Logie Jan: Vulnerable Children Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Vulnerable Children Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17809. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I welcome the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Vulnerable Children Bill which unfortunately the Greens are unable to support. The Greens believe that New Zealand can provide a society where every child can thrive and for us this bill and the process of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children and the green paper were an opportunity for public debate on how to deliver that society for our children. We know that many of the NGOs and advocates for children participated in that process with that vision as well. We are a wealthy country in effect. We have a lot of resource in this country. We can actually afford to deliver that vision for every one of our children.The end result of delivering that for every one of our children will be a society that can grow that can respond to the challenges that are in front of us and that can be the best that it can be because our children are in a sense our future—as has been said in many a pop song. This bill sadly does not deliver that vision or that opportunity. In fact we are worried that the narrow scope of it will actually interfere in the ability to deliver for the children—the very few children—whom it is named to deliver for.In effect this part of the bill is saying that it will “support the Government’s setting of priorities for improving the well-being of vulnerable children;” and gives the Government the ability to define vulnerability for the purposes of this work. We have had indications from the Government that its definition and understanding of vulnerability is quite narrow and we are being told that that is about us having limited resources and needing to channel them to those most in need. We challenge that premise and we—Hon Paula Bennett: I didn’t say that.JAN LOGIE: That has been said throughout the process Minister. You may not have said it yourself in this debate but it has been said. And if it is not the case then why are we not broadening out and actually putting in place what Regional Public Health has noted in its submission is a much wider approach in terms of taking a public health prevention approach which has been proven internationally to be the most effective approach at delivering for children who are at risk?Why are we implementing a policy and a process that are in conflict with the basic principles of Whānau Ora and a public health prevention approach? Why are we doing that Minister? I am hoping you can explain that to us because I have not heard through any of the submissions or the discussion why there is this need to focus on such a narrow narrow group which has so much risk of missing so many children and misses the fundamental causes and drivers of harm and does nothing to create safe environments. We know that actually creating safe environments is going to be what delivers for our children in the long term. Just leaving it up to the State to intervene when there is harm already is basically saying that we give up. We do not give up and there is no need to give up. This country can afford to deliver a different future for our children and sadly this bill does not do it.I also note that Otago University’s public health department noted a deep concern that the definition of vulnerability will lie in the hands of the responsible Minister rather than our having a broader definition that is based on community analysis. We have heard from many submitters that actually there is an understanding that all children are vulnerable. By their nature they are dependent on others and it is up to usto create that safe environment and those safe families for them to be able to grow and thrive in recognition of that vulnerability.I would also just like to take issue a little with the Minister’s response to Jacinda Ardern. I get the passion that the Minister conveys around the importance of addressing sexual abuse and physical violence against children. That is an issue I am deeply passionate about and have spent much of my life working on as have others in this House. But I will point out that in effect the Government has edited out through this process any mention of domestic violence.We know there are different understandings of domestic violence and incorrect understandings of the nature of domestic violence across our different ministries including Child Youth and Family. The Family Violence Death Review Committee noted in its submission that there is an issue within our systems of recognising lethality. There is another issue of passing on the concerns that are there and then yet another issue about getting a response even when those concerns do manage to get passed on. That committee works with Child Youth and Family a lot and it finds it very difficult due to a lack of resources. It believes that it needs more time and training and more staff. We have not heard of any extra resourcing in terms of supporting it. It has said we need to fund time to meet and build trust.This approach from the Government talks about a lot of collaboration between the ministries which is essential. We need to have that. I really think that the State Sector Act needs a review in terms of breaking down those silos across the Government but we also need to fund that time to build trust and understanding between those agencies so that everyone is talking the same language and is able to go to somebody when they have a concern and there is nothing we have heard that is saying that that is going to be delivered. When we are not funding the delivery of the core mechanisms that are in this to ensure that they are going to work then actually it is hard to see how it is different from window dressing and our children deserve better than that. We have enough resource in this country to deliver a better future for them and it is not OK that so many of them are at risk at the moment.I do want to go back to the point around domestic violence in particular because we have seen a reduction in funding for the core response agencies. We know we have Minister. Figures from the Parliamentary Library show that the funding for Women’s Refuge has dropped by just over 30 percent over the last 3 years. We have seen that the funding for stopping violence programmes for typically fathers who are seeking to get treatment has also dropped by 16 percent over the last 3 years.Minister this is around the point of vulnerability and the point of domestic violence. Over half of the children who have Child Youth and Family notifications attached to them are coming from families that are violent where there is domestic violence present and yet this bill does not acknowledge that reality. Unless we acknowledge that reality and actually take on domestic violence head on name it and get the understanding of it shared across the relevant ministries then actually we are in danger of putting these kids at risk because we are in danger of taking them away from protective parents which is happening all too often. Sadly we are still hearing stories coming out of the community of children losing both of their parents because the State cannot understand and support the role of the protective parent. It is so hard for those fathers to access the support that they need to change their attitudes behaviour and beliefs to become good fathers and this bill sadly again does nothing to deliver on that.