Vulnerable Children Bill

This debate includes schedules 1 and 2.

It is my pleasure to rise and speak in the Committee stage of the Vulnerable Children Bill. As has been discussed in earlier readings of this bill, there has obviously been a long process that has led us to this point, beginning with the Minister for Social Development’s green paper and then the white paper and the Children’s Action Plan. This bill is the first attempt to entrench within legislation elements of that action plan, so it is, therefore, an omnibus bill.

There are many elements to Part 1 that I would like to touch on in my address. The first is the reference to the Government’s priorities for vulnerable children and the framework that the bill sets out around establishing a Vulnerable Children’s Plan. In clause 4 of Part 1 it states that the “purpose of this subpart is to—(a) support the Government’s setting of priorities for improving the well-being of vulnerable children; and (b) ensure that children’s agencies work together to improve the well-being of vulnerable children.” It may appear from that purpose clause that the Government is establishing an action plan for children.

I want to be really, really clear here, though. The Children’s Commissioner, when he presented to the Social Services Committee, was still calling for a children’s action plan because the commissioner did not determine the clauses and the framework within this bill to be a general action plan around children’s well-being. I think it is really important that we distinguish between what the Government plans to do here and what is being called for by experts and advocates in the field. Just today, in fact, we had the Child Poverty Action Group again calling for a broader children’s action plan that is focused on general well-being.

What have we seen from the Government to date in terms of its priority setting for vulnerable children? We have seen things like social obligations, targets around rheumatic fever and immunisation, patchy provision of insulation, and initiatives like the Minister’s nit treatment programme. All of these are often isolated projects that are not currently part of a coherent plan; nor do they address the underlying issues around child vulnerability and child well-being. In fact, if we really do want to target what we loosely call “vulnerability”, which is a very fraught phrase in itself, we actually should have an action plan that is focused on children’s overall well-being. That is the way that we can lift both those children and many children who are at risk of vulnerability.

What do we have with the framework of this Vulnerable Children’s Plan? What is the Government setting out here instead? It sets out in clause 7 that the plan must be used to set the Government’s priorities for vulnerable children. The use of the word “priorities” is, I think, really important. We have seen in the past that when the Government really wants to achieve something, it will use a target. It will be very specific about what its expectations are for chief executives and departments. Here, though, in setting out its action plan, it is much more focused on a much more generic notion of priorities—things it wants Government departments to focus on for children. I think, unfortunately, that that is not pitching it as high as we need.

It has also set out the priority areas that an action plan may or may not address, and that is set out in clause 6. I want to list what they are, because it says in clause 6: “In this subpart, improving the well-being of vulnerable children”—not all children but vulnerable children—“in relation to the setting of Government priorities … and the preparation of the vulnerable children’s plan … means promoting the best interests of vulnerable children …”. Again, this is the Minister’s deliberate targeting of particular children. It goes on to say: “(having regard to the whole of their lives), including (without limitation) taking measures aimed at”—I want to emphasise that “whole of their lives” statement; that is important—“(a) protecting them from abuse and neglect: (b) improving their physical and mental health and their cultural and emotional well-being: (c) improving their education and training … (d) strengthening their connection to their families, … (e) increasing their participation in decision making about them, and their contribution to society: (f) improving their social and economic well-being.”

There is an enormous amount of potential in that last part, in “(f) improving their social and economic well-being.” Our hope would have been that that element of the plan was, firstly, much more specific; secondly, much more of a priority in the list; and, thirdly, that it actually set out, first of all, that in order to improve the social and economic well-being of a child it is important to know what some of the general statistics affecting these kids are. This is where we come back to the notion that if we want to improve something, we need to fully understand our starting point. So we have continued to advocate that as part of these plans, what we should have had was an official agreed measurement, targets, and then reporting on those targets so that we know what progress we are making.

Of course, I am talking about child poverty. We know that we have 285,000 children living in poverty. That is a Treasury number. I see the Minister for Social Development is shaking her head, but that is a Treasury figure. We know that because Treasury had to revise it. We are not saying that just the measurement is important; we are saying that actually the goal-setting around it is. That is exactly what they did in the UK. Their plan did not amorphously say: “We are kind of interested in economic well-being.” It said: “Let’s get real about this.” It said “Let’s set out what our targets are for improving the economic well-being for these children.”, because when you get as specific as that, you really start getting accountability. The UK Government reports back to Parliament on progress, and that is what we would have liked to see here as well.

We have got a point of comparison because Labour already has a bill that does that very thing. It is called the Child Poverty (Reduction and Eradication) Bill. It sets out a similar notion as this bill but it is much more specific in what is required of the Government. It says that you must have a Minister for Children, you must have a board with all of the relevant heads of department who are accountable for the plan that is established, and you must set targets that cut across all of the areas where we see the effects of poverty: health, education, housing, and social development. Let us not set just priorities; let us set actual key performance indicators. Our bill goes a step further than this framework does. It says that it must be reported against as part of the Public Finance Act requirements. At Budget time we want to know what progress is being made on behalf of children.

