Ardern Jacinda: Vulnerable Children Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Vulnerable Children Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17264. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to rise and give Labour’s first contribution in this second reading on the Vulnerable Children Bill. We have already indicated our support for this bill but we do so with some disappointment that the opportunity was not taken via this bill to put on the table a wider range of measures that we believe could have a positive impact on a wider range of children. The Minister for Social Development presented to the public some time ago via the green paper process the ability for the community those working in the children’s workforce and beyond to share their vision and their hopes for the future for the children of New Zealand andthey did so with great enthusiasm. The response to that process was enormous. In amongst that response—because I read many of the submissions as many as I could given that there were so many—many said: “Let’s use this opportunity to say that if we lift all New Zealand children and focus on general well-being we will at the same time impact those who are particularly vulnerable.”So I do have the sense that although this piece of legislation is heavily targeted towards those children who are at very high risk of abuse or neglect our concern is that by being targeted we potentially allow children to fall through the gaps and that it is very hard to always isolate just who those children might be. A wider approach would have lifted the boats of many and not just the few. That is and continues to be our position. We would have liked to see a wider Children’s Action Plan which is what the Children’s Commissioner advocated in his submission on this bill. When we raised with him the fact that that was not here and asked whether he saw any sign of that coming he was very careful in his response but the clear submission seemed to be that given that he is doing all the work at the moment around things like the Child Poverty Monitor he obviously remains sceptical that that piece of work will be picked up by the Government.I do want to focus on some of the specifics of the bill. The Minister mentioned that the child harm prevention orders have been removed from the bill. We did express concerns about those orders but did say that we wanted to hear at the Social Services Committee what the view of the public was. I have to say that we still do not feel like we have been given a very clear explanation from the Government as to why it removed those because that announcement was made before the select committee had even reported back. That has meant that there is obviously a large chunk that has come out of the bill and all of the reasons that the Minister gave around the current work or past work that the Government has done which she believes will cover the area that child harm prevention orders were in were actually already in motion already either planned or in place when the child harm prevention orders were first drafted. So I still feel there could be a little more clarity as to why those have been removed—placing on the table again though that we always thought that the threshold that needed to be met in terms of the evidence base for those child harm prevention orders was very very high because it basically said that we would be placing an order on an individual without a criminal conviction having been met so we were very sceptical about those in the first place.Checks on the workforce that works with children were part of this bill. There was quite a debate at the select committee as to whether or not that needed to extend beyond the State workforce which is what this bill covers and whether or not the areas of vulnerability are actually in our volunteer workforce. Some did come forward and say that they feel it was incumbent on them to carry out those checks even if the law was not going to prescribe this for them and that they needed to be part of this as well. But it struck us that there needed to be greater support for those volunteer agencies that feel really vulnerable. The State is now legislating up until a point but they do not have the same kind of support and yet still feel obliged to carry out those checks. So there is still more work there to be done.There is also the issue of establishing protocols for reporting to Child Youth and Family—having child protection policies in place. It was our concern that a lot of the significant agencies—you know health boards and so on—already have child protection policies. They have had them for some time. Actually those organisations where that might be new could benefit from support in developing those policies and training. Groups like Child Matters do a fantastic job at training agencies or organisations on child protection policies but now they have been told that they need todo that without any of the extra support behind training staff appropriately and training is key if those child protection policies are going to work.I want to come to Part 3 of the bill. This is when we get into some areas that I think have been a really contentious point for those who are working in this space on behalf of vulnerable children. They relate particularly to special guardianship orders. In the time that I have worked across Child Youth and Family issues I have had numerous contact from foster carers who take on the incredibly important role of a foster carer because of their desire to support vulnerable children. They do not get much back for doing that job except the satisfaction that they are helping a very vulnerable child. They do if they are for a time under the heading of a foster carer get some support from Child Youth and Family. They get some financial support as well. A lot of that though ebbs away if they move into a Home for Life situation. Yes there is some financial support still there but they get very little moral support. Their contact with a biological parent which at one point as a foster carer might have been mediated by Child Youth and Family disappears. It is all on them from that point. That includes the court processes that they have to go through because these parents these non-biological parents who take on care and guardianship roles are frequently challenged by parents who have proven themselves to be not fit to parent yet they will find themselves being dragged through the courts to do things like move town for work or around visitation rights and that is extraordinarily frustrating for a foster carer as you can imagine.This bill is meant to fix that but there have been some questions raised as to whether or not that is what it will do and I want to read some extracts from a parent who would be affected by this bill: “We received no support from Child Youth and Family at all not even moral support. We are on our own. We fight the battles alone. We have all of the responsibilities and none of the rights. Really all we want is the right to do the best we can by our little girl but we legally cannot sign consent if she was to undergo a medical procedure that required anaesthetic. Legally we are obliged to contact and consult with two individuals who cannot parent if they want to travel and are supposed to do so even when we travel domestically. They are supposed to get consent to the school she goes to and where we live and could even object to the fact that we go to church.”It has been implied that this bill is going to give greater legal rights and allow less litigious situations for these parents but the proof will be in the pudding and there is definitely a need for that element of the bill—absolutely. We make a commitment to review how well that is working for those parents and if this bill does not fix the problem we must go in again and ensure that those parents are properly supported.There is one final but really critical point that I want to end on. Currently in New Zealand for a child in Child Youth and Family care or the State’s care the State’s obligation on their parents ends when the child turns 17. Show me a parent who raises a child up until the age of 17 and then on their 17th birthday shows them the door and says: “Do not contact me again. I care little where you live what you do but don’t come back.” You would not do that—simply you would not—if you were a decent parent and yet that is what we as the State do. This bill purports to put in place support to the age of 20 for children who are in Child Youth and Family care but there is no real legal obligation. They can advise on accommodation yet a 17-year-old cannot fall under Housing New Zealand provisions. I know of cases where children—because that is what they are—are referred to women’s refuges because they have no housing for 17-year-olds. This bill does not go far enough in obliging Child Youth and Family to continue having responsibility for those children. We were told of that in no uncertain terms by a young man during his submission who had been in a foster-care situation himself. Labour will oblige Child Youth and Family to continue responsibility legallyfor these children beyond their 17th birthday. That is what a decent parent would do and that is what the State should do and we will be making moves to ensure that that happens in the future.