Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I want to take this opportunity to briefly reflect on the journey of this bill. In April 2016 I released the Government’s response to the final report of the expert panel I had appointed to review the current childcare protection and youth justice systems in New Zealand. The report made a very clear case for change, proposing a bold set of recommendations for child protection and care. As a result, the Government agreed to major State care reforms and a complete overhaul of these systems to improve the outcomes of New Zealand’s most vulnerable children and young people. I would particularly like to acknowledge the children and young people, and their supporters, who have bravely shared their experiences of our current system. Their feedback on what more we can do to provide them with stable and loving homes has been absolutely invaluable.

This bill is just the beginning of delivering what will be lasting and transformational change for vulnerable children and young people. I expect to introduce a further set of legislative reforms to the House by the end of the year, which will continue this focus on delivering better long-term life outcomes for these children and young people. On 1 April 2017 the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki will be in place, and this bill is intended to provide the legislative foundation for a child-centred system.

Can I thank the Social Services Committee for its consideration of the bill. The changes that it has recommended have greatly improved the clarity of the bill, in line with the policy intent. I also want to thank the members of the public who assisted the committee in its consideration of the bill through written and oral submissions. It is always encouraging to hear how passionate New Zealanders are about making a difference in the lives of our most vulnerable children and young people.

I also want to acknowledge the broad support of the members of this House for most aspects of the bill, and their thoughtful approach to this first piece of legislation. We know that the current system does not place children at its heart, and it is not meeting the needs of vulnerable young people as they move into adulthood. We know that leaving the care and protection system at the age of 17 can seriously impact a young person’s life. Young people who have spent time in care have spoken of their pronounced sense of vulnerability as they moved into adulthood. This bill extends the statutory age of care and protection to include young people under 18, and it will enable vulnerable young people aged 17 to remain in State care for an additional year, and, if necessary, to have access to interventions under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act to protect them from maltreatment.

This is the first step towards delivering a system that provides children and young people with the safety, care, love, and support that they need to transition into adulthood. The next step will be to enable young people to remain with, or return to living with, a caregiver up to the age of 21, with transitional support and advice up to 25. That will be part of that further legislative reform introduced later this year.

Young people whom I have spoken to—up and down the country, actually—have told me that they do not feel that they have a voice in the decisions that are being made about them. This bill helps to address this by supporting the establishment of independent advocacy services. It places a new duty on the chief executive to ensure that services are available that provide children and young people with an opportunity to, and support to, express their views about matters that are important to them and about the system more generally. The bill also enables children and young people to participate in decisions being made about them, through strengthened obligations in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. Children and young people will be encouraged and assisted to participate in proceedings and processes, and will be given opportunities to express their views on matters that may affect them. These views must be taken into account.

The bill also includes a new duty on the chief executive to ensure that the views of children and young people are taken into account in the development of departmental services and policies. This will ensure that their views are embedded in the system. Supporting children and young people to have a stronger voice in the system is the key to creating a system that is truly child-centred. That is what this bill is all about.

The new ministry will take a more multidisciplinary approach to child protection work and decision making. The bill supports this by enabling a broader range of professionals with specialist skills to perform functions and powers under the Act to identify and meet the needs of vulnerable children and young people.

The bill vests functions and powers that currently sit with social workers in the chief executive. The chief executive will then be able to delegate these functions and powers to social workers and to other appropriately qualified individuals. Too many of our young people today are presenting with higher and more complex issues that cannot be solved by social work alone. We need this multidisciplinary approach—many professionals coming together and working collectively—if we are to help children, young people, and their families. This model is common to English-speaking jurisdictions. It is worth emphasising that, in the delegation of these functions, the responsibility for the exercise of the function remains with the chief executive.

I do want to take time to acknowledge the special contribution that social workers have in the care and protection and youth justice systems. On a daily basis social workers navigate challenging circumstances and make tough decisions in order to keep children safe and ensure their well-being. Social workers are expected to continue to be the main professionals responsible for carrying out many of the functions under the Act. I recognise that this is a significant shift from the status quo, and that is why this bill imposes additional controls on the chief executive’s ability to delegate those powers and functions in addition to those set out in the State Sector Act 1988.

The additional controls will ensure that delegates are appropriately qualified to perform those powers or functions, and the delegation will be supported by contractual obligations to ensure appropriate exercise of the delegation when it is outside of the State services. Further to this, all delegations will be publicly notified so that the public can see who these powers are being delegated to. Together, these requirements will ensure that the functions and powers are carried out in a controlled and a transparent manner.

