Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): 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. At this stage we will be supporting this bill. We agree with the majority of the bill. However we do have some reservations a few questions and a few issues that we would like to address. Some of them are highlighted in the departmental report. Some of the evidence and the submissions were given during the Social Services Committee process and a couple have actually already been mentioned and spoken about by a couple of the other parties earlier on tonight. Of the five aims of this bill that we have heard about today we agree with four of them in their entirety and we have some concerns with one of them. The first aim that we obviously agree with is the fact that this legislation extends the State's responsibility for care and protection to a person's 18th birthday. We agree with that. It also encourages the participation of children and young people in decisions that could significantly affect them. It ensures that whenever possible policies and services have regard to the views of children and young people and we agree with that. It supports the set-up of independent advocacy services with a particular focus on children and young people in care. We also agree with that. The fifth one which has been mentioned by the Opposition already today is the fact that one of the aims is 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. Unfortunately the detail that the Government has there in that aim—in that one sentence—is probably the extent of the detail and the clarity in that legislation. One of the problems New Zealand First has is that it is so ambiguous and so wide ranging and so wide sweeping. The Minister for Social Development can stand up and talk about the help to the social workers which they will get from professionals such as from the education sector or the health sector but the problem is that it is a double-edged sword because what the Opposition is trying to highlight is the fact that it could be anybody. It could be the entire slippery slope or the first step down the privatisation pathway and that is exactly what New Zealand First and the Opposition are disagreeing with. I would just like to read a sentence that is in the introduction of the commentary on the bill. It says: The bill seeks to achieve this last point"—which is the point I was just mentioning about allowing a broader range of professionals—"by making the chief executive responsible for many tasks that social workers are currently responsible for." What the Minister was actually trying to imply was that the chief executive would be supplementing the social workers' tasks and not replacing them. But the fact is that in that sentence it says that the chief executive would be responsible for many tasks that social workers are currently responsible for. That is a direct replacement of what the social workers' tasks are not a supplement. In fact that comes in total contradiction to the mandatory registration rhetoric that the Government and the Minister are wanting. The Government on the one hand says that we need mandatory registration of social workers because it maintains standards safety qualifications security and robust regulations. But then within this legislation it actually disregards that entirely. What it does is it obviously highlights the once again overarching social investment approach that this legislation will be encouraged by. I was not going to speak for too long on it but it has been mentioned by Labour and the Green Party—the issues that they have with the age of the youth justice system not matching the lifting of the age of care and protection. It is quite frustrating to hear a lot of ideology and rhetoric but not a lot of facts and data and research to back it up. Unfortunately in the Labour Party's minority report it states that it disagrees with the bill's move to separate care and protection from the age of the youth justice system. The question that I put to the Labour Party is: now you have got youth advocacy groups like JustSpeak that want to increase the age of care and protection to 21 is the Labour Party saying that it would want to back the youth justice system age to 21? Because that is exactly what the first sentence says in the minority report. Labour also says—and the Greens say it as well—that we are breaching UN conventions. That is absolutely not true. When we signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child we signed it with reservations. We signed it with reservations. I can quote it. It says that "The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 37 (c) …" which I have mentioned in this House previously. That article 37 (c) has got to do with the youth justice age and the mixing of children with adults. It states it right there. It is not hard to do the research. The second point and the major point that the Labour Party and the Green Party are wanting to make about the youth justice age is that it is going to—what did they say—present practical difficulties and administrative complexity. Well where is the evidence that that is going to happen. Where is the evidence that that is going to happen? The fact of the matter is that I specifically asked the officials in the select committee whether this would create the bureaucratic burden or the bureaucratic nightmare that the Labour Party and the Green Party have been espousing and they said no. They said that a difference between the ages of the youth justice system and the age of State care and protection would not create any administrative issues. It would not create any administrative issues. One of the other things—just lastly on this point before I move on—is the fact that the Greens said that it did not hear any arguments to justify continuing the lower age for youth justice. How about the fact that the youth justice system is failing quite demonstrably and the fact that the Government has had to fork out a billion dollars to extend the number of prison beds? The fact is that half of all the current adult prison population has gone through the youth justice system. If the youth justice system was actually working then we would not have the need to extend it and spend a billion dollars on extra prison beds. It is that simple. I could go on on that point for the rest of my time and longer but I just want to quickly mention a couple of the issues that we have with the delegated powers. Actually the Public Service Association was the one that stated it the best with regard to the stance that New Zealand First has with this. It said that "the core and unique role of social workers will be gradually eroded over time with social workers gradually being replaced by a range of professionals untrained in statutory child protection work. This will lead to a tremendous loss of knowledge skill and experience." If we have a look at the legislation itself—like I stated right at the start—the way that the legislation is written is very vague it is very ambiguous and it is a double-edged sword. I would just like to highlight new section 7C in clause 7 which states the requirements for delegation to persons who are not social workers. This is when the delegation is given to people who are not qualified social workers. Before making a delegation to a person who is not a social worker the chief executive must be satisfied that the person is appropriately qualified to perform the function or exercise the power taking into account the person's training experience and interpersonal skills. Then however it goes on to say that the chief executive may make a delegation to a person who does not meet the requirement in new section (2)(a) which I have just read out if the delegation is made for the sole purpose of that delegate sub-delegating the function or power to a person who works under the management or supervision of the delegate. What the provision which is new section 7C(2) states right at the start about the need for a person to be suitable even though they are not qualified for that role—it goes on to say that if that delegation is sub-delegated then it is totally irrelevant. So we have got a few questions about the way in which the legislation is written. We have got a few concerns with the fact that this could be the slippery slope down the pathway of privatisation. We have heard Serco mentioned. We have got serious concerns and issues with that. We have also got our strong views on the youth justice system and the age remaining the same. New Zealand First has the view with regard to the youth justice system age that we will not be entertaining any sort of conversation that wants to extend that when the system itself is failing in the first place. We will continue to support this bill at this stage but we would like to have our questions and concerns answered throughout the rest of the process. Thank you."