Vulnerable Children Bill

I am happy to take a call on what is a really significant bill, the Vulnerable Children Bill. Just to recap, I guess, I do want to take us back to the beginning, before we launch into the final clauses of this bill, and back to the start of this work, which started with the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children, which then became the White Paper for Vulnerable Children. Significant numbers of members of the community actually spoke to that—something like between 8,000 and 10,000 submissions were made on this particular piece of work. So it is an important bill that we are debating, and I want to just kind of make sure that we do not lose sight of how significant this bill could be in the lives of vulnerable children.

I want to speak to the last part of this particular bill, where we discuss such issues as transitioning young people from care and we look at the ages that this particular bill should be addressing. We have spoken during various parts of this bill about the significance of moving the age for the definition of “young person” from 17 to 18 years. It does actually demonstrate that there is an anomaly within this legislation. It does not occur in other legislation. The definition should definitely move from 17 to 18 years because that will bring it in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It makes sense in practical terms too, because Child, Youth and Family and other agencies working with these young people currently need to make special provisions for their care. I just want to refer to my notes here. It also will allow for better help for young people moving from care to independence so that financial assistance can be available where it is considered necessary to enable the achievement of independence, rather than in exceptional circumstances, and so that assistance can be given when it is requested.

Also it clarifies that assistance would be available for those aged between 15 and 19 years and for those who have been in residential care as well, and that every young person exiting this care should have a support plan in place, because we are talking about young people with some significant issues for whom being in care has been their life. They have not really experienced living independent lives or being able to access the resources in the community themselves. They are young people for whom the State has been their carer.

I would like to think that we could be thinking about recommending that these young people continue in some form of support until they are at least aged 20. These young people have special and significant needs and they are transitioning from the care of the State into looking after themselves, caring for themselves, with the State or other support agencies having very little to do with their ongoing care.

We have an expectation that they will be able to manage themselves well; that they will be able to cope on their own. Children who have had relatively stable upbringings find it a difficulty to cope. I do not know whether any of you have teenagers but I certainly have, and I know that teenagers whom I have been involved with do not do so well when they are required to look after themselves. So when talking about young people with marginal upbringings who have not always had the best start in life, in my view they need to have good, stable, and sometimes comprehensive support to ensure what we want for them, which is good stable and solid lives and the ability to reach their potential.

So where we may have let these young people down in the past, we now have the opportunity to do something quite different and significant to ensure that they receive their potential. Our duty of care to them is not diminished because they are in care; it should be enhanced.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the title and commencement clauses of the Vulnerable Children Bill. Of course the title of the Vulnerable Children Bill probably—I think as we have described throughout this debate—makes it sound like a much more effective and better bill than it in fact is. Although it is worthy of support, it certainly does not protect some of the most vulnerable children in our society. I think in the last couple of days—in fact, yesterday—that became quite apparent because the Glenn Inquiry was actually telling a story about children being abused in their own homes by people whom they are in loving relationships with and about the harm that that was causing on our society.

So although this bill is interesting and useful and will protect some children, I think it is important that we note that this applies to and regulates, I guess, the children’s workforce a little better, and protects children in that situation. But, sadly, what we know in this country—and it is a terrible tragedy in this country; a very, very dark and grim thing that happens in our country—is that most of the children who are abused are abused by people whom they are supposed to be in trusting relationships with, and also by people who are volunteers in organisations that families ought to be able to trust. So, in fact, what this bill is dealing with is actually the minority of situations—people in the paid workforce on the front line dealing with children, and their involvement with children. Abuse does happen. It should not happen. We want to protect children from that happening, but let us not fool ourselves. This is the minority of situations where children are harmed.

I was saddened to see the Minister for Social Development on her feet in question time today saying that she would not work with other political parties to actually address the very serious issues that confront this country. I call on the Government: if it really does want to address the issues concerning vulnerable children, then it ought to get its own Minister to agree to work in a cross-party approach on this. That is exactly what Labour did when it was in Government. Was it not interesting that the only party that would not participate in a cross-party approach on domestic violence and child abuse was the National Party? That is right. It was Judith Collins at the time, actually, who declined—refused—to be involved in a cross-party approach on family violence.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Well, that’s not true. That’s not true. Why are you making that up?

She seems very proud of it, but I think she should be ashamed about that actually—she should be absolutely ashamed. The National Party should be ashamed of its Minister’s performance today, giving the excuse that she would not work with other parties on this because it was apparently too close to an election. Well, what was the excuse in 2006? And what was the excuse in 2007? Now, in the year 2014, the National Party is trying to find yet another excuse to not deal with this problem appropriately.

Here it is with this bill, called the Vulnerable Children Bill—and I take issue with the title of it, because it is an attempt to deal with such a minority of offending in this situation, and, really, it should have a title that actually fits the very narrow part of this problem that the Government is attempting to deal with. If it was really attempting to deal with the issues of vulnerable children, it would not be in denial over child poverty—it would not be in denial over child poverty—and it would not be in denial over taking a cross-party approach to dealing with domestic violence and violence against children.