I want to conclude by reiterating this Government’s commitment to improving the long-term life outcomes for children and young people who have contact with the State care protection and youth justice systems. We must have a system that puts the needs of children and young people first in everything it does. This bill is the first crucial step in major and far-reaching legislative reform to underpin a truly child-centred system that delivers the life outcomes that these vulnerable young children deserve. I commend the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill to the House.

Labour is actually opposing this bill—not because there are not some parts of it that are important and do make significant change but because there are significant parts of it that we cannot agree with.

The Minister referenced a particular phrase around vulnerability. Like the Minister, and the previous Minister for Social Development, the sector has been engaged in discussions about vulnerable children for several years now. I recall when the sector was engaged in the discussion, which was the green paper that became the White Paper for Vulnerable Children, and then went on to become the Vulnerable Children Act. What was difficult at the time—which was never fully explored—was, what is the definition of “vulnerability” as it applies to our children. I am afraid that in this piece of legislation we are again at the stage where we are not able to completely define what vulnerability is. I recall, during those earlier discussions, people saying things like: “By virtue of your age you could be vulnerable or not”—by virtue of a birthday, you would be put in a situation of vulnerability or not. I do not think we have necessarily addressed those concerns in this piece of legislation.

In my contribution I want to address three key principles that are not significantly addressed under this legislation. The first is: what happens with the wider context of reforms that will go in place, which the Minister has alluded to? We have singled out a piece of legislation that is quite significant in regard to the care and protection of children, but we have been given no ability to see it within the wider context of reforms that the Minister refers to.

The submitters to this particular piece of legislation were concerned about that. Some of the submitters—the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, the Nurses Organisation, and the Public Service Association—said that they were really concerned that legislators are being asked to support radical reform to the core functions of the State before any detailed design, including impact analysis and stakeholder consultation, was undertaken. Further to that, they were dubious about agreeing broadly to these preliminary proposals, without knowing how they might impact on advocating for vulnerable children in the future. Our providers, the sector, and the people we rely on to provide services and to guide us in terms of our decisions around what we may put in place for our vulnerable children, are saying they cannot get a good handle on this piece of legislation, in the context of what may come later. So how can we fit this legislation into a wider picture if we do not know what that picture is?

There is no doubt that there have been significant reforms and discussion of significant reforms, and we are keen to see that the age for children in State care has risen to 18 years. But there is extraordinary pressure on the staff at Child, Youth and Family—and, in fact, across the Ministry of Social Development—to ensure that sufficient care is put in place, that children actually have an appropriate placement, and that those placements are safe for those children to be placed into. We know the kinds of pressures that social workers are under to ensure safe placement for children, and we also know that the vetting processes for those foster families are sometimes curtailed because of the desire and the need to actually place those children; there is an enormous amount of pressure. Do not get me wrong—I think the Child, Youth and Family social workers do an extraordinary job, under some very, very difficult conditions. They are required to uplift children in the first instance, and to place them, under extraordinary pressure. So I do not think we have addressed that particular part of the pressure on the system.

The second principle I have concern around is the delegation of responsibility. The Minister raised that in her contribution. We have not actually been given an opportunity to explore who those professionals may be to whom the delegation may be afforded. One of the examples that is used is around the process for the uplift of children and then placing them into suitable care. It is of significant concern to many people that that process is absolutely done with the most robust attention possible. But we are concerned that there may be opportunities for other organisations to become involved in the uplift and the placement of children, which we will find very difficult.

The uplift and placement of children has significant importance to specific population groups, particularly Māori and Pacific. I know that the process around Pūao-te-ata-tū was around ensuring that the placements for Māori children in particular could be as culturally sensitive as possible. There is no regard for that within this legislation. So what will happen to the care of our Māori and Pacific children if that is not part of the legislation—if the Minister has not considered that important enough to ensure that that is part of the legislation? I have a real concern about that.

The third principle that I am worried about is accountability. When we bring other people into a process where they may or may not have been part of that process in the past, will they be required to be held to account as closely? Will their practice and performance be monitored and managed as closely as someone who is in the employ of the State and the Government? We have real concerns about accountability, as we should do, because the care for our children is the most important. These are very vulnerable children who are going through very difficult times; the families who are engaged in this are very vulnerable and going through difficult times. We must ensure that those professionals working with the children and families are as accountable to the process and to those children and families—and to the people of New Zealand—as possible.

