Naylor Jono: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2373. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): I apologise if somewhere along the line my voice fades during this speech.Hon Annette King: It could be a blessing.JONO NAYLOR: It could well be a blessing. In fact I am sure the honourable member opposite would just love it if I would wallow down and sort of sink into the seat but I will keep going as best I can anyway.Hon Annette King: Do your best.JONO NAYLOR: I will do my best and hopefully that will be good enough for her. It is a novel day as I find myself in agreement with New Zealand First or at least one of its members on this bill that is going forward. I think in my 6 months in Parliament—[Interruption] I am just being told to be careful by my colleagues. Under normal circumstances it may well be a career-threatening move to agree with Tracey Martin but I think that today when we look at the content of this amendment bill it is clear that the right course of action for us to take is to support this bill.This morning while we were in the middle of the review of the Social Workers Registration Board at the Social Services Committee I received an out-of-the-blue text message from my daughter who asked me which years it was that I worked for Child Youth and Family. I thought it was a somewhat unusual text to get from one’s 21-year-old daughter so I replied back to her and said it was in 1997 and 1998 which is a good few years ago now. She did enlighten me that the reason she was asking me that was that she was applying for a job with it on a part-time basis and thought she might have to disclose that at some point. Anyway I digress slightly—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes.JONO NAYLOR: But it did cause me to reflect—in fact some might say even more than slightly. But there is method to my madness because it caused me to reflect on my time as a Child Youth and Family social worker. It was a brief stint. I think at the time the average length of service of social workers was about 10 months and I managed 7 months. But during that time the issues that we are discussing today certainly came to light.I remember on many occasions one of the things that we were asked to do at times was to speak to caregivers who were caring for children who were at that stage under the care of the State to see whether or not they would be prepared to take on additional guardianship and then they would move to receiving the unsupported child’s benefit rather than care payments. There were good social work reasons for doing this. Some people had had a child in their care for a very long period of time and a significant bond had formed and it was clear that the child would in fact really be better served by remaining with this family over a long period of time. Their need for social work input was minimal and in fact we used to find that with a lot of those children we would do our sort of mandatory visit just to make sure that we could tick the right box in the key performance indicators column because actually there was no need for ongoing social work intervention because the placement was stable the bond was good.But as a social worker turning up to those families and putting to them whether they would consider taking on additional guardianship for the Ministry of Social Development or—I cannot remember quite what it was we were called back in 1997 or 1998. I think we were the Child Youth Families and Young Persons Service or something. No Children Young People—anyway CYPFS in those days.Hon Annette King: CYFS.JONO NAYLOR: We had a little P in the middle of the CYFS.Hon Annette King: Did you?JONO NAYLOR: Well you know when you have got to go you have got to go. But anyway—[Interruption] Clearly again behind me I am hearing: “Is there a doctor in the house?”.Anyway whatever it was that we were called we would have to go and talk to these families. But it was actually a pretty hard call to go and say: “Look it is fantastic the work you have done with this young person. You have taken them from a place of brokenness to a place of wholeness to a place of belonging but by the way we would like you to get paid a whole lot less than you are now.” It was I guess an unpleasant thing to have to go and do. It was as I say good social work practice actually to say: “The time has come for us to pull out. The time has come for you to make it on your own.” But to actually then say: “We want you to do this and receive less money.” did not make a lot of sense. So I guess this amendment that we are putting through now which will allow people in those situations to receive the same sorts of payments to support these childrenis I think incredibly good.The previous speaker Sue Moroney alluded to some of the importance of that because I think it is really important for young people and children when they are in care—there is enough stigma at times associated with that as it is. So we want to make sure that at the very least there is adequate funding coming through to ensure that they are not having to go and buy clothes from the second-hand store and that we can make sure that there is the opportunity for them to be able to participate perhaps as children whohave their own familiesdo in society. So I think it is really important that we have payments like this to ensure that their dignity is maintained.I referred to those people who you know have perhaps been foster carers who move into a more permanent arrangement with additional guardianship and receive the unsupported child’s benefit but of course not everybody who is a kin carer has had that benefit or had the process of having been a foster carer first. Sometimes they simply for all manner of reasons wind up having young people in their care which they had not planned on doing. Almost inevitably it has not occurred because some sort of pre-planned idea that that is how it would be. It is not because when they set out in life they thought: “Oh at approximately this point in my life it will be great to take on some children to care for.” No it will often occur as a result of some form of tragedy whether it be through the sudden death or loss of parents or through abuse and neglect and children no longer being able to be with their parents and they find themselves being cared for by extended family members—often grandparents in fact—who perhaps are at a stage of life where they were not necessarily planning on doing this and it becomes a very stressful environment. It is stressful enough being a parent at times as it is.Hon Annette King: So Jono why do they have to wait?JONO NAYLOR: I am coming to that. If you just hang on we have got 10 minutes to walk our way through this and we will get to it. [Interruption]Oh 3 minutes? All right well I was talking in terms of the whole length of the speech not what was left. But thank you Mr Assistant Speaker I now know I have got 3 minutes left and I will make sure I get to that point that the Hon Annette King made. I think I have got the full name right so that is good.Anyway what I was saying was that there is stress involved and so it is appropriate that there are financial payments made to ensure that that stress is decreased so that people through whatever circumstances when they find themselves caring for these young people are having that burden lessened somewhat. At the very least I think what we can expect is that they would find themselves receiving the same level of compensation as if they had been foster caregivers in terms of being able to provide for the material needs of those children.I know that the honourable member over the other side of the Chamber Annette King has asked: “Why do we have to wait so long?” and there is a rationale for that wait. I understand that in the report that came back from the select committee it was outlined pretty clearly that actually there are some transitional arrangements in place that have been set up already and the Government has helped through the annual school and year start-up payment for carers. I believe that in the first instance that may well be enough. We do recognise the issue over time of parity for people to be able to receive appropriate levels of compensation in order to ensure that young people are being cared for appropriately and to ensure that young people who are in the care of not necessarily their legal parents but who are in the care of others who have stepped up to the plate in difficult situations are able to be provided for.As I said at the beginning of my speech I find myself agreeing with Tracey Martin on this occasion. It may well not be the last time it may well happen again in the future but we will have to wait and see if in fact that can happen. It has been I think overall from my understanding although this went through the select committee process before my time a very constructive process. I understand that a good conversation was had between the member who brought this bill forward and the Government and I look forward to seeing this bill continue its passage through the House and for this situation to be resolved. Thank you.