I think yesterday the Government’s failure to address violence towards women and children became absolutely apparent to every New Zealander—absolutely apparent to every New Zealander—and calling this bill the Vulnerable Children Bill is not going to address the fundamental failure that this Government has had in actually protecting women and children from violence. That has become absolutely clear now. It has become absolutely clear. It is about time that the Government actually realised that it needs to start working with other parties—not only just working with other political parties but it needs to actually start listening to what the social services working in this area are trying to tell it.

Earlier today I went and spoke at a panel on election issues for social service providers out in Lower Hutt. Once again, the National Party failed to front. I say “Once again” because at the last three political panels I have been on around social services, on issues to do with trying to look after some of the most vulnerable children in our society, no one from the National Party has fronted. I think there is a theme here. I would not mind betting that there has actually been a deliberate strategy and perhaps a decision at their caucus that they just do not front up to some of these discussions and debates, because they are so ashamed. They are so ashamed at their lack of ability to address these issues. The Minister in the chair, the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, grins, but I cannot think of another reason why on three occasions the National Party has failed to have any candidate—any candidate at all—

💬 Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Rubbish!

Well, it is true. The Minister says “Rubbish!”, but it happened on the last three occasions. Tonight it was out at Lower Hutt. I think Christopher Bishop is National’s candidate there. He said he was going to turn up, then at the last minute said that he unfortunately could not turn up. But that has been happening time after time. I think the last time that there was a TV debate on the issue of inequality, Ministers also refused to front on that as well.

We are getting a theme here, with a bill in front of this Parliament where the Government is using the title of it, the Vulnerable Children Bill, to try to convince New Zealanders that it is doing something. Yes, OK, it is doing something, but actually this bill—let us make no mistake about it—attempts to address only a minority of offending in this case. That means that the majority of children who are suffering child abuse—whether that be sexual violence, physical violence, or emotional violence—in this country will not have their issues addressed by this bill at all. They will not have their issues addressed by this bill at all and they face a Government that will not work with other parties or other organisations to get to the bottom of these issues.

I am not going to continue any further with this bill because I think the points have been well made. It is, sadly, an inadequate bill for what it claims to do in its title. It is an opportunity that has been missed by the National Party, and still we have increasing levels of violence against women and children in our country.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. As a former principal and teacher, I have a number of stories that I could tell about vulnerable children in our community up north. I would say that the vulnerability extends across all parts of the country. It is not related just to the north. Every community across the country, sadly, will be experiencing a number of things that have happened up in Kaitāia recently. I just want to touch on some of them, and this is relevant to the Vulnerable Children Bill because these children, in their vulnerability, were let down by not only the adults in their lives but the services that are around.

It is just interesting to note, too, that one of the outcomes of the Glenn Inquiry is that it too says that the services that are available, such as Child, Youth and Family, Work and Income New Zealand, and even the police, have let down children, who are the most vulnerable in our communities. The Pamapuria School case of James Parker is a case in point. The children who initially complained about the problems they were having, or the abuse that they had suffered from James Parker, were not believed. In fact, there was a very shallow sort of investigation that went around the school there.

💬 Mike Sabin: No, that’s not right. That’s not how it went.

No, no, there was a shallow investigation from the school.

💬 Mike Sabin: That’s not how it went, Kelvin.

No, from the school. The school did not—

💬 Mike Sabin: Well, be specific, then.

Well, I am. The school did not do a very good investigation. In fact, the principal, in my opinion, let down those children. When he was given a warning by the police that strange things were occurring, he should have gone to the teacher and said to him: “These are the accusations against you.” He should have put his concerns in writing to that teacher. He should have then had regular meetings to follow up what was going on to make sure that the conditions that he imposed on that teacher were being followed, and none of that happened.

Those children were let down because when a problem was raised by the police with the principal, he did not follow through with processes there. Those children who had made that initial complaint, I am told, were then made to go and stand in front of the class and apologise to the teacher for making the complaints. Then those young boys had to sit in that class for the next couple of years, knowing that the person they had complained about was there in front of them. He carried on teaching, and, in fact, the abuse continued. That is an example where the children who were the most vulnerable were let down by the system.

There are a number of other stories relating to my time as a principal. I remember when some children brought some marijuana to school. I contacted the police and the police did a raid on this particular home. I was told by the youth aid officer that in the lounge of this home, there were 14 places where marijuana was available. Most people might have a bowl of peanuts or whatever next to the armchair where you watch TV, but in this house there was marijuana. It was so easy for this child to access marijuana and bring it to school, and it was not until we reacted as a school that this was brought to the attention of the police and they raided the home. It just goes to show that vulnerability is not only about the services; it is actually about the environments that these children live in.

Another example is when a girl came to me as a principal and she said she did not want to go home. I said “Oh, why is that?”. She said “Oh, because I get beaten up.” So I rang Child, Youth and Family and I could not get through to them. This was after 3 o’clock, and I said “OK, we can’t get through to them. I know where the office is. Jump in the car and we’ll go down and you can tell the CYFs people your story.” When we got down there, I was hauled over the coals by the Child, Youth and Family workers. They said “No, you can’t do that. You haven’t followed process, Mr Davis. The process is you have to contact us and we come and interview the child in the school.” I thought to myself, “Well, that’s just nonsense, really.”