Those are the three main points that I wanted to make in my concern for this legislation and my opposition to this legislation. We must know the wider context of reform that this legislation will sit within. We must have some clear guidance around whom that responsibility will be delegated to. And, after that process, we must know that they will be truly accountable back to the children whom they serve.

I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. It was in April of this year—in 2016—when the Minister commissioned not only just a review but potentially an overhaul of the system. This is the first part of that system. I can remember that we had not only the expert advisory panel (EAP) but what was also significant, I think, was the Youth Advisory Panel. I want to mention that because their voices were quite critical to the concerns that were raised by the EAP and then also by the Youth Advisory Panel. I just want to make mention of that, because some of those comments that they raised were quite significant in the shaping of this bill, where it is today, and some of the significant elements of the bill as well.

The Youth Advisory Panel made it clear in its submissions, both to the Minister and to the Government, that it wants the State to stop experimenting with young people’s lives. That is their impression—those who have been in care for some time had simply asked whether we could stop the fact of the transient nature that they were often experiencing. The trauma that it created for them was such that they asked that they be able to have clear lines of accountability, and also that they not have the transience that was traumatising them. They also said that they want a child’s first care placement to be the best, and to ensure that it delivers a loving, long-term, and stable home. The current system, in contrast, sees children as young as 7 having already had eight different placements, resulting in trauma that can affect these young people often for the rest of their lives.

We know that the research has clearly shown that children who are in State care up to the age of 17 are 22 times more likely to be in the State system, in a variety of different ways, whether it be through the youth justice system or in the welfare system. We know that we must do a better job.

I want to commend the Minister for Social Development because what she took on was not another review; in fact, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act has been reviewed over 14 times. She chose, rather than another review, to have an overhaul. This is the first part of the overhaul of that system. I just want to be able to acknowledge her leadership in that regard.

One of the things that was really clear that came out of both panels—the youth and the expert advisory panels—was that when they looked at the current system as it exists, it did not place children at the centre. You would think that in its paramountcy foundation—I know that Peeni Henare talked around Pūao-te-ata-tū, where it talks about the paramountcy clause and the principle that our children, our tamariki, should be at the centre, as well as our whānau. Yet is it not interesting that a system that has been operating for such a long time still did not place children at the centre of this? That is the essence of this, as well.

The other aspect that was important is that it does not meet the needs of vulnerable young people as they move into adulthood. Here is the transition phase that we are talking about, which is a critical part of this element. It is fragmented, it does not have the clear lines of accountability, and it is not organised around a common purpose. I think that the bill as it stands—the first part of that transformation and change—is trying to address these issues and has addressed them in the best possible way as well.

One of the things that I also want to address—I know that there have been some comments from the Opposition. In fact, I know that it was Jacinda Ardern who, in the Committee stage, put forward Supplementary Order Paper 248, which was trying to address, I suppose, the lines of accountability for the chief executive. I know there has been some criticism around that, hence the reason why members of the Opposition are not supporting this bill. There is some disappointment around that, because I know that I was actually at the Dingwall Trust with Ms Ardern. We heard the submissions. We heard the calls from those young people to raise the age of State care to ensure that there was a smoother transition into adulthood, and that is what this bill is trying to do. So although there is opposition to the bill as it stands, I know there are elements of it that those Opposition members do support, and this is one of them. I think that is quite critically important to raise that as well.

Some of the Opposition members have a problem with the power to delegate these functions. I want to make it really clear that as a Government we know that it is important that it is not only registered social workers who play a critical role but there has also been a significant number of other key stakeholders. We have a variety of different skill sets that are critically important to that care—that wraps around the child as well. You can have everything from child psychotherapists to psychologists; you could have speech language therapists—there are a number of other key roles that are quite critically important. At that point in time, in a form of trauma, it is what the child needs most to gain trust and confidence in a process of healing. So we believe that this is important, and the reality is that we need a mix of skills.

Work is currently already continuing in the new model, which is a transformation team that is busy introducing—and it is supported by a budget, which was announced in our Budget of 2016, of $200 million that takes us alongside the normal Child, Youth and Family operations as well. So that is an extra $144 million that we are putting in to address not only the cost pressures but also some of the changes that need to happen. What we are simply saying here is that the delegated powers will not be carelessly given to those who are not approved—in fact, it will be given to those who are approved. It will be given to those who have specialist skills that are much needed, again, to meet the form of trauma that these young people have as well.

