Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I am pleased to rise in support of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Advocacy Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. As a party Labour has generally given cautious support to the process that the Minister undertook when she introduced the expert advisory panel that carried out both an interim and final report setting out the reforms that it believed were needed for our child protection and child welfare system in New Zealand. We came into that process with an open mind because we ourselves had pushed for so long that changes were needed in order to improve the outcomes for children.It was our view however that it was never fair to blame social workers for the situation that we had in New Zealand given that we have not been properly resourcing and supporting those social workers for some time now. In fact in the select committee today that was confirmed when we questioned the Minister over funding for Child Youth and Family and she admitted that over the past few years $52 million has been taken out of Child Youth and Family in what has been called efficiency savings.But what do those efficiency savings actually represent? These included the holding of vacancies—when social workers left jobs they certainly were not replaced—the way that holiday pay was paid out and whether or not programmes were indeed delivered; $52 million taken out of a department that could not afford it. And what is the proof that it could not afford it? The Minister this Budget put $36 million back in in 1 year alone because she has acknowledged that that was needed just to tread water. I make those comments because although this bill is welcomed and we are pleased about it we do need to acknowledge that in the here and now we do have a department that continues to be under considerable strain. How can we truly say it has failed when we never resource it to do the job properly in the first place?On the specific provisions in this bill though there is one element in particular that I am really pleased to stand up in support of and that is the raising of the age of care and protection. When we lost the last election to stay sane as an Opposition member for another 3 years—Jono Naylor: Stay?JACINDA ARDERN: —I will defend my sanity—having already served 6 years I wrote a bucket list. An Opposition bucket list: things that despite not being in power I wanted to see happen in my term in Opposition. At the top of the list was an increase in the age of care and protection. It never ever seemed fair to me when I first came into Parliament that once a young person who is under the care of the chief executive—in foster care in residence in kinship care—that once they turn 17 once they have their 17th birthday no one has responsibility for them not one person. A parent would never do that to their child. A parent would never say on the 17th birthday of their child: Pack your bags leave the house I have no responsibility for you any longer—no financial responsibility no emotional responsibility nothing." Yet that is what we do to our young people who you could argue need more support than anyone else.So we as a Labour Government—when we were in Government we were set to change this. We had a bill on the Order Paper an amendment to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act to change the age of care and protection but we lost. So when I came in I remember when I was the youth affairs spokesperson every time a bill came up where I could make an amendment that might lift the age I did—every time. Not only that we ran a petition and tried to get public sympathy for this issue as well. ActionStation came on board and the petition grew. It seemed to have got some momentum but none of it would have happened—and I want to acknowledge the work of Dingwall Trust which works with these young people every single day. It was one of the first organisations that put a young person in front of me and had them tell me their story. Lifewise another organisation working with the homeless sees the other side the repercussions of this policy. Those are just some of the organisations that did awesome work championing this issue and I believe got it here today.So I am pleased that we are ticking off an item that just so happens to be on my Opposition bucket list. But it would be remiss of me not to add that on the flip side of that unfortunately we are now going to have a separate age for care and protection than we will for youth justice and that is a lost opportunity. There is a reason that our care and protection age and our youth justice age are linked. It is because if you have a young person committing crime then you will often find that there are care and protection issues. In fact this was confirmed by Judge Andrew Becroft who in a speech not too long ago said that of the 1982 offenders in the Youth Court last year Child Youth and Family had prior involvement in 67 percent of cases—in 67 percent of cases.There is a reason that our Children Young Persons and Their Families Act includes the youth justice provisions in it so why are we raising only one element? It makes sense to have young people in the Youth Court for as long as possible not only because of our United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child responsibilities which we get whacked with every time because we have not raised the age but because the Youth Court is a highly successful interventionist confrontational personalised process.I have heard much come from the community of late that the Youth Court does not hold young people to account. I have two challenges to that. I have never seen a process more confrontational than what I have seen for instance in the Youth and Rangatahi Courts—the young person is at the centre of the process. They cannot sit back and not take responsibility in the way that you see our adult system work where they can almost be a bystander to the process. They are at the middle. The Youth Court has tools that enable it to cater the sentence to that young person. It could include a long stint in a residential facility but it also can include wraparound services for the family that young person has come from and will go back to. It understands that their environment has played a role.The other important point is that if the case is severe enough the Youth Court can send it on to the adult court—the provision is there. The Youth Court is a gem in our justice system and we should be sending more young people to it. I really implore the Government in the work that it is doing to assess whether or not that age should go up to consider that positively.I want to come to the two other provisions in this bill around advocacy—the ability of a young person to personally have their views heard and also the establishment of an advocacy service for young people in care. Absolutely. In Australia they have something similar particularly for children in foster care. We have needed that for some time.One point of caution though: we must resource that properly. Currently the Children's Commissioner has that responsibility to be a voice for young people but he has already said that that is one of the things that he has had to step back from because he has not been properly resourced and his funding has remained static for the last 8 years. Whatever we do we have to make sure we support it properly. The involvement of the philanthropic sector in designing this—my only question will be: is that a sustainable way to create what is going to be a piece of core service in legislation? If we design something with the philanthropic sector are we then reliant on it to make sure it continues to be delivered? No young person should rely on their advocacy being funded out of goodwill. It needs to be more sure than that. Although I welcome the fact that people have an interest in this area and want to contribute we must give it a stable footing.The last point—and this is where our most significant reservations sit—is around enabling a wider role of professionals to have core responsibilities in discharging functions under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. There is a reason that we train our social workers comprehensively. There is a reason we are advocating that social workers must be registered. This is a professionalised sector that performs a very critical role. They make the decision to remove children from their families. It does not get much more serious than that outside of incarcerating someone. It is a specific role that requires expertise. The delegation that we are talking here—we do not really have specificity around what is going to be delegated to other professionals. But the idea that the chief executive—not this Parliament but the chief executive—can make that decision simply by putting a notice on a website does not sound like a robust check and balance to me. It does not sound robust enough. We will be questioning that at the select committee."