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

Our children rely on us for so many things. They rely on us to feed them, provide them with shelter, nurture and teach them, respond if they get sick, and keep them safe. Our babies rely on us for everything. Government policies make many of these things easier or harder for parents and caregivers. A shortage of affordable housing means some children are living without adequate shelter. Wage and income support policies mean that 148,000 children are going without what the rest of us consider the basic necessities of life, and over 155,000 more are living in families in income poverty.

The reluctance of Government services to acknowledge Te Tiriti o Waitangi and protect kaupapa Māori services or tikanga Māori responses means that whānau and tamariki are continually being alienated from the cultural systems that support them. Tamariki Māori are being taken from families and placed in care, and are hurting. That is the history and that is still the current reality for many tamariki in this country.

We hear a lot of rhetoric in this House about the importance of caring for our children, and I do not doubt for a second that every single member in this House does care, but there seems to me to be a fundamental unwillingness to acknowledge the centrality of Government policy in shaping the options for families, and, indeed, the centrality of Government policy in causing harm to children. We cannot debate child welfare without acknowledging that. It is not something to be scared of. In fact, it is something to embrace because improving the welfare of our children becomes so much easier when we acknowledge that.

A truly inspirational, truly new child protection service would recognise that as a starting point. A truly inspirational service would not be focused on a group of children defined ahead of time as vulnerable, according to randomly established factors that ignore the impacts of fundamental Government policy settings on their lives. A truly inspirational service would have been developed in partnership with Māori. That is what the Greens stand for, but the truth is we would have supported this legislation even if it did not start at that point.

But there are things in this legislation—although some are good, there is a core point that worries us so much that we cannot support this legislation. I think it is really important to note that this is legislation dealing with the care and protection of our children and our babies. This is legislation that should have cross-party support, because it is legislation that any person, I would imagine, would want to endure and to be adequately tested to the point where there was support across the House for it—because it matters so much. But, sadly, from the point of introduction of this legislation, the Government has continued to lose support for it, as the community concerns have become louder and clearer. It is a real tragedy that we are, in fact, unable to support this legislation.

The Minister for Social Development talks about the failings of the Child, Youth and Family system and how we need to move beyond that. I would also like to note that the Green Party is not saying we think things are OK at the moment. There is no one who could read the reports of the Commissioner for Children, or the many reports that have preceded that, and say that things are OK at the moment. But when the Minister talks about the failings of Child, Youth and Family she is talking about the failure of the State and of successive Minsters, and at the heart of that, where so much harm has been done, particularly to Māori, there has not been consultation. These proposals have not been developed using that knowledge of those communities, and we are led to a point of not having the right solution to the problems.

Although the Green Party supports several measures in this bill, with caveats, we are so profoundly disappointed at this overhaul that only consulted Māori in such a completely token way. We cannot support legislation that would enable Serco to come in and uplift children from families. We cannot support legislation that would enable that. If the Minister tells us they would not do that, that is not their intent, well, then, there needed to be protections in this legislation to stop that possibility. But those protections, although asked for, were not put into this legislation, and we cannot support that.

We hear from people in the communities that discussions are now happening between people in the new ministry-to-be and people in the community about the need to establish and create a market that will support this legislation. We clearly have a different world view about what is needed to provide our babies with a healthy environment to grow up in. For the Green Party, that is not a market; that is a community and a society that supports all of our children and our families.

We are being asked to support, in this piece of legislation, radical reform that enables the dismantling of the State child protection services without a policy platform of what that will look like. It was kindly described by the Office of the Commissioner for Children as outstripping the policy process. In other words, we do not know what we are being asked to sign off on with this piece of legislation, and considering the very high level of anxiety that this bill may enable with that dismantling, the Green Party is taking a precautionary approach and opposing this bill.

We share the fears that were raised by several submitters that the bill is looking at providing extra roles in an already deeply fragile, underfunded community sector where they will now be expected to take on additional roles without adequate funding. We have seen that happen with the children’s teams and we are seeing that happening every day. Our children are put at risk when that happens, because these agencies are doing their best with not enough, and we cannot support the extension of that.

