Children’s Commissioner Bill

It is a pleasure to stand to speak to Part 1 of the Children’s Commissioner Bill. Basically, Part 1 is the crux of the bill. It concerns the purpose of the bill, and one of the purposes of this legislation is to continue the role of the Children’s Commissioner, and to enhance and strengthen that role. One of the questions I have for the Minister in the chair is to ask why the Government has backed away from making the Children’s Commissioner an Officer of Parliament, which was Labour Party election policy for the 1999 election.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: No, it wasn’t.

It is very clearly in the policy, in black and white. The Minister is shaking his head. But if one looks at the social welfare policy put out at that time, one can see that it was very clearly indicated that the Labour Party’s intention was to make the Children’s Commissioner an Officer of Parliament. The aim was to strengthen the role of the Children’s Commissioner and to make sure that there could be no criticism or thought that the Children’s Commissioner could be manipulated by any other body. That was the reason behind it, but now we have a very diluted version of that. Yes, some of the roles have been strengthened, but not to the point that the Labour Party originally intended. So I think the Minister should get to his feet and explain why, particularly in the purposes of Part 1, that has not been done, and give reasons why the Government has backed away from what was a very clearly communicated intention.

The next important purpose requires the commissioner to have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is important that that is now part of the Children’s Commissioner Bill, so that the commissioner has express powers to ensure that that particular convention is promoted.

One of the important changes we have seen in this bill is the change that allows the commissioner to give evidence in a court and gives the commissioner express powers to obtain information and documents for the purpose of investigation. I think tomorrow, with the release of the Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson reports, we will see a fine example of the commissioner using those powers to collect information to be able to put forward an explanation for some of the high-profile cases that bother this country. We saw the same sort of work done with the James Whakaruru report, and I think tomorrow we will see an equally important piece of work and, hopefully, some explanation as to why those two girls were murdered.

I suppose this part of the bill is quite straightforward in terms of the preliminary provisions. There really is not much in terms of detail, but if one looks at the purposes, one can see it does very clearly give a broad-brush view of the changes that will be made to the commissioner’s functions, and the modifications that will be made in an attempt to strengthen the role.

The purpose of Part 1 appears to New Zealand First to be very straightforward. The purpose statements in themselves are very clear, as are the definitions listed there. I was pleased to see that there was no date specified on this particular bill as to when it comes into force, as the bill has been on the Order Paper for quite some time. It is really good, too, to see the reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am fully aware that, although we do not always follow through on some of the recommendations from that particular body, we do need to be reminded of that convention from time to time. So, New Zealand First will support this part of the bill.

The National Party is pleased to see that the commissioner will have a role in helping to support and advocate for children in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We view the rights of the child as absolutely paramount. In particular, when reviewing again the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it was interesting to see that one of the most important parts is the right of a child and the rights of parents to have common responsibilities in the upbringing and development of the child, and the declaration that parents and/or the legal guardians have the primary responsibility in the upbringing and development of the child, and that is a fact recognised by the UN. We are particularly pleased to see that the commissioner will now have an absolute role in promoting this. We believe there has been too little acceptance that a child’s rights to acknowledge his or her own parents, and for those parents to have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child, have to be paramount and recognised. We hope that the commissioner can take a very robust role in this regard, will not feel at all concerned about accepting any direction from any Government Minister or anyone else, and can be an absolutely independent advocate for children. We are particularly pleased to see this part in the bill.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to talk on Part 1 of the Children’s Commissioner Bill. I ask the Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, to explain why it has taken 4 years for this legislation to come forward. This bill had its beginnings in the previous Parliament, before 1999, when John Wright brought it in as a member’s bill. I remember that at the time the Social Services Committee was told that his bill would be parked up and overtaken by a Government bill. I think it would be interesting for the Minister to explain why it took 4 years to do so, and, not only that, why this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for 18 months.

This Government likes to tell New Zealanders that it really does care about children, but I think many people out there remain quite sceptical about that. The Children’s Commissioner Bill will give more power to the commissioner, but it does not give the commissioner true independence. A new commissioner was appointed just a few months ago, and it is one position where I would have expected the Labour Government to consult the Opposition parties. There are a number of statutory functions that Parliament is responsible for, like the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman, where there is cross-party consultation. Usually the people whose names are put forward are good people, and usually we all agree with the names that are put forward, and there is very little disagreement about the people who have been nominated. I would have thought that appointing a Commissioner for Children would be a similar sort of opportunity for Labour to show true parliamentary representation by asking members of Parliament to have an input. We were extremely disappointed that the Minister, Mr Maharey, and his Cabinet and Government, did not seek suggestions from Opposition members, and did not even bother to touch base.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: We asked Winston Peters; he’s the Opposition.

Mr Samuels can call out from his seat, but the point is that neither he nor any of his Government thought that this was a position important enough to consult with Opposition members of Parliament. We are talking about a Children’s Commissioner—somebody who advocates for children and who works across parties. The point is that there should have been cross-party representation in choosing the commissioner. Part 1 deals with the commencement, and I would like to know why the Minister made this bill such a low priority for his Government. I think it is a fair question to ask. The bill has sat on the Order Paper for 18 months, and I think it is fair for him to take a call and explain why the Children’s Commissioner Bill is of so little importance to his Government that it was pushed down the Order Paper quite consistently.

This bill is very timely, because the Commissioner for Children will release a report tomorrow into a very tragic case involving two young girls who were killed by their stepfather. The report will provide Parliament and the Government with some recommendations, but we have seen such reports coming out of that office before, and the very sad thing about them is that they are not binding on the Government. The Government can say that it reads them, that it hears what the commissioner is saying, then totally ignore the recommendations. I would like the Minister to reflect on the report about James Whakaruru, which was probably the first major report put out by the commissioner. It had a series of recommendations. If I recall correctly, that was back in 1999. When we look at the shape of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services today—the agency that deals with child welfare issues—we see that basically the Government made very little acknowledgement of the points raised by the Commissioner for Children. There were many steps in the James Whakaruru report, which, if the Government had taken them on board, would have meant that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services would be a stronger organisation today.

I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the Children’s Commissioner Bill. We were thrilled to see the work that has been undertaken so far by the Commissioner for Children, and also the recent appointment of our commissioner. I guess the current care and protection issues that have been highlighted over the last couple of years stress the fact that it is essential for children to have their voices heard. The long-awaited time has arrived, and we can now process this bill.

I want to reflect on why we have commissions, and to put that in the context of this particular commission. We have commissions because we recognise a particular set of circumstances or some particular values that, as a society, we want protected and advocated for, and not left vulnerable to the whim of any given Government. We have privacy and human rights commissions, an environment commissioner, and, very soon, a families commission, which will protect and advocate for that particular context. As children are undoubtedly the treasure of the nation, the Office of the Commissioner for Children has a noble mandate to uphold their needs and rights for a safe and nurturing passage into adulthood. We are thrilled that the bill raises awareness and understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the work the commission does in upholding it, and that the bill will allow the commissioner to monitor the application of the convention by Government departments and other instruments of the Crown. United Future has a particular interest in those articles of the convention that highlight the rights of children to have healthy participation in their family context, in particular articles 7, 9, and 10 of the convention, which specify those areas.

The bill also relates to decisions that affect the lives of children, promotes greater participation of children in decisions that affect them, and takes an approach that gives their views a weight in accordance with the age and maturity of each child concerned. The bill will promote the establishment of accessible and effective complaints mechanisms for children. The pendulum has truly moved on and away from the days in which children were deemed to be seen but not heard. We welcome the opportunity for children’s opinions to be considered, and commend the bill to the Committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to.