Newman Muriel: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9893] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to talk on Part 1 of the Children’s Commissioner Bill. I ask the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey to explain why it has taken 4 years for this legislation to come forward. This bill had its beginnings in the previous Parliament before 1999 when John Wright brought it in as a member’s bill. I remember that at the time the Social Services Committee was told that his bill would be parked up and overtaken by a Government bill. I think it would be interesting for the Minister to explain why it took 4 years to do so and not only that why this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for 18 months. 
This Government likes to tell New Zealanders that it really does care about children but I think many people out there remain quite sceptical about that. The Children’s Commissioner Bill will give more power to the commissioner but it does not give the commissioner true independence. A new commissioner was appointed just a few months ago and it is one position where I would have expected the Labour Government to consult the Opposition parties. There are a number of statutory functions that Parliament is responsible for like the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman where there is cross-party consultation. Usually the people whose names are put forward are good people and usually we all agree with the names that are put forward and there is very little disagreement about the people who have been nominated. I would have thought that appointing a Commissioner for Children would be a similar sort of opportunity for Labour to show true parliamentary representation by asking members of Parliament to have an input. We were extremely disappointed that the Minister Mr Maharey and his Cabinet and Government did not seek suggestions from Opposition members and did not even bother to touch base. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: We asked Winston Peters; he’s the Opposition. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Mr Samuels can call out from his seat but the point is that neither he nor any of his Government thought that this was a position important enough to consult with Opposition members of Parliament. We are talking about a Children’s Commissioner—somebody who advocates for children and who works across parties. The point is that there should have been cross-party representation in choosing the commissioner. Part 1 deals with the commencement and I would like to know why the Minister made this bill such a low priority for his Government. I think it is a fair question to ask. The bill has sat on the Order Paper for 18 months and I think it is fair for him to take a call and explain why the Children’s Commissioner Bill is of so little importance to his Government that it was pushed down the Order Paper quite consistently. 
This bill is very timely because the Commissioner for Children will release a report tomorrow into a very tragic case involving two young girls who were killed by their stepfather. The report will provide Parliament and the Government with some recommendations but we have seen such reports coming out of that office before and the very sad thing about them is that they are not binding on the Government. The Government can say that it reads them that it hears what the commissioner is saying then totally ignore the recommendations. I would like the Minister to reflect on the report about James Whakaruru which was probably the first major report put out by the commissioner. It had a series of recommendations. If I recall correctly that was back in 1999. When we look at the shape of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services today—the agency that deals with child welfare issues—we see that basically the Government made very little acknowledgement of the points raised by the Commissioner for Children. There were many steps in the James Whakaruru report which if the Government had taken them on board would have meant that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services would be a stronger organisation today.