Children’s Commissioner Bill

The Children’s Commissioner Bill has undergone a change of name during the course of debate. It is fitting that, at this time when we are focusing on the rights of children, we have changed the name of the bill from the Commissioner for Children Bill to the Children’s Commissioner Bill.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Is that plural?

It is plural. The only thing is that it is a bit of a mouthful, and I am not too sure we should not just call it the “Kids’ Commissioner Bill”. It would probably be slightly more understandable to most people. I am happy about this particular name of the bill, because what we have done—apart from the fact that it is a huge mouthful and somewhat difficult to say in a rush—is very similar to what we did in relation to what was the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind, which became the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. It is an emphasis change, away from someone who is for the children, and saying that that commissioner is the children’s commissioner, rather than the other way around. I believe that that is a good thing, and the National Party is happy to support it. We are happy to see that that particular change has taken place in favour of children.

Part of the purpose of this debate is to look at how suitable the name is. Apart from the fact that we like that particular name and the change in emphasis, the purpose of this particular part of the debate is to look at how appropriate it is. Should this bill be called the Children’s Commissioner Bill, given its content? One of the things I think possibly we could talk about is the fact that quite a substantial part of the bill is taken up with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, yet the bill makes it quite clear that it does nothing more than append that convention to the bill. One wonders why, when no action is being taken, as I said, in relation to the convention other than what was taken back in 1993 by the then National Government, which ratified the convention. So, for some reason the attachment has been made, but it does not form part of the bill. I have to wonder whether maybe it should have in the title “Children’s Commissioner Bill” plus the attachment of “United Nations Convention for Children”.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: It tidies it up.

It does tidy it up, but we then have to wonder why it is added on. I think it is just possibly added on to add to the weight of the bill and to make it look as though it really is more about the children than it actually is. But, in summary, the National Party is happy with the change in emphasis towards children and away from the actual framework of the commissioner.

The title of a bill should reflect the content of the bill, and the title of the Children’s Commissioner Bill does that. It is appropriate, and we are in no doubt that the bill is focused on the Children’s Commissioner. Although it may initially seem insignificant, the manner in which something is worded, such as the title of this bill, can have really powerful implications. This amendment appears to reinforce the importance of the child and children, and strongly suggests the idea of ownership. The amendment to the title also ensures that the title is congruent with that of other statutory office-holders—for example, the Human Rights Commissioner or the Retirement Commissioner. So it fits in with the overall title of other such roles. New Zealand First supports this part of the bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions