Vulnerable Children Bill

I just wanted to respond quickly on Supplementary Order Paper 438 and Supplementary Order Paper 447 by the member who has just resumed her seat, Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor. I just want you to know that whether to include volunteers or not was extensively canvassed. I have not got the number right in front of me but over 200,000 people—I think it was 375,000 people, actually—need to be vetted and screened through all agencies and Government departments.

So when we really got down to it, some of your argument is valid. There is no doubt about it. There is evidence of people in volunteer organisations and in volunteer roles sexually and violently abusing children in the past. When we looked at it, there is absolutely nothing stopping those organisations from screening volunteers, and a lot of them do it now voluntarily. I do not really want to name those organisations, because I think they are doing a great job and I do not want to give them undue notice in this Chamber that they do not deserve. But there are a whole lot of volunteers who are screened and vetted who are working with kids.

We felt that we had literally hundreds of thousands to get through to make sure we had it all right. I have got to say that if the argument got to a point where we were ready to take on that next lot, which is the volunteers, and we had all the structures up, then I personally would be very keen to take that to Cabinet and see that happen. I do think that it is perhaps the next step, but I do not think we are quite ready for it.

I just wanted to clarify that bus drivers and taxi drivers as well—anyone who is contracted by, for instance, the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Social Development, through disability or vocational services, would be included because they are contractors.

I hear what you have said. I want you to know that we really did. We went back and forth about three or four times on it. Where we landed was: let us get it right for Government departments and those whom we contract with, and if the will is to take that next step, then I think you would find that we would be well ready to have that debate.

I am pleased to take a call in the Part 1 debate on the Vulnerable Children Bill. It was actually a very civilised debate until the Minister for Social Development got up on her feet and attacked our spokesperson on children, Jacinda Ardern, for daring—daring—to raise the issue of child poverty and the need to deal with that in this country. I want to put it on record that the Labour Party supports this bill and therefore did not deserve that unwarranted attack. But does it not tell the country everything it needs to know about how much this Government despises people who have not got the means to get by and how much it does not want to debate those issues? I think that was a disgraceful performance by the Minister, attacking an Opposition spokesperson for daring to raise the issue.

Although we support this bill, we wish that it went an awful lot further—we do. I think that is right and proper for there to be debate in this Committee, and I regret that the Minister went on the attack. It should be a civilised debate—

💬 Mike Sabin: We’re going a lot further by trying to ensure the economy is performing—everything that that member votes against.

It should be a civilised debate, Mr Sabin, when we talk about children and their needs.

💬 Mike Sabin: Don’t stand up there and go on talking about poverty, and then don’t vote for Government bills that support economic growth.

Pardon?

💬 Mike Sabin: I said don’t stand there and talk about poverty if the member is not—

Oh, I am not to stand here and talk about poverty, says another one of the MPs on the Government benches. Well, there we go. This is a debating chamber, on behalf of all the other people of New Zealand, and the Labour Party will talk about the needs of all of the people of New Zealand, not just your rich mates in your Cabinet club, Mr Sabin. That is what we are here to bring to this debating chamber. Please do not tell me that I am not to get up and speak about child poverty in this Chamber. I know it harms you to hear it, because it is your Government’s track record, but please, Mr Sabin, do not try to shut down debate about an issue that is very important to this country and certainly very important to the people who are listening to this debate. They will recognise, even if the National Government does not, that we have growing inequality in this country, and going into denial about that, as the Minister did when she spoke, is not going to address those very real issues.

And yet, we stand here supporting the Minister’s bill. That is right, Minister. We are supporting your bill because this is an area that we do want to see progress on. [Interruption] Mr Sabin is still yelling and bellowing. He does not want to understand that we are ambitious about actually getting a whole range of other issues dealt with when it comes to vulnerable children.