Here was a principal concerned about the well-being of a child who has expressed her concern about going home, because she did not want to get a hiding and did not want to get beaten up. Apparently it was occurring regularly. So I took the girl to the agency because I could not contact them, and instead I got told off for not following the process. I think “Stuff the process.” When a child is vulnerable and needs help, the principal should put the rules aside and just do what is right for the child. In my view, at that time, what was right for the child was to get her in front of the professionals.

What that meant was that there was a lack of cooperation amongst the agencies that are working with children. In that case, we were not aware of what the process was for Child, Youth and Family. It should not have, in my opinion, hauled me over the coals for not following process there. Its first concern should have been about making sure that that child was safe.

As I have just come back as a member of this House, I have not had a full overview of the Vulnerable Children Bill, but I think it is really important just to raise some of these instances so that people are aware of actually how vulnerable our children are out there. The few anecdotes that I have given this evening are just scratching the surface of the vulnerability of the children of New Zealand.

I think that we really need to take stock of the Glenn Inquiry. It has raised some brilliant points. Those points are actually backed up by my own experiences talking to people who have been victims of abuse. In particular, it is difficult to access help—that is one of the points that the Glenn Inquiry made. It is even more difficult for people who have been abused to be believed. I have spoken to a woman in Kaitāia who has been struggling for 2 years to be heard about the abuse she suffered.

I have received a letter since I have been back in Parliament from a man in prison who talks about how he was brutalised by his father over a number of years. As a result of that abuse, he has done things that have landed him in prison, but basically he was not believed and he was not listened to when he tried to tell agencies, when he tried to tell police, and when he tried to tell a number of people over the years about what was happening to him. He is dealing with those consequences.

Just to round up, I think there is a lot of work that can be done to support people and support our vulnerable children: agencies cooperating, listening to people, and believing people when they talk about the impacts and the abuse that they have suffered. I think that we should not ignore it. I agree with Sue Moroney. It was disappointing to hear that the Government is not interested in doing any cross-party work on this. I hope that attitude of the Government changes.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to get back to the heart of the Vulnerable Children Bill, which is vulnerability. I recall when work was first commenced that there was a lot of discussion in the community about the definition of vulnerability and what it actually meant. Some of the paperwork that came out from the Minister for Social Development and from the Ministry of Social Development at the time talked about every child thriving and surviving. It talked about a broad-based approach to supporting our children through the most difficult times in their lives.

As community groups and social sector providers, we struggled with the idea of what vulnerability was. I can recall questions going back to Child, Youth and Family to ask what the definition of vulnerability was. In those very first pieces of work there was no definition of vulnerability, and you can understand why, because you can be vulnerable based on your life circumstances, or you can be vulnerable based on simply how old you are. You can be vulnerable at age 5, and then at age 6 be no longer vulnerable, depending on whether you are able to go to school, or the income of your family. There are many, many different definitions of vulnerability. One of the difficult things about this bill is that there is no definition of what a vulnerable child actually is. We are left to make the assumption that vulnerability is about children who, we are presuming, are from low-income families, from families where alcohol and drugs, perhaps, are issues, but there is no clear definition of vulnerability, and that is where this bill comes unstuck from the very beginning.

I want to go back to Paul Nixon, who is the chief social worker, and to what he says in lots of his public addresses about vulnerability and what he claims is the unholy trinity of vulnerability for children. He defines that as being when your parents are mentally unwell, when there is problematic substance abuse, and when there is family violence. That is the definition that Child, Youth and Family use for vulnerability, and one would think that that would be the automatic threshold at which children enter the Child, Youth and Family system. Well, I can tell you categorically that it is not. That is where I have a real difficulty because, having sat on a community panel supporting Child, Youth and Family social workers who were dealing with children who had some difficulties in their lives, those were all flags for us as community people, in terms of Child, Youth and Family intervening.

Despite the fact that Child, Youth and Family is a relatively large organisation, we are talking about huge numbers of children who experience difficulties when their parents have got mental illness, problematic substance abuse, and family violence. We know about the overwhelming statistics of family violence. They have been highlighted to us this week by the People’s Report from the Glenn Inquiry. Yet family violence is not a mechanism that would trigger an investigation into these children from Child, Youth and Family. We might be talking about the Vulnerable Children Bill, but that is definitely a misnomer, because it does not pick up our most vulnerable children. In fact, it seems to carve out a section of those children and define them as vulnerable, and to leave out in the cold all these other children who are equally vulnerable.

Part of this bill looks at how to keep kids safe through professionals being screened as being safe to work with children. We have heard many of the folk who have spoken before on this bill say that there is an inherent flaw in this in that it is not just people who are paid to work with children who should be screened. There is a whole group of people with whom issues have occurred, and where children have been abused in their care, and those people are not paid professionals. Here we are talking about sports clubs, coaches, and people who are engaged in recreational activities with children. So where we may be looking at keeping children safe in a professional sense—

I move, That the question be now put.