In my brief contribution to the House, can I just commend the Minister for her leadership. Can I also say that throughout the process of hearing these submissions—can I thank the submitters, both in NGOs and also others who came personally to submit—I actually felt that we had a good working relationship inside the Social Services Committee, right across the different parties, and were able to address this bill and bring it back in the best form that we could.

Again, it is one part of the transformation change of legislation that the Minister is introducing. It will increase the age settings for care. It will ensure that children are at the centre of the system of childcare and protection. It will also ensure that there is an advocacy service that allows for that care and that transition into adulthood for our young people as well. I do commend this bill. I look forward to its Royal assent and also to its implementation in a much needed part of our sector of care. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. In my short life, I have had the good fortune of working in the public sector—a very strong public sector. Right across all of the roles I have held in the public sector, and even today as a member of Parliament, I often hear the Māori expression:

Unuhia te rito o te harakeke, kei hea te kōmako, e kō? Whakatairangitia, rere ki uta, rere ki tai; ui mai koe ki a au, he aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? Māku e kī atu: he tangata, he tangata, he tangata!

[Remove the centre shoot of the flax and where will the bellbird be, where? It will mill around, fly inland, fly seawards; and then you will ask me, what is the greatest thing in the world? I will respond by saying: it is people, it is people, it is people!]

It is everywhere. It is emblazoned on the walls in Work and Income centres, it is the mantra of a lot of social services and how they operate—it is their mantra. I just want to take a very brief moment to explain the origin of that particular saying. An ancestor from Te Aupōuri in the far north—Mr Kelvin Davis’ territory—a lady by the name of Meri Ngāroto is responsible for those words “Unuhia te rito o te harakeke” [“Remove the centre shoot of the flax”], and it goes on to “he tangata, he tangata, he tangata!” [“it is people, it is people, it is people!”]. And if the members across the House who use it, and will nowadays, were to understand its origins I think they would second-guess whether or not they would use it. It was actually a remark made to her father, who was about to offer her to a rival tribe as a peace offering, knowing full well that she was unable to have children. So she expressed to him “Hūtia te rito o te harakeke”—and the rest is history.

Now we are saying it is about celebrating the focus on, and importance of, people. But I just thought I would put that one out there because when we consider bills like this it is about the family and it is about our tamariki. It is about the most vulnerable children of the most vulnerable people in our society. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, as I mentioned in the earlier stages of this bill, there is a large number of Māori tamariki in Child, Youth and Family care.

Just recently, I and the member Jan Logie met with concerned whānau, social service workers, and stakeholders—very recently—who wanted to express to us their concerns, not just about this particular bill but about the whole system, and the experiences that they have had. We are encouraged that this House is considering a change to that system. We are very encouraged by that. It is long overdue. We have got no dispute with that.

Pūao-te-ata-tū, I thought, lit up a pathway that would have made things a heck of a lot better for our tamariki and for our families. Sadly, the numbers that were presented in the Pūao-te-ata-tū book way back in the 1980s are still very similar to the numbers we have today. I think that does not speak to the failure of Pūao-te-ata-tū but of successive Governments to fully consider the recommendations of Pūao-te-ata-tū and, more importantly, to resource them to make sure they are implemented.

Tamariki must be at the forefront, and it is with some dismay that we do not support this bill. We do not support this bill. Although we supported aspects of this bill, I cannot help but think this process has ankle tapped us in some respects, because we agree that youth advocacy is a fantastic opportunity for tamariki and for whānau—those directly affected by legislation such as this—to have their say. Their say will be considered and, for the most part, implemented, we hope. That is a fantastic thing. Labour has also been very clear with its support of the raising of the age of care. We have always been very clear about that and we think this is a step in the right direction.

The Minister, in her opening address this evening on this bill, mentioned that this is one part of a larger picture. From this side of the House there is reluctance, having not seen what the picture looks like. Having seen the entire picture, we know what we want to achieve. We want to achieve an Aotearoa New Zealand where our tamariki are not impoverished, where they are not seriously affected by a system that we believe is inherently broken. That is what we all want—I am sure about that. But it is hard to support small pieces of legislation in the hope that at some point in time in the distant future we are going to be able to step back and all of a sudden a beautiful piece of art is presented before us. That is a real concern for us.

I am encouraged to hear from the member Mr Ngaro about the increased funding, because that has also been an issue for the Labour Party members and this side of the House about the capacity. I spoke about Pūao-te-ata-tū and how great it was, and how the failure of the system from then until now is not a reflection of the recommendations made in Pūao-te-ata-tū, but the capacity—the capacity to make sure that they are implemented and carried through. So we are encouraged by the fact that Mr Ngaro talked about the increase in funding. Of course that is fantastic.

