Rich Katherine: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
Rich Katherine: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9779] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 First it is not before time that this bill has come back in the House. The first reading was on 10 October 2001 so there seems to have been a long period of time between the first reading and getting the bill back to the House today. 
I have to say the Minister has probably chosen the wrong time to bring this bill back to the House. It is somewhat ironic that we are talking about the welfare of children advocacy for children and the Commissioner for Children in a week where the main debate has been about the whole Department of Child Youth and Family Services—a department that is very much in crisis. We have seen the department this week try to rebut many of the criticisms that were brought up in the  
First Principles Baseline Review 
. We have heard of a department that is having difficulty in both keeping staff and attracting new staff; a department that is finding it extremely difficult to protect those children who are the most vulnerable in this country; and of course a department that has been unable to keep its chief executive who resigned this week. 
It is important that the Commissioner for Children is able to maintain the important advocacy role he or she has in this country. But I do think that when many people first supported the establishment of a Commissioner for Children they did not believe that the No. 1 group for which the Commissioner for Children would advocate would end up being children under the care of the State. It is an alarming fact that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services does not know how many kids are in its care today. It is an alarming fact that the department is not aware of whether children in its care are in school or enrolled at a school. We have seen a rapid increase in notifications and in the length of stay of kids in care. Those are the sorts of issues that I am sure the Commissioner for Children will turn her mind to over the next few months of her tenure. 
It is important to recognise the work done by the Hon Roger McClay in his position as the Commissioner for Children. He was a very tireless worker for children and a very enthusiastic advocate for a wide range of children’s issues. I think Dr Cindy Kiro should be very much welcomed into the role. After her appointment I sourced and read most of the papers she had published. Although I did not agree with some of the content particularly her blaming the 1990s for everything that has gone wrong with children I do very much respect the vast amount of work she did before coming to this particular role. 
It seems that this bill is very much a diluted version of that presented by John Wright of the Alliance party. He wanted to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament and that was debated to and fro in the select committee. Interestingly if one looks at the 1999 Labour Party election policy one sees that it states very clearly that one of its key goals is to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament in order to ensure complete independence. Labour has not done that with this bill. It has failed to keep an election promise which was to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament. What it has presented today is very much a diluted version of what the original intention was. It is important though that the Commissioner for Children does maintain his or her independence. Some of the provisions in the bill will strengthen that role although they will not give the commissioner absolute independence which was the original intention of both the Alliance and the Labour Party before they got into office. 
If members look at what the bill aims to bring they will see that yes there are some provisions for increased consultation with children. That is quite an important step forward. But I do hope there is a realistic approach to that consultation because sometimes children are unable to judge what is best for them. I shall give one example. If I asked my son what he would like for dinner every night his first answer would be lollies. Quite clearly although the views of younger New Zealand citizens are important we need to take into account the fact that some of them are not able to judge all the time exactly what is best for them. There is also the pressure of decision making. Sometimes I think that with regard to the Family Court if we continually ask very young children which parent they want to go with or to make high-pressured decisions about their lives that can be to their detriment. 
The bill also establishes a deputy commissioner and that is quite an important addition to the Office of the Commissioner for Children. Quite often the commissioner travels overseas. There were occasions when the previous commissioner was not present and there was nobody able to represent him when he was away. I think having a deputy commissioner is a step forward and provides another option for the office when that situation arises. 
One enhancement in the bill that I very much support is the idea that the commissioner can now present evidence and reports in a tribunal or a court. There have been situations where the commissioner has been hamstrung in his or her advocacy role because he or she has been unable to do that. We can make use of the fact that the commissioner is able to investigate a wide range of very complex children’s issues. Sometimes the information that is gathered that expertise is useful in other arenas and the commissioner should be able to do that. 
Quite clearly the role of the Commissioner for Children is to be a very strong advocate for children. One of the ways that the commissioner has been very successful in previous years is that he has been able to pick up individual cases and create a high profile for the various causes that he has tried to publicise. Members should look at the James Whakaruru report. That report was very important and drew the whole country’s attention to the issue of child abuse. It is a shame there has been a delay in receiving further reports from the commissioner’s office. We have been waiting for the Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson report since February when the Commissioner for Children first said he would release it. Once again the report will be released at a time when the Commissioner for Children has changed the chief executive has changed and the Minister in charge of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has changed as well. This gives the opportunity for the Government to deflect attention away from what I am sure will be a very damning report about the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Of course the people left to pick up the pieces and present the views will be able to put up their hands and say they had nothing to do with it. That is a shame. The country has been waiting for some answers in that particular case. 
The Commissioner for Children is an advocate who should be very much supported by the community. As a result of the good work done by previous commissioners it is now a role that is very well known throughout New Zealand by the New Zealand public. It is a shame that Labour has diluted its original intention and is now unable to keep its 1999 election promise to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament to ensure his or her complete independence. But in terms of what has been presented today the National Party will be supporting this bill.