We also share the concerns that the delegating out of these roles could further reduce transparency and accountability, and when the Office of the Commissioner for Children said it does not have the budget to follow it up properly now in a centralised system, in a devolved system where they have no more money, how can we be sure of the safety of those children? When we have been hearing through the historic claims process that some claimants have been bringing cases of abuse that have been dismissed because, although the child was placed there by Child, Youth and Family, they were not in a Child, Youth and Family institution, we seriously have to consider the implications of this piece of legislation for any child who may be abused in the future, that this bill potentially enables the State to abdicate responsibility for what may be mass harm for children if the centralised system does not have proper oversight and systems. That is a very real concern with this legislation, and it may also undermine child abuse investigative expertise, which is already struggling to work in a centralised system. We cannot support this legislation. It risks the safety of our children.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, although I acknowledge the issues that the other Opposition parties have with this bill. Frankly, throughout the whole process, from the first reading through to the select committee process, New Zealand First has had similar concerns or issues or questions or queries around pretty much that same provision, around the delegation. But there is a key difference, or key reason, why New Zealand First is supporting this bill. I think what I feel obliged to do is go through the five aims of this bill and explain why New Zealand First supports four out of the five and has an issue with one of them.

The main reason why New Zealand First is supporting this bill is what it does. The issues that have been brought forward by the Opposition parties are about how the Government, or the ministry, intends to achieve that “what”. Those are the problems that the Opposition parties have. But New Zealand First is concentrating on what will happen when this legislation passes, and the main aim is to achieve a child-centred system. The first way it does that is by “extending State responsibility for care and protection to a person’s 18th birthday …”. As a party, that is what we know we want to stand up in the House and support in order to ensure it goes through in legislation. There may be some issues, or caveats, with the other four ways in which the Government wants to achieve that aim, but that cannot diminish the need for care and protection to include those 17-year-olds.

The second aim is to encourage the participation of children and young people in decisions that could significantly affect them, and New Zealand First supports that. It wants to ensure that “wherever possible, policies and services have regard to the views of children and young people”, and New Zealand First supports that aim. It aims to support “the set-up of independent advocacy services, with a particular focus on children and young people in care”. New Zealand First agrees with that. But the one aim and issue and method that we have an issue with and concern about is that the Government aims to allow “a broader range of professionals to perform a wider set of tasks to help identify and meet the needs of vulnerable children and young people.”

We have heard both sides of the argument in this House. We have heard the Government and the Minister for Social Development stand up and say that this is a great thing because professionals from outside of the scope can be employed to help social workers or to help care for children. We have also heard from the other Opposition parties that this can be manipulated and that because of the ambiguity with which the legislation is written it is a very subjective provision. That is the problem; it is a very subjective provision. I would hazard a guess that if it were a Labour Government, or if it were a Green Government, they probably would not have that much of an issue with that provision, because they feel that they would have the right perspective with which to use that provision. They are just judging the current Government and the perception of the current Government and how they will use that, and New Zealand First does have concerns with that as well because of the ambiguity. There is a little bit of confusion with why the Government wants to allow the delegation of non-qualified individuals, because there is legislation going through the House—or it will do shortly—with the mandatory registration of social workers.

The whole intent of ensuring social workers are mandatorily registered is to ensure a few things. It is to ensure that the quality and standard of training, the quality and standard of performance for those social workers, the actual robustness of the roles and the intent of the individual social workers—that they are appropriately qualified and, basically, that the safety of the children is at the centre, which, funnily enough, is the intent of this legislation. So why would we have the structure and the process that social workers need to be mandatorily registered to ensure the quality of that service—not only the quality but having the right people doing the right job and for the right reasons. Why would the Government need to stipulate that for social workers and yet, in this context, allow that delegation to go out the window?

