro-smacking campaign to see the extent to which adults are prepared to go to maintain their legal right to physically assault and deliberately humiliate the children in their care.

A further area of Green Party concern with this bill lay around the appointment process for the commissioner. Like a number of submitters, we felt that the pre-existing appointments process under the National Government and the one established in the new bill had not, and would not, necessarily bring about the best result. We were particularly anxious that the person carrying out this critical function should not be a purely political appointment, but that there should be an open and transparent process, with involvement from relevant groups in the community. If it were done in that way, there would be a lot more support for the office in society at large, which is a prerequisite if a position of this nature is to have any real success. We were pleased then that the select committee agreed to amend the bill in a way that I think deals well with those concerns. I believe that the recent appointment of Dr Cindy Kiro to the position, while not carried out under the new law, is a shining example of what can and should happen when the Government takes community consultation and relevant applicant skills and experience seriously.

One final comment I would like to make at this stage of the debate concerns the provision in the bill for consultation with children. During the select committee process, the Green Party pushed hard for the addition of a clause that would require the commissioner to develop appropriate means of consulting with children, so that their views can be taken into account when the commissioner exercises his or her function. Given the relationship between the office of the commissioner and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child commitment mentioned above, I would like to thank the other members of the previous select committee for supporting that amendment, and I look forward to seeing how our new commissioner implements it over the next 5 years.

The Green Party commends this bill to the House, and I look forward to its final enactment very shortly.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Commissioner for Children Bill. I think it is fair to say that the growth and influence of the role of the Commissioner for Children has earned it a very real place in New Zealand culture and New Zealand society over the years since it was established in 1989. Roger Sowry has already referred to the outstanding work done by the late Laurie O’Reilly, and we could also add to that the recently retired Commissioner for Children, Roger McClay. I would like to take this moment too to wish the new commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro, all the very best as she now takes up the task ahead of her in this most important area of establishing a commission, and a commissioner who will look after and endeavour to improve the lot of the children in this country.

I might say as an aside that in the year 2000 I was fortunate to convene a large gathering at the WestpacTrust Stadium, a gathering that was to celebrate the 2000th birthday of Jesus. We had 28,000 people come to the stadium that day. We ended up covering all of the very significant costs involved in setting up the concert, which had an orchestra and many stars such as Sir Howard Morrison. We gifted the surplus that we raised on that occasion to the Commissioner for Children. We did so because of the tremendous concern in this country about the abuse of children, and we thought that if we could make some small financial contribution towards the goal of reducing that, it would be worthwhile. So, I would like to note that little involvement that I had personally with the commissioner at that time.

It is fair to say that far too many New Zealand children are at risk. The statistics in this country are distressing. Far too many children are growing up in poverty. Far too many children are growing up without a father in the home. That trend is not improving, but is deteriorating as we speak. We must not ever imagine that putting in place a Commissioner for Children will, in and of itself, reverse that situation. After all, organisations such as the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services very often provide an “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” service. They are there after things have gone very wrong.

I find it quite staggering sometimes to hear in the House—as we did from the Hon Roger Sowry—that, somehow or other, Steve Maharey is responsible for children being abused in this country. To me, that is just a buck-passing system whereby we neglect the real problem, which is: what went wrong in that home, at that time? Where did the breakdown commence, and what are we going to do about it? How will we build a fence at the top of the cliff? Instead of that, we—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would not normally interrupt on what you will probably rule is a debating point, but, having been a Minister of Social Welfare, I am very sensitive to the issue of child abuse, and of accusing a Minister of being responsible. I certainly did not do that. I just said that the Minister should have done something to strengthen the department.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me put it this way; that was an intervention, and I suggest that the member might rephrase what he said.

I would like to do that. I was dismayed to hear the Hon Roger Sowry calling for the Minister’s resignation because of his failure, on the basis that children continue to be abused. I think that this kind of thinking—and I am not referring just to that, but to the kind of thinking that says that Coral Burrows’ death was the responsibility of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and then says that it was the responsibility of Ruth Dyson—completely misses the point. We should not be looking just at symptoms, but at the underlying disease. The underlying disease is obviously the breakdown of the New Zealand family.