I have Supplementary Order Paper 436, which would make an amendment to clause 9, and would add in those additional requirements for the plan. It says that periodic targets must be set around economic well-being, mechanisms for monitoring must be put in place, and we want to see those wider socio-economic indicators. It is about not just measurement but about setting targets to reduce those harmful statistics that we already know about.

That is where we felt a little bit disappointed. We felt that the bill could have gone that much further. We have offered a solution on how it could go further, and that may notably fulfil some of the requirements that have been asked for by the Children’s Commissioner. The report of the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty set out what it thought a children’s action plan should look like. That is actually very close to what Labour’s bill mimics, and we have plucked out elements for the Minister to implement in her bill if she would like to be able to tick off that extra recommendation from the Children’s Commissioner.

Moving on to Subpart 2, which covers child protection policies, I think it is important that we note, when discussing this element of the bill, that many Government departments or State entities already have child protection policies in place, so I would not want to leave that view hanging. District health boards, in particular—various health authorities—do have very robust child protection policies in place that include training their staff to adequately recognise child abuse and neglect. But what this bill does is that it embeds it in policy. There was some debate over whether some of this should be mandatory. I happen to agree with the place the Minister has got to in, at least, requiring that we see some of those Government entities embodying these policies without going that extra step further. Our position on that was simple: we did not believe that we could move to a place of mandatory reporting without having established, robust training in place for those State agencies and, indeed, beyond State agencies to community organisations who are working with children as well.

Secondly, we fear that without proper training we would see potentially over-reporting and false reporting, and our social services are not equipped to deal with that demand right now. They are virtually unable to deal with the demand they have currently without that kind of additional pressure. So we are not fundamentally opposed to the notion but preparatory work is required.

I am going to make it absolutely crystal clear in this Chamber right now that the Vulnerable Children Bill is about children’s protection, and it is for those most vulnerable children who are being abused and neglected right now. If you want to cut to the facts of it, we get over 150,000 notifications to Child, Youth and Family. In the last 12 months there have been 61,000 notifications with further action required, and over 21,000 substantiated cases of abuse and neglect. That abuse and neglect has been increasing over a period of time because we have more notifications, which means we are getting to more of those children. It equally means, if you are asking for my opinion, that we are getting to about a third of them, so that means we have at least another 40,000 kids, in my opinion, who are out there and who are, quite frankly, living little lives of daily hell that we are not addressing as we should be as a Parliament. So this bill goes some way to addressing that.

That member, Jacinda Ardern, can talk about broadening this discussion out to all of those children who are purported to be living in poverty, but I can tell you that we would not be addressing those most vulnerable children if we did that, because there is a need right now for these kids to get the kind of response that they need. They need child protection policies in schools, in NGOs, and in Government departments, which have much better training behind them so people know where to go to. We know perfectly well that there are cases right now where children are being abused and neglected, and there are professionals who are turning a blind eye because they do not have the right policies and the right training in place, and they are not doing the job that they should be.

So that member can get up in this Committee and take her little call about how she thinks this bill needs to be broader and reach all of these hundreds and thousands of kids, when the reality is, to this country’s shame, we have kids who need us performing better now, and this bill goes some way to achieving that.

It has to go further. It has to go to what is happening in our communities, in our streets, in our households. It needs child protection policies that actually go across it. It needs chief executives who are standing up and taking a stand against child abuse. That member just needs to spend some time out there talking to some of these children who have been sexually and violently and emotionally abused, and then she needs to ask herself about standing up and talking about a measure of poverty at this time, when you have one of the most critical bills, in my opinion, going through the Committee of the whole House on this day. That can be where the debate wants to go for that member, but, actually, this is what this bill is. I have always owned that this is for the protection of our most vulnerable children, of which there are tens of thousands whom we have a responsibility to stand up and address in this House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Vulnerable Children Bill, and I want to acknowledge that we support the intentions behind this bill. There is nothing wrong with the intentions, but the children out there are hungry. The reason why they are hungry, I say to the Minister for Social Development, is that they are in the hands of those who do not care about their welfare. They are not being well looked after. They are hungry because their families are actually struggling. My speech will be focusing very much on Part 1, which is related to the Supplementary Order Papers that I have put forward. On behalf of New Zealand First, there are two separate Supplementary Order Papers, although they have been put into one paper, and our support for this bill will depend on the support that we get for those Supplementary Order Papers.