But, Mr Sabin, I do want to speak about one particular part of this bill, and that is the part that the Minister actually did rise and speak in a civilised manner about, and that is the issue of volunteers. Although I am sure the Government did think about this very seriously, it needs to think about it even more seriously. The reality is that the statistics tell us that, sadly, it is more often the people in the unpaid workforce who are guilty of abusing vulnerable children than it is the people in the paid workforce. The Minister talked about the 375,000 people who will need to be vetted under this bill who are in the paid workforce. Well, that is useful, but all the evidence tells us that the more likely problem is in the group that will go unvetted under this bill. I do think that is a really serious issue. If we are serious about addressing the needs of vulnerable children, then we do absolutely need to take that on board. I do not think the Government has given that enough consideration. We will be pleased to support the amendments coming forward on this bill that attempt to address that.

I was very saddened to read in the weekend about a case of a carer for Child, Youth and Family who had been found guilty of abusing children in his care, and the very difficult situation that the family had had to address. In fact, they had had great difficulty finding out that this had even happened. They had great difficulty finding out that it had happened, and therefore what steps could be taken to protect their children who were in the care of Child, Youth and Family. The reason why I raise that in the context of this debate is that the checks and the vetting that are required by this bill had taken place in that case. So I think we need to be really clear that some of what is proposed in this bill happens already and has happened for quite some time in a number of these Government departments, but they have failed to keep children safe.

So we should be under no false illusion that the bill that we are passing through its Committee stage this evening will be the silver bullet that addresses children who are vulnerable to being abused by adults in whose care they are placed. We have children who, in that case, were required to be in the care of that adult—they did not just choose to be in the care of that adult, but were required to be in the care of that adult—and these vetting and police checks could not keep those children safe.

I think it is sobering for all of us to know that this legislation, while taking some steps, will not prevent these situations and certainly it quite deliberately, as the Minister described before, will not prevent them from happening in a situation where the adult in charge of that child is in a volunteer role. As I said at the outset of my contribution to this debate—actually, it was not quite at the outset; I had something to say about the tenor of the Minister’s contribution. But, shortly after that, I referred to the fact that it is more often people in volunteer situations who take advantage of vulnerable children than it is people in the paid workforce. I do think there are things that we need to consider in doing this.

My colleague Jacinda Ardern spoke, I thought very thoughtfully and without controversy, about the need for a children’s plan. This part of the bill brings into place the Vulnerable Children’s Plan. My colleague was quite rightly pointing out that if it was actually dealing with the needs of the vulnerable children of this country, it would also deal with the issue of poverty. It would recognise that children living in poverty are vulnerable as well, and that it would take steps, as the Children’s Commissioner has asked for it to do, to address those needs. I do not think that is something that should invite a tirade from the bill’s sponsoring Minister. I think that is something that should be debated in this Parliament genuinely and in a civilised manner, for the sake of the children.

It is the intention of the New Zealand Labour Party to ensure that those voices are heard, as well as the voices that have been heard through the Minister’s process, which was carefully harnessed through a green paper and a white paper. I am not sure if it was in that order. It might have been the white paper first and then the green paper. I get confused about which one comes first. But it was a very carefully managed process, and I congratulate the Minister on it. But a lot of the people who made submissions to that process in fact said exactly the things that Jacinda Ardern just articulated on their behalf. She just articulated those very things on their behalf around the importance of understanding that children are vulnerable when they are placed in poverty. They are placed in poverty because of the policies being pursued by this Government. I think it is very right to raise those issues. They do not deserve to have their views, which were being articulated by my colleague, face a tirade from the Minister.