Therefore, it is United Future’s position that we need to start building a fence at the top of the cliff. To start to do that, we need to go back to working with the Commissioner for Children, and, very shortly, also with the Families Commission. We need to analyse what the problem is, why the New Zealand family is breaking down, and what we can do about it. I believe that that is a task that all of us in Parliament should be behind wholeheartedly. It will take another generation, but it is very important that we make a beginning, for the sake of our children, who are, after all, our future.

The other point I mention—which I do not think many people have—is that 24 pages of the bill are taken up with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is set out in great detail. One paragraph in Schedule 2, in the preamble to the convention, really struck me as I read it. It states: “Recognising that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,”. I think that statement encapsulates very clearly the goal that we all have for the Commissioner for Children, and for the families of New Zealand—that every child might grow up in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.

I think that never in the history of this planet has anything been more thoroughly researched—and there are now literally thousands of studies—as trying to determine what is the best environment in which a child should grow up. The stunning thing about those studies is that they all come to the same conclusion—that households headed by married couples have the highest average income, the best outcomes in terms of education for their children, the best outcomes in terms of the health of their children, and by far the lowest participation in the abuse of, and violence against, children; and there is the lowest interconnectedness between such families and subsequent appearances before court in the criminal justice system.

Therefore, for as long as United Future is in Parliament, its refrain will be that we need to begin, as a society, to promote and support marriage in every way. I believe that if we do that, then we can begin to put a fence at the top of the cliff, and begin to reverse the breakdown in the family that we have been seeing for the last 25 to 30 years—for a considerable part of my life. This breakdown, by the way, now costs the taxpayer about $5 billion a year. How much we could all get by way of tax cuts if we could rebuild family life in this country! I am very proud to support this bill on behalf of United Future, because we believe that it is also part of the solution that we seek.

This is a good bill, and I am pleased to support it. I think that in the interests of children, whom we all purport to represent and care about, we should get on and get the bill passed.

I am pleased to speak on the second reading of the Commissioner for Children Bill, and I start by following a previous speaker—and no doubt others did, as well—in commending the work of the previous two Commissioners for Children, the late Laurie O’Reilly, and the recently retired Roger McClay. I think we have shown good foresight in setting up that position. It is a pity that under the tenure of both those men, we have seen an increase in child abuse and poverty among children. We have seen children come into enormous difficulties in our country. This underpins exactly why the bill is important, and why it is proper that we add some statutory functions for the commissioner. National will support the bill for these reasons.

We have recently seen, in the last 2 weeks, what enormous pressure the Minister Steve Maharey’s department is under. Frankly, we have seen the chief executive of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services step down. No doubt she felt bound to do something because nobody else seemed to want to take responsibility or the rap for what has been happening in that organisation over the last 2 or 3 years. It seems entirely unfair, given Jackie Pivac’s very open and honest comments about the enormous difficulty she was under in trying to discharge responsibilities with her team of people. This seems to be a situation where the Minister weakly stands across the House, preens himself, and smiles in the way he smiles, as though everything is going nicely and is hunky-dory, while in effect we have a Government agency in free fall. It is a great pity that the chief executive has had to take it upon herself to more or less take the blame for what has been happening in that department, while the Minister, Steve Maharey, stands clear. He is letting someone else take the rap for the appalling things that have happened in the 2 years that he has taken to get this tiny little bill—tiny in size but very important in its aims and objectives—to the House. It has taken him 2 years to start to move this bill on, and, of course, that is a disgusting and appalling state of affairs.