I would just like to highlight how ambiguous the actual legislation is, by reading out just one of the clauses in the legislation: new section 7C(2), inserted by clause 7. This is where it stipulates where the chief executive does delegate to those people who are not registered social workers, and it states that whomever that chief executive chooses, that chief executive must be satisfied that “(a) the person is appropriately qualified to perform the function or exercise the power, taking into account the person’s training, experience, and interpersonal skills;”. That is, quite obviously, a very subjective paragraph. The second point is that that does not actually rule out the concerns that New Zealand First and other Opposition parties have with this. That does not rule out the use of private companies, or the entire privatisation of that role. Does it rule out the use of Serco, for example? The answer is no.

Another point that I would actually like to make on that little piece that I read out is the fact that, at the moment, there is consultation going on in regard to family violence—about the workforce capability framework and the necessity for anyone who does that role, who works within those roles, to ensure that they have some core competencies. The question is: does this bill, and that part of legislation that I read out, apply to the core competencies? Or does it include the essential core competencies within the framework? I would just like to read out where it states that the Ministerial Group on Family Violence and Sexual Violence work programme is inviting consultation on the draft, and the purpose of the framework is to outline the core capabilities that members of the workforce need to have to effectively deliver family and sexual violence services and to better collaborate and coordinate with each other.

If you compare the need for the social workers to be registered, the need for people who work within the family violence sector to ensure that they have core capabilities, surely there needs to be some sort of need within this—one of the most important parts of any legislation that goes through the House that is working with our vulnerable children—to have some sort of structure and certainty on whom we have, what jobs they are going to be performing, and for what reasons.

Although we do quite clearly have some issues and concerns with one specific part of the legislation, we will be supporting this bill through. We will because we know that, in the main part, if we do not support this bill, then, in principle, we will be asking to support the status quo or be asking to accept the status quo, where 17-year-olds cannot get that help, care, and protection. I feel confident that when New Zealand First is in Government next year, this could quite well be one of the pieces of legislation that will be pulled out, and that could quite well be one of the pieces of legislation, and provisions within that legislation, that we would have a very, very close look at. We will be supporting this bill with some reservations and concerns.

It is indeed a great pleasure for me to stand and speak tonight on this Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill in its third reading. This bill is a clear demonstration of this Government’s commitment to the most vulnerable members of our society: our young people and their families. It is abundantly clear that more of the same is not sustainable and is not fair on our young people. As the member who has just resumed his seat, Darroch Ball, said, the status quo is not acceptable. Thanks to the work of the Hon Anne Tolley, this Government is embarking on an overhaul of the current system.

There are three main objectives in this bill. The first of those is to make the new system child-centred. This objective was reinforced to the Minister through the Youth Advisory Panel, and that Youth Advisory Panel was made up of young people who had direct experience with the system. They made it very clear that they want to stop the State experimenting with their lives. They want their first care placement to be the best place for them, within a long-term, loving, and stable home, wherever and whomever that may be with. They also want their views to be taken into account when decisions are being made about their lives, which is not an unreasonable request.

The second outcome that is aimed for with this bill is to extend the statutory age of care and protection to the age of 18. Many of our young people at the age of 17 are still involved in study. They need the age extension so that they can resume their studies and graduate as they deserve to, without being removed from State care.

Thirdly, this bill enables services to be purchased so that children and young people get the support they need, when they need it, from a range of service providers.

There will be further law changes that will supplement this bill, and they will form part of this wide programme of transformation. For that reason, I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Metiria Turei—5 minutes.

I just want to address two provisions in this bill. The first is the intention to increase the age to 18 years, and the Green Party supports that provision. The second is the provision that says that the views of children will be embedded in the process. They are quite nice words but, of course, the devil is always in the detail with these things, and in this case there is just insufficient detail to prove that that will actually be the case. It is easy to say; it is much, much harder to do.

It is certainly good to increase the age to 18 because, in theory, it should give the children in State care more stability and more security at that point in their lives. And anybody who has been the parent of an 18-year-old well knows how much care and support they need, even well after that. The child’s views are very important when it comes to Child, Youth and Family (CYF) care. These children are often much older than their years would suggest, and they need and deserve a much greater say over what is happening with their lives. They need to be able to talk about the things that are happening to them, particularly if they are in foster care or in other agencies, because, of course, we know the disasters that can happen when children are ignored and do not have an opportunity to be heard about what matters most.