The first thing that we have to mention here is that the evidence of child abuse in New Zealand is tragic. I acknowledge the speech by the Minister talking about child abuse. Yes, there are a lot of those cases, and many of those involve children who have been abused by those who are working with the children either on a voluntary basis or as paid workers, indirectly and on a regular basis. These abuses come in many forms. There is physical abuse, mental illness, emotional stress, developmental instability, and neglect. Then there is the tragic issue of hungry children. I know that the Minister did not want to acknowledge that earlier on. All these disadvantages paint a picture of horrific environments for all—absolutely horrific.

It is ironic, though, to think that although the Government has championed this bill, it is the same Government that is responsible for the so-called economic policy that has contributed to poverty in this country. Many have struggled due to financial issues. They have struggled due to financial issues. The bill aims to reduce the risk of harm to children by requiring people employed or engaged in work that involves regular or overnight contact with children to be screened. These people ought to be screened for any safety concerns that may pose or will pose severe issues for our young children.

I worked in the Department of Corrections. I have seen so many people imprisoned because they were involved in abuse cases involving children. It is not a very interesting topic to discuss. But I know that most people actually ignore the fact that we have grassroots knowledge and experience in these cases. I have been the chair of a board of trustees for 19 years at a Catholic school. I am familiar with the situation here. I have also been in charge of early childhood education where our local community played an important role in the programme.

At the Social Services Committee I asked questions about security and safety checks on volunteers who are engaged with children on a regular basis. I was astounded with the response I received to my question. One answer said that some groups were not comfortable with my amendment, because it could discourage much-needed volunteers from working at schools, clubs, churches, and early childhood education centres. I hear that quite a lot. The other answer was that we must also acknowledge how much non-profit organisations working with children rely on volunteers. Yes, I acknowledge that too. We are aware that without volunteers, many will struggle. I acknowledge that volunteers do fantastic work for many groups. However, it was an interesting response, and one that was given casually, without any serious thought. I believe that most people who are genuine about the service that they provide for our young children will be supportive of security background checks, because they will have an appreciation that children will be safer. It is not easy coming from a community where our children are subjected to these kinds of situations. It is a safety net for our tamaiti and our fanau.

The issue of alcohol and drug abuse in New Zealand is worsening, and often children are affected by it. Drugs like legal highs highlight major issues in our country. Of course, children are often the victims at the end of the day. In recent months legal highs have become the new evil that the parents of some children, or even the carers for children, have been taking, and they have ignored the welfare of the children whom they were in charge of. There are more people changing the types of drugs that they do take. A lot of those who do take these drugs become easily annoyed, impatient, and lack tolerance. That is why I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper, hoping that it will close the gap and provide a safety net, looking at the loopholes that this bill currently has.

Fear makes children suppressed. I have been in a position where some children in a family were too scared to speak up, because some of the people involved in the case happen to be family. For a lot of children who have been affected, it is mainly by those who were under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or, of course, gambling most of the time. A new generation of young people in this country are getting the wrong message about how to behave around alcohol and drugs. Exposing young children to environments where drugs and alcohol are used excessively and irresponsibly can be considered a form of child abuse.

My Supplementary Order Papers focus on ensuring that security checks can be carried out for volunteers on a regular basis. The first one, Supplementary Order Paper 447, is about those who volunteer on a regular basis, because volunteers often have connections to drug and alcohol abuse and, more important, sexual abuse. Those are the areas that we believe Parliament often ignores. Parliament often forgets to take them into consideration. I am asking the Minister and the people in this Committee to do something about this area. Let us have a look at how we can improve the safety of our children and reduce the risk associated with having them being connected with volunteers who have a history of alcohol or drug abuse and also have a history related to sexual violence.

Police estimate that only 18 percent of domestic violence incidents are reported. That means 82 percent of unreported domestic violence incidents can never be addressed, which could lead to severe cases. The second part of my Supplementary Order Paper 447 is about those who are paid workers, not just by organisations but also, probably, by parents and other people. That refers to taxi drivers or bus drivers who often transport children to and from the organisation. They ought to be screened and they ought to be followed up to ensure that they are safe to have anything to do with our young children. Too often we read in the media or watch on television about these kinds of cases. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye.

I should also point out that parents and caregivers who gamble away the futures of their children through Skycity and through pokie machines are the ones who are also in need of being made accountable. They ought to be responsible for the risks that they are causing to their children and to their fanau.

Pasifika people have actually become one of the most at-risk ethnicities for developing compulsive gambling behaviour. By the fact that they are gambling so much, they are spending the money that they should be spending on their children. Of course, domestic and family violence is the result of a situation where financial literacy or debts become a problem within the family. We have seen it so many times where the children end up being the victims in those cases.

So New Zealand First would really like the Committee to consider the Supplementary Order Papers that it has put forward. The first part of Supplementary Order Paper 447 is about protecting children from volunteers who work with children on a regular basis. The second part of Supplementary Order Paper 447 is about safety checks of those taxi drivers or bus drivers who often transport children to and from an organisation. Thank you.