I hope that the Minister will take a different approach to the debate for the rest of the Committee stage on Part 1. I hope the Government members on the Social Services Committee will take some calls on this as well, and will acknowledge that the role of the Labour Party and, I think, of all members on the select committee were very positive and proactive in terms of trying to get the best possible solution to this bill. It was the Opposition members who ensured that child harm prevention orders were taken out of this bill because they were going to be unworkable. That was not argued for by the Government members on the select committee; that was a really valuable contribution, finally picked up by the Minister, from the Opposition members on the select committee. So I think it is important that all the voices on these issues are heard and that there is no attempt by the Government to shut debate down, because we are talking about the needs of children, and I think we ought to do that in a civilised manner.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Vulnerable Children Bill, which, unfortunately, the Greens are unable to support. The Greens believe that New Zealand can provide a society where every child can thrive, and, for us, this bill and the process of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children and the green paper were an opportunity for public debate on how to deliver that society for our children. We know that many of the NGOs and advocates for children participated in that process with that vision, as well. We are a wealthy country, in effect. We have a lot of resource in this country. We can actually afford to deliver that vision for every one of our children.

The end result of delivering that for every one of our children will be a society that can grow, that can respond to the challenges that are in front of us, and that can be the best that it can be, because our children are, in a sense, our future—as has been said in many a pop song. This bill, sadly, does not deliver that vision or that opportunity. In fact, we are worried that the narrow scope of it will actually interfere in the ability to deliver for the children—the very few children—whom it is named to deliver for.

In effect, this part of the bill is saying that it will “support the Government’s setting of priorities for improving the well-being of vulnerable children;” and gives the Government the ability to define vulnerability for the purposes of this work. We have had indications from the Government that its definition and understanding of vulnerability is quite narrow, and we are being told that that is about us having limited resources and needing to channel them to those most in need. We challenge that premise, and we—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I didn’t say that.

That has been said throughout the process, Minister. You may not have said it yourself in this debate, but it has been said. And if it is not the case, then why are we not broadening out and actually putting in place what Regional Public Health has noted in its submission is a much wider approach in terms of taking a public health prevention approach, which has been proven internationally to be the most effective approach at delivering for children who are at risk?

Why are we implementing a policy and a process that are in conflict with the basic principles of Whānau Ora and a public health prevention approach? Why are we doing that, Minister? I am hoping you can explain that to us, because I have not heard through any of the submissions or the discussion why there is this need to focus on such a narrow, narrow group, which has so much risk of missing so many children and misses the fundamental causes and drivers of harm and does nothing to create safe environments. We know that, actually, creating safe environments is going to be what delivers for our children in the long term. Just leaving it up to the State to intervene when there is harm already is basically saying that we give up. We do not give up, and there is no need to give up. This country can afford to deliver a different future for our children and, sadly, this bill does not do it.

I also note that Otago University’s public health department noted a deep concern that the definition of vulnerability will lie in the hands of the responsible Minister, rather than our having a broader definition that is based on community analysis. We have heard from many submitters that, actually, there is an understanding that all children are vulnerable. By their nature they are dependent on others, and it is up to us to create that safe environment and those safe families for them to be able to grow and thrive, in recognition of that vulnerability.

I would also just like to take issue a little with the Minister’s response to Jacinda Ardern. I get the passion that the Minister conveys around the importance of addressing sexual abuse and physical violence against children. That is an issue I am deeply passionate about and have spent much of my life working on, as have others in this House. But I will point out that, in effect, the Government has edited out, through this process, any mention of domestic violence.

We know there are different understandings of domestic violence and incorrect understandings of the nature of domestic violence across our different ministries, including Child, Youth and Family. The Family Violence Death Review Committee noted in its submission that there is an issue within our systems of recognising lethality. There is another issue of passing on the concerns that are there, and then yet another issue about getting a response, even when those concerns do manage to get passed on. That committee works with Child, Youth and Family a lot and it finds it very difficult due to a lack of resources. It believes that it needs more time and training and more staff. We have not heard of any extra resourcing in terms of supporting it. It has said we need to fund time to meet and build trust.

This approach from the Government talks about a lot of collaboration between the ministries, which is essential. We need to have that. I really think that the State Sector Act needs a review in terms of breaking down those silos across the Government, but we also need to fund that time to build trust and understanding between those agencies so that everyone is talking the same language and is able to go to somebody when they have a concern, and there is nothing we have heard that is saying that that is going to be delivered. When we are not funding the delivery of the core mechanisms that are in this to ensure that they are going to work, then, actually, it is hard to see how it is different from window dressing, and our children deserve better than that. We have enough resource in this country to deliver a better future for them, and it is not OK that so many of them are at risk at the moment.