I would just note that neither of these provisions in the bill really provides that certainty for the Greens in terms of support, and what really concerns me is that in 2015 the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s report showed that, in 2014, 1,000 CYF children went missing. So there were 1,700 children that came off CYF books. Some of them aged-out at 17, some of them went into foster homes, but, of that 1,700, over 1,000 came off CYF’s books and CYF had no way of reporting what happened to those kids. Those kids went missing from CYF.

We can see some of the results of that, actually, because as agencies that we have all dealt with know—those that have been working with young people who are homeless—a very large proportion of homeless young people are those who are technically in State care, and they are away from State care. They have escaped from their foster homes or they have left CYF care because that care is inadequate to meet their needs, but those children, those young people, have no means to tell CYF what is going on for them—to be safe in disclosing information—and have no means to have any control over the living environment that they need to be well and safe and secure. So they just hightail it out of their homes and, not only that, CYF does not know where they are. In the 2014 year CYF could not report on the whereabouts of over 1,000 children in its care. Any changes in legislation that are going to change the way CYF works has got to address the reality for these kids. What is most important at the core of that is that those kids have the right to have a say about what is going on for them. None of us can know, unless you have been in State care, what it is like to be in State care.

As we know, this Government has ignored the views of thousands of adults who have been in State care and are now in the position to be able to tell us what was going on for them. What about the kids who are in State care now: the ones who are missing, the ones who are homeless, the ones who are living in parks or are shacked up with adults because that is the only way they can get some sense of stability, the ones who are in care at the moment and who are unsafe? How are they given any security, or any certainty, through this legislation that they can talk about what is happening to them and not only have their views heard but respected, and that action will be taken in their favour?

This bill does not do it. And if this bill does not do that, what is the point? All that this bill is doing is actually maintaining the status quo, which is that CYF’s care—as much as the people, the social workers, love those kids and want to care for them—simply is not a system that can support these children, and none of the changes proposed by Government can guarantee that those kids in State care are going to get the support that they need. It is pretty obvious in the provisions of this bill, which is why we are not supporting it. Thank you.

I call Louisa Wall—5 minutes.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. This is the third reading of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill, and Labour is opposing this piece of legislation. However, I do want to highlight that we do support the extension of the statutory age of care and protection to include young people under 18, and that makes sense to us because we are talking about children.

I particularly want to acknowledge my colleague Jacinda Ardern, who is not able to communicate this on her own behalf, because she established the petition that asked for that exact legislative reform. I would also like to acknowledge Lifewise, Dingwall Trust, Youthline, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Wesley Community Action, and Christchurch Methodist Mission, because, in fact, they wanted the statutory age to be extended to 21. I do want to highlight that Minister Tolley has signalled that the next step in this process is to enable young people to remain with caregivers up to the age of 21, and also she has highlighted transitional support and advice up to 25 years. So we support that aspect of this piece of legislation.

However, the aspect that we do not support is that this bill also contains what we call a massive regression and dangerous set of provisions that will allow the chief executive to delegate statutory powers—legislative authority that currently can be performed only by Child, Youth and Family social workers—to contracted providers. The Minister has been really interesting because she talks about this being about a multidisciplinary approach, that there are many professionals involved, and that you have to be appropriately qualified, but she actually does not list who those appropriately qualified people should be.

In fact, what she did do was reference that the delegation needs to be supported by contractual obligations. So in fact what this House wants us to do is to enable the chief executive to delegate to any contracted entity the ability to take our children. And actually that is at the heart of our opposition, because central to the functioning of the Child, Youth and Family is a social work profession that already is supposed to place at the heart of that practice the best interests of the child. So what it really does for us is say: who should have the power to remove children? From our perspective it should be only qualified people. Those qualified people have up till today when this legislation goes through the House been qualified social workers. But what this piece of legislation does is open it up, actually, to anybody who has got a contract with Child, Youth and Family. So we cannot support that.