Our children, of course, are our future. I know we all think that and we all say that. Māori often refer to our children as being taonga, and precious, and of course they are precious because in them we invest all our hopes and dreams for the future, and we like to think that in whatever we do, we are creating a better world for them. But, as I say, recent events have shown us that New Zealand children are among the worst-off in the world in terms off poverty, abuse, and the violence they have to suffer. We have a Government that likes to say that it is here for all the ordinary people, and we have a Minister who likes to stand there weakly and pretend that everything is fine in terms of his own responsibilities, but he has been shown to be talking through a hole in his head, quite frankly.

It is unfortunate that we have some examples to refer to. There was the case of the little girl in the Wairarapa recently. Her father, Mr Burrows, made that call to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. What happened? Nothing. Then, finally, he lost his little girl. There was also the example of the two other little girls up there, and so on and so forth. How much longer will it be before Minister Maharey actually wakes up, steps into the real world, and really shows that he cares for the children of New Zealand? When will that Government show that it really cares for the children of New Zealand? As long as those members sit there in power, with the power to do something about it, and we get these appalling things happening to our children—

💬 Mark Peck: Say sorry.

Listen to that member! I do not know what he is suggesting that I should say sorry for. He is sitting in a Government that appears to be doing nothing, absolutely nothing, for the children of Aotearoa. He should be ashamed of himself. He should say he is sorry. He has been sitting in Government now for 4 years. What has he done to protect our little ones? Nothing. It is all very well getting into power, but members actually have to show that they can exercise the responsibility that comes with that power, and do something that makes a difference for the children of New Zealand. That is what Government members are meant to do. If they have not learnt that, then they should not be sitting on that side of the House.

I come back to our children—New Zealand children—and to the responsibility incumbent on all members of this House to show, not by words but by deeds, that we actually do care about these little ones. Thank goodness that the Commissioner for Children will be getting new functions, but, as I said, it is sad to see the department that has primary responsibility for children, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, under the severe pressure it has been under for the last 2 or 3 years, and we have to wonder how genuine the members of the Government are. It is a shocking state of affairs when we have the kinds of results and statistics we have, which show that our children are the least cared for in the world. Our children are the least cared for in the world—that is very hard to say, actually. It is very hard to say that, but it seems to be the case.

Unless Minister Maharey steps into the real world, takes some responsibility for what has been happening to our children in the last 4 or 5 years, takes some responsibility for starting to dig into the underlying problems that beset families in this country—which then result in the kinds of things we have seen over recent years—then he has failed the children of Aotearoa. He has no right to come into this House weakly, sit there, stand there in his smug way, and pretend everything is all right—because it is not.

As I said, I commend the work, particularly, of Roger McLay. I have been in this place during his tenure, and I think he did a sterling job trying to look out for our children, particularly those who are in difficult circumstances. He did a great job, as did the commissioner before him. I do not know Cindy Kiro personally. I have not met her, but I am certain that she will have her heart and soul in her kaupapa, which is looking after our children. I just hope that she will have the proper support from this Government. I hope this Government will get off its chuff and properly support and resource the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, so that it can do a better job for our children. Steve Maharey should get on and enlarge some of the things we did when we were in Government.

I will take just a very short call, first of all I say to the member who has just spoken that she should stop crying alligator tears. That party across the benches cut the benefit. Who does Georgina te Heuheu think got hurt by the benefit cuts? It was the children. The innocent victims of the benefit cuts were children, and for her to stand up and say that this side of the House does not care about children is just so much cant. It was members opposite who brought in market-related rentals—so children could not get food or go to school with shoes on their feet.

That member had her chance. The fact that she is on the real back bench now is an indication of how successful she was when she was in Government. It was also cant for her to stand up and say that conditions here are the worst in the world. She should go and have a look at conditions in Kenya and Jakarta. Half of the world’s population live on less than $2 a day. For that woman to spin that sort of rhetoric is just so much cant. She knows that it is not true, and to raise that sort of debate in this House is lower than low. I say to her that she has had her chance. This Government has got on and done a whole bunch, and this bill is part of it. For Georgina te Heuheu to get up in the House and speak as she did is just so wrong, and she knows it.