Māori whānau and groups involved in this sector also had far more questions than, I would argue, some of the members in this House about the powers of delegation afforded to the chief executive. We understand that this particular power is given in often tricky circumstances. My colleague Poto Williams has spoken about how traumatic it can be when you remove a child from a home. Quite often it is a sledgehammer when a small nutcracker is all that is needed. No, no—we accept that. On other occasions there is the need for a sledgehammer—in really bad cases. But what is the extent of it? What is the scope of it? Where does it start and where does it end? That has always been the concern that we have had, and we have made that very clear throughout the process of this bill in the House.

We have also even offered a Supplementary Order Paper, and had it been accepted by this Government this speech might have been quite different. This speech might have had more stories about plucking the pith from the flax bush and where shall the bellbird sing. But, sadly, that is not the case, and we will not support this bill. I have given the reasons why we will not be. I have already mentioned some of the good parts in the bill, but I think the overall thrust of this is about this bit piece legislation-making that really does not present us a full picture—a full picture of what the landscape might look like for Child, Youth and Family moving forward, a change of name, and questions about that.

What else is on offer? I can only think—like other bills that have come through this House and I have spoken on; Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is one of those—about how our whānau and how those working in this sector are actually able to digest this, fully engage with it, and fully understand it. It is all fair and well for us with all of the papers, all of the reports, doing what we do in this House, but it means very little if it does not have the cut-through, the traction, or the support from the people who are implementing it on a day-to-day basis.

Finally, in conclusion, I do just want to ask all of us to remember those tamariki whom, sadly, the system has failed. We know what their names are and, at times like this, we have got to reflect upon that and remind ourselves that when we make changes like this they must be significant. There has got be a huge transformation to make sure that the sad cases of the past are not revisited in the future. Nō reira, kia ora tātou.

It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in wholehearted support of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill in its third and final reading. Just to pick up from when that last speaker, Peeni Henare, resumed his seat, he used the phrase that the system was “inherently broken”. I think the Minister—and I acknowledge the work of the Hon Anne Tolley—has been very clear from the outset, around this bill and future legislation, that the system is broken. I do not think we can go through another reform. There have been enough reforms well traversed in this House over the course of this bill, and that is why this bill seeks to bring in a root and branch review of an inherently broken system. We hear things from the expert advisory panel, when it makes statements like “We did not know whether we were causing more harm by removing our vulnerable young people from their families into State care.” We did not know whether we were causing more harm.

That is why it is disappointing to hear from the Opposition that it will not be supporting this bill tonight. I mean, what do you come into politics for if it is not to support the vulnerable? What do you come into this House for if it is not to support the vulnerable? What do you seek to do in Parliament if it is not to support the vulnerable?

It is this Government that supported the vulnerable over the course of this last term. If it is not getting more vulnerable into work and getting young people out of benefit-dependent families, then it is increasing the benefit—for the first time in 43 years—and now bringing in legislative change that will put vulnerable young people at the heart of a service that will seek to make a difference in their lives. That is what this bill is about. So I acknowledge the hard work of the Hon Anne Tolley and, of course, the chair of the Social Services Committee. When you look at the facts—OK, the departmental report said that out of the 22 submissions, all submissions supported the intent of the bill. All submissions—only 22 submissions and they all supported the intent of the bill. That is in the departmental report.

So what this bill seeks to do is not only increase the State care of these vulnerable young people from 17 to 18 but put them at the centre of the decision making, not only of the care planning meetings but at the preparatory meetings as well, putting them at the heart of it but also providing the ability to bring in specialist care. For some of these vulnerable young people we need to make a change, and the way you make a change is by bringing therapeutic skill sets in—psychology, psychotherapy—as well as bringing in an advocacy service. Let us remind ourselves of some of these vulnerable young people: seven out of 10 will leave school with no qualifications; 90 percent will be on a benefit before the age of 21; six in 10 young men will have corrections sentences by the age of 21, and 21 percent will have received a custodial sentence. This is a brave step to addressing, as the previous speaker said, a system that is inherently broken, and I wholeheartedly support it to the House. Thank you.

We have made very good progress today, and it would seem unfair to require a member to start their contribution less than 2 minutes before the House rises, so I seek leave for the House to rise at this point.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)