I guess in preparing for this speech what I am also interested in is that if any entity that has got a contract with Child, Youth and Family can take children I want to know what the requirement is in terms of placing children within whānau, hapū, or iwi. I want to stress that this particular piece of legislation is hugely relevant for our indigenous community—in fact, 61 percent of our children in care are indigenous children. The requirement in the current legislation is that those children, in the first instance, must be pleased within their whānau, but they must be placed within their whānau who have the capacity to care for the children. If they cannot find whānau members, then they are supposed to find hapū members. And then if they cannot find hapū members, they are supposed to find iwi members.

The reason that the legislation says that is that inherent to every child is the right to their whakapapa. It is the right to know who you are and where you come from and, if you are an indigenous child, who you are and where you come from is based on your pepeha: what your maunga is, what your awa is, who your marae is, and your ability to actually create an identity through actively being engaged in that identity through participation at the marae. So I want to know, actually, currently how many children get a cultural assessment? And will these entities be able to undertake a cultural assessment to ensure that our children have, as a right, access to those institutions that help them form a positive identity? I think at the heart of this piece of legislation is: actually is it going to be more harmful to our children and not provide care and protection as they should have and are entitled to? Thank you.

I am taking a short call to support the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill in its third reading. It is a great bill, and I want to start by acknowledging the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley, for bringing this bill to the House. We know that there will be more bills—to supplement what we are proposing in this legislation—coming to the House later on, which is part of the big reform of childcare in our country.

Although I also want to acknowledge the Social Services Committee. I especially want to acknowledge all the submitters for taking the time to make their submissions. Some of those submissions were from individuals and some were from organisations having direct, indirect, or general interest in this legislation. Overall there has been a lot of support from organisations involved in the sector, which is really good to see.

This bill is a great bill. It is designed to increase the age of care and protection for young people from under 17 to under 18. The other important component in this bill is that it also provides the opportunity for children to have their say, to be heard, and this is at the individual and also at the system level so that we can deliver better services for these children.

I also want to acknowledge the Youth Advisory Panel, because what I heard about the Youth Advisory Panel was really impressive. These children, those who were on the Youth Advisory Panel, have gone through the experience of being in State care. It was really good to see what they have experienced and how they would like us to transform the Child, Youth and Family system. The signal that we got from them was to stop experimenting on young people. I believe that is a very, very strong message from the Youth Advisory Panel, and that message that we got from the Youth Advisory Panel is actually supported by the report that we got from the expert panel. I want to acknowledge that panel, as well, because the report clearly said that the system is not centred around children. It is fragmented. There is not enough accountability, and what we are doing is actually not meeting the needs of young people, those who come into State care.

There are several groups that I want to acknowledge for their contribution on this legislation. As the previous speaker, Louisa Wall, spoke about, increasing the age to 21—yes, that legislation will be coming to the House, and the most important part of that is the transition support and the fact that those young people can come back for advice up until the age of 25. In this whole process the important thing is that there has been a lot of engagement with stakeholders, which includes Government agencies, NGOs, iwi, young people, and caregivers. So is a great bill that has support from sectors involved in this field, so I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

In making a speech about the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill, I really want to start by referring to a quote that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner used to start its submission. That quote is: “When I walk down the street I see families walking along laughing happy and it is hard, knowing that I don’t have a family like that.”

The whole purpose of this bill is to try to place children at the centre and create a system that better protects some of our most vulnerable children. We really, as a political party, as individuals who care about these children, wanted to see this bill do exactly that, and there are so many aspects of this bill that we do support. In fact, this bill contains a change that we have pushed extremely hard for, and that is a raise in the age of care and protection. It is something that we believe passionately in, and it was the basis of our support for this bill at every stage till this point. This is also the reason that we did support the bill at second reading.

