Ardern JacindaClauses 1 to 11 and schedules 1 to 3JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to begin the Committee stage of the debate by again starting where Labour started in the second reading debate and that was to point out that we have long had a desire to be in a position to support this bill. But really the Committee stage will determine whether or not that is going to be possible for us. We have long advocated for the clauses in this bill that allow the age of care and protection to be increased. In fact we would have liked to see the age overall be increased both for the age of care and protection and for Youth Court jurisdiction but we accept that half is better than nothing. However as I outlined in our second reading speech that proposal has come at a cost. In the same bill where the Government has done an excellent thing by increasing the age of care and protection—which we have pushed for for 8 years now—it is also proposing to allow very permissive powers to the chief executive to delegate what currently only social workers and the New Zealand Police are able to do under our laws.We have a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—I want to flag now up front before I delve into the Committee stage debate—that would essentially delete clause 7 which is all of the powers that allow the chief executive to delegate the powers of social workers. We do not feel there is adequate explanation or constraint around those powers and our support of this bill beyond the Committee stage will be contingent on that SOP succeeding. We made that view known in the second reading debate and I have made that view known personally to the office of the Minister for Social Development. We have wanted to be as constructive as possible because of our support for elements of this bill. But this could not be at the cost—the massive cost—of what the Government has asked of us to make those changes. I also want to state up front that if it comes to that—and we will be very disappointed if it does—it will be with great sadness because we have walked alongside the likes of the Dingwall Trust and Lifewise to see this point and the age of care and protection raised.I want to come specifically though to clause 4 of the bill. Clause 4 enacts the raising of the age of care and protection but it also highlights the difficulty we are creating for ourselves by having two distinct age ranges within the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. Clause 4(1) sets out that the amendment to section 2(1) of the principal Act will replace the definition of young person" which in Parts 2 to 3A now means "a person of or over the age of 14 years but under the age of 18 years:" and in Parts 4 and 5 now means "a person of or over the age of 14 years but under the age of 17 years:". So this bill is basically saying that there are two different meanings to the words "young person"—that a young person can be two completely different things. For the purposes of care and protection which under the Act is set out in Parts 2 to 3A there we will agree that a young person is under 18 years. But under Parts 4 and 5 of the Act which are all the parts that relate to the youth justice system oh you are not a young person until you are 18; you are a young person until you are 17. That makes absolutely no sense.If we believe there are grounds to consider that a young person should be someone under the age of 18 years then we should be consistent about that. There is no rationale in this bill to say that we consider you a child for care and protection but we do not consider you a child under the criminal justice system. I want to be very clear here. If we are looking for a rationale—a consistent one—there should be one no greater than the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is the guiding principle that says to all countries not just to New Zealand that a young person is a child if they under 18 years and we should treat them that way not least for care and protection. But if you are going to have that convention then perhaps the most important measure of society is whether you are willing to do that in your criminal justice system where you have the ability to imprison.In terms of the practicalities of what these split definitions in clause 4 mean here—essentially we could have a situation. Parts 2 to 3A of the Act relate to care and protection including family group conferences but often those family group conferences are dealing not just with care and protection issues. Often they will deal with youth justice issues. We could have a situation where you could have a family group conference around the future care and protection needs of a child but you would not be able to discuss any criminality that might be involved because that could be dealt with only in a District Court. We have now split this young person in two based on an arbitrary measure of their age.We are firmly of the view of Andrew Becroft who is our Children's Commissioner but has been Principal Youth Court Judge that you cannot do that in any functional system—we need consistency—and that the Youth Court is not a soft touch. It is the best option for a person in that age group in terms of rehabilitation the ability to restore and the ability to prevent a young person from staying in the system. So we are not saying this just because we believe in the rights of a child; we are saying it because the outcomes are better as well—the outcomes are better.We have an SOP as well—SOP 248—that will bring consistency to what is currently two split definitions in clause 4. Having said that I will highlight that although we want the age raised generally we will vote for the clause that allows for the age of care and protection to be lifted because we do support that happening.I want to come now to clause 6. This gives an amended set of duties to the chief executive around giving consideration to the needs of those who are in care. So basically it is giving a chance for a young person to express their views around the services they receive—basically around what happens to them. The point we want to make is that we absolutely support these clauses and we will be voting for them. But we really want to give a bit more clout to them and put a bit more responsibility on the chief executive to make sure they are actually happening. One way we thought we could do that was to publish annually what action had been taken to make sure that the views of children were being taken into account. We are going to pop that into the bill as well through our SOP. If memory serves it was a suggestion from the Children's Commissioner at the select committee that we thought made absolute sense not least because the Children's Commissioner has an advocacy role for children at present and does a very good job but it is very difficult for the Office of the Children's Commissioner on its roughly $2 million budget to play the advocacy role it would like to play to give children that voice.We are adding new functions in here but there has been no suggestion as to how that would be funded. It is our view that if we put in a requirement to report to Parliament we would have a very acute eye as to whether or not we were doing enough to operationalise what is here in the legislation around giving children a voice keeping in mind that of course the Office of the Children's Commissioner in recent times has had to close offices and has had to reduce visits to residential facilities which is a legislated function that it has from 1 year to 18 months because of the financial constraints that it has. If the intention is that the Office of the Children's Commissioner is the one to operationalise some of these checks and balances that ensure children in care are having their voice heard then it is absolutely under-resourced to do that job.I would be very keen to hear the view of Nicky Wagner the Minister in the chair on what opposition there would be to simply putting in a requirement that we just report on the first anniversary of the commencement date on how well we have been doing in giving young people a voice. I think it seems like a fairly common-sense provision to me.I want to come to clause 7. This is where a number of our most significant concerns lie. I imagine it is something that I will need to continue a call on.We raised in the second reading our concern with these new sections. This entire section allows the chief executive to delegate social worker powers to anyone they are satisfied meets three basic tests. The first requirement is that they meet section 41 of the State Sector Act 1988. I have looked up section 41 and that mostly relates to what practically you need to do to delegate any powers as a ministry. Basically in summary it says that the Minister has to approve it and you have to write it down. That is basically what section 41 is so it is not too dissimilar to what is noted in the bill itself. I would like to come back in another call to speak more on this."