I do want to go back to the point around domestic violence, in particular, because we have seen a reduction in funding for the core response agencies. We know we have, Minister. Figures from the Parliamentary Library show that the funding for Women’s Refuge has dropped by just over 30 percent over the last 3 years. We have seen that the funding for stopping violence programmes for, typically, fathers who are seeking to get treatment has also dropped by 16 percent over the last 3 years.

Minister, this is around the point of vulnerability and the point of domestic violence. Over half of the children who have Child, Youth and Family notifications attached to them are coming from families that are violent, where there is domestic violence present, and yet this bill does not acknowledge that reality. Unless we acknowledge that reality and actually take on domestic violence head on, name it, and get the understanding of it shared across the relevant ministries, then, actually, we are in danger of putting these kids at risk because we are in danger of taking them away from protective parents, which is happening all too often. Sadly, we are still hearing stories coming out of the community of children losing both of their parents because the State cannot understand and support the role of the protective parent. It is so hard for those fathers to access the support that they need to change their attitudes, behaviour, and beliefs to become good fathers, and this bill, sadly, again does nothing to deliver on that.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Vulnerable Children Bill. I would have thought that addressing the needs of vulnerable children would not be a matter of intense contest—that it would be an area in which this Parliament would come together and work collectively to find the best solutions possible that are consistent with the nature of knowledge, the nature of science, and the nature of practice, to make those kinds of changes. Whenever, over the 6 years I have been in this House, this Government has come up with any sensible idea to do with addressing the needs of the vulnerable and the not so well off, this Opposition has supported those ideas—always supported those ideas.

However, that is not to say that the proposals that the Minister for Social Development brings before the House are perfect. We will support the good projects—and we support this particular one as well, and we have supported it throughout the process in the first reading and the Social Services Committee consideration, and now in the third reading—but this approach has major shortcomings. We want to expose those, and by exposing those shortcomings and attempting to improve the bill we ought not to be subjected to the kind of personal attack we got from the Minister a little while ago in response to the speech given by Jacinda Ardern.

I want to remind the Minister of a story, because it fundamentally shows the Minister’s own shortcomings in her thinking around this. The officials know what the knowledge is about and could give her a lesson on what that knowledge ought to be and where it leads. There is a man fishing, and as the man is fishing by the riverside, he sees a child drowning. He jumps in and saves the child—resuscitation, and the child is fine. The child is on his way, and the young man starts fishing again. In a little while there is another young person, a young child, coming down the river in the same state. The man saves that one as well. Then there is a third one and then there is a fourth one. What the man does is find somebody else to save the ones who are coming down the stream, but he goes upstream. The people watching ask him what he is doing, and he says he is going to go upstream to stop the person who is pushing these children into the stream.

That is a very simple analogy that explains the views that Jacinda Ardern was stating. Is the Minister incapable of doing both—rescuing the children who are the most vulnerable and, at the same time, going upstream and stopping those processes that are pushing these children into the stream? Any sensible policy would do both things. That is called primary, secondary, and tertiary intervention. It is well written about, Minister. And, yet, in the Minister’s own response to Jacinda Ardern, what she was showing was the politicisation of this particular issue that this Minister and this Government have done. They have politicised these issues in this way. They have simply looked at the headline-grabbing events, the headline-grabbing kinds of ideas that would somehow show to the Minister’s own supporters that they are doing a great deal. In fact, they are not doing a great deal. These policies will not fundamentally change the outcome for vulnerable children.