But this bill also contains a massive, regressive, and dangerous set of provisions that will allow the chief executive to delegate powers that can currently be performed only by Child, Youth and Family (CYF) social workers. There is no ability for Parliament to have oversight of these powers and almost no checks and balances in the way they will be delegated. We cannot support this provision when it could allow any professionals, at the whim of the chief executive, to hold powers like the removal of children. We stated at the Committee stage that we would support this bill only if our Supplementary Order Paper 248, which removes the ability to delegate powers, was adopted, but unfortunately it did not pass, and therefore, I reiterate, we cannot vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

I just want to reinforce the fact that we did not come up with our stance alone by making a decision based on what we independently thought when looking at the bill. There were lots of submissions that came through that support the stance we are taking now. I do want to, alongside my parliamentary colleagues, also acknowledge every single one of the submitters who took the time to submit on this really important bill. In referring to the submitters, I do want to refer to comments made in the submissions that support the stance I have just spoken about.

We see in the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s submission that it raised concerns about functions currently designated only to social workers being shifted beyond that to the chief executive to be used at their discretion. It questioned what this would mean given the current inquiry before the Social Services Committee on the Social Workers Registration Act and whether the two pieces of legislation are compatible. We, as the New Zealand First member pointed out, questioned whether or not there was compatibility there. On one hand, it seems like there is a dilution of power and credibility with the social workers’ role and the functions that they perform when we look at the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. When we look at this bill, it looks like it is diluting the power of social workers, but then when we look at the inquiry into social worker registration and what has come out of that in terms of recommendations, it looks like there is more weight given. So there were issues with compatibility, and that was pointed out by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s submission also raised the point that—basically, their submission on the Social Workers Registration Act advocated for all social workers exercising power under the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act needing to be registered. That is what the recommendation from the Inquiry into the operation of the Social Workers’ Registration Act 2003 has also recommended. In fact, I have to say there were two Opposition members of Parliament, myself and Darroch Ball, who had bills up in the ballot last year to try to push for that mandatory registration, but we had to wait for the Government to undertake an inquiry, not for any other reason, really, than the fact that it did not want that change to be made under an Opposition member of Parliament, which is disappointing.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner also pointed out that it wanted to recommend public transparency and accountability on how the power would be expanded in terms of the delegation of powers. That is something that we have always struggled with at the Social Services Committee, because no detail was provided. There was no transparency and no accountability. How could we possibly support that delegation of powers? It was not just the Office of the Children’s Commissioner that supported the stance that we are now taking in respect of this bill. The Human Rights Commission also raised concerns. It agreed with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner that there needs to be public transparency around the delegation of statutory powers. Citing one other submission, and that is from Barnados, it believes that there should be restrictions on the ability of the chief executive to delegate powers, and it also raised concerns about fragmented relationships for children and the need for monitoring and evaluation on how these decisions are made.

It is unfortunate that we come to the House tonight not able to support this bill, because, as I said, there are aspects of the bill that we have supported, that we have pushed really hard for. The first one I said was raising the age of care. We did support that. We support that move, and we really wanted to support this bill because of the fact that we have been behind that for a number of years, not just as we were considering this bill. We have supported a change in legislation to embed the voice of young people in care into decision making. Of course we support that.

Looking at the actual bill and some of the things that needed to be taken into consideration, the other aspect that we feel did not get enough attention when we were looking at this bill and considering it at the select committee was the cost pressures that CYF is under. Unless these issues are addressed, unless we can get some detail around the delegation of powers, we will continue to have concerns moving forward. In fact, we will be monitoring this space really carefully when this bill is enacted to ensure that it does not cause any harm to our children who are in the care of Child, Youth and Family.

It is unfortunate that we are in this place, but we gave it a lot of thought. A lot of conversation went on in our own team as to whether or not we could support the bill, given that there are aspects of the bill that we support strongly, but in the end we could not support the bill, given that the Government refused to take out that one part in terms of the delegation of powers. So we are in this unfortunate space, but just to reiterate what has been said tonight, Labour will not be supporting this bill.