What Jan Logie, Jacinda Ardern, and Sue Moroney have just been talking about is that there is a whole complex of factors that have to be addressed. Part 1 does not address that complex of factors. That is what we are trying to point out, Minister, and that does not deserve those kinds of personal attacks by you. It is not sexy to talk about the fundamental causes that lead children to vulnerability. It is probably sexy in her frame—that actually gets others to somehow see that they are making a fundamental difference. In fact, they are not. It is much more integrated to look at both the provision of services to those who are most vulnerable right now and to ensure that those who are becoming vulnerable or are at risk of becoming vulnerable are also prevented from entering that stream. This bill does not do that.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a shame that my colleague Rajen Prasad was unable to finish his address, but I am very pleased to take another call on Part 1 of the Vulnerable Children Bill, particularly so we can speak on child protection policies, which are a significant part of the bill. But before I go on to that, it feels like it would be remiss of me not to respond to the Minister for Social Development’s contribution after my address. If I did not make it absolutely clear in that first part of my address, let me do it now. Labour is supporting this bill. We have even said that when this Government is removed in September, we will continue with the Government’s Children’s Action Plan. We have acknowledged and seen the work that has gone into the green paper process and the white paper process. All of the input that has come from this sector into this piece of work has been considerable, and we are not willing to walk away from that. So for the Minister to try to somehow imply that we have not supported elements of her work is not only misleading but also a politicisation of what otherwise was a reasonable contribution of how our position differs in some areas from this Government’s.

Yes, we support the Vulnerable Children Bill, but do we think it goes far enough? No. We have said that clearly all along, and it is a reasonable point to make, because child poverty is not to ignore child abuse. But if you ignore child abuse, then you are ignoring wider fundamental issues around child well-being. In fact, the Government has been at great pains to separate out the issues of child abuse, neglect, and vulnerability from issues of child poverty. We have consistently argued that all of the research and all of the evidence says that you cannot separate out issues that cannot be separated out. In fact, we would never ever in this Chamber—you will never hear one member of this side of the Chamber ever say this—argue that because you are poor, you hurt your children. Of course not—that is a despicable implication to make. But nor can any Government that is responsible and looks at the evidence and research ignore the role that poverty plays in vulnerability and that poverty plays in abuse and neglect issues. You cannot separate issues that cannot be separated out. To ignore one is to patently ignore the other.

If the Minister wants to get angry about that, get angry about it. Get angry about the situation—fair enough. We should all be angry about it. But do not get angry at the Opposition for raising what research and evidence inconveniently has told this Government and what it does not wish to be inconvenienced by. They are the cold, hard facts of the matter. But we still support this bill because at least, yes, the Government is doing something. We would just like to see more. That is what we would like to call being ambitious for children.

Speaking directly on child protection policies, I am pleased that New Zealand First raised some of the issues around how far those child protection policies should go. What about when it comes to vetting and screening the children’s workforce? It was something rigorously debated by the Social Services Committee. It was a hard point to come to—whether or not, for instance, we should say “Look, the State should look at who is contracted and who is required by Government to provide services as a children’s workforce, and then should not go any further than that. Let’s leave it to voluntary organisations to put in place their own policies.” To a certain extent you could argue that, but we actually had voluntary organisations that said “No, we would feel more comfortable if we were covered as well.” We did ask for some advice on what that would look like if that extension went that far and what kind of burden it would place on those voluntary organisations—would they have the capacity to carry that out? They were vulnerable questions. I never felt entirely satisfied by the answers that we were able to produce through that process.

So whilst I can understand why the Government has come to where it has come to in this bill, I do think that there is some merit in what New Zealand First has said around applying one narrow element of these provisions and just saying “Let’s make sure that the safety checks and vets at least apply to the voluntary children’s workforce where they are engaged frequently in that kind of work.” I think it is fair for them—

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is just to enter one correction with regard to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers 434 and 435. Mana records a negative vote in both cases.

We have the Minister’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 435, and the other one was—

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Four hundred and thirty-four, I think.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That one was agreed to on voices. So the Minister’s amendments—just one moment. The Minister’s amendments as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 435 were agreed to on voices. There was no party vote called for, so we cannot record a party vote because I have already announced the result.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 447 in the name of Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor to insert new clause 27A be agreed to.