Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9891] 
Children’s Commissioner Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Children’s Commissioner Bill has undergone a change of name during the course of debate. It is fitting that at this time when we are focusing on the rights of children we have changed the name of the bill from the Commissioner for Children Bill to the Children’s Commissioner Bill. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Is that plural? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is plural. The only thing is that it is a bit of a mouthful and I am not too sure we should not just call it the “Kids’ Commissioner Bill”. It would probably be slightly more understandable to most people. I am happy about this particular name of the bill because what we have done—apart from the fact that it is a huge mouthful and somewhat difficult to say in a rush—is very similar to what we did in relation to what was the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind which became the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. It is an emphasis change away from someone who is for the children and saying that that commissioner is the children’s commissioner rather than the other way around. I believe that that is a good thing and the National Party is happy to support it. We are happy to see that that particular change has taken place in favour of children. 
Part of the purpose of this debate is to look at how suitable the name is. Apart from the fact that we like that particular name and the change in emphasis the purpose of this particular part of the debate is to look at how appropriate it is. Should this bill be called the Children’s Commissioner Bill given its content? One of the things I think possibly we could talk about is the fact that quite a substantial part of the bill is taken up with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child yet the bill makes it quite clear that it does nothing more than append that convention to the bill. One wonders why when no action is being taken as I said in relation to the convention other than what was taken back in 1993 by the then National Government which ratified the convention. So for some reason the attachment has been made but it does not form part of the bill. I have to wonder whether maybe it should have in the title “Children’s Commissioner Bill” plus the attachment of “United Nations Convention for Children”. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It tidies it up. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It does tidy it up but we then have to wonder why it is added on. I think it is just possibly added on to add to the weight of the bill and to make it look as though it really is more about the children than it actually is. But in summary the National Party is happy with the change in emphasis towards children and away from the actual framework of the commissioner. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 The title of a bill should reflect the content of the bill and the title of the Children’s Commissioner Bill does that. It is appropriate and we are in no doubt that the bill is focused on the Children’s Commissioner. Although it may initially seem insignificant the manner in which something is worded such as the title of this bill can have really powerful implications. This amendment appears to reinforce the importance of the child and children and strongly suggests the idea of ownership. The amendment to the title also ensures that the title is congruent with that of other statutory office-holders—for example the Human Rights Commissioner or the Retirement Commissioner. So it fits in with the overall title of other such roles. New Zealand First supports this part of the bill. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand to speak to Part 1 of the Children’s Commissioner Bill. Basically Part 1 is the crux of the bill. It concerns the purpose of the bill and one of the purposes of this legislation is to continue the role of the Children’s Commissioner and to enhance and strengthen that role. One of the questions I have for the Minister in the chair is to ask why the Government has backed away from making the Children’s Commissioner an Officer of Parliament which was Labour Party election policy for the 1999 election. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: No it wasn’t. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is very clearly in the policy in black and white. The Minister is shaking his head. But if one looks at the social welfare policy put out at that time one can see that it was very clearly indicated that the Labour Party’s intention was to make the Children’s Commissioner an Officer of Parliament. The aim was to strengthen the role of the Children’s Commissioner and to make sure that there could be no criticism or thought that the Children’s Commissioner could be manipulated by any other body. That was the reason behind it but now we have a very diluted version of that. Yes some of the roles have been strengthened but not to the point that the Labour Party originally intended. So I think the Minister should get to his feet and explain why particularly in the purposes of Part 1 that has not been done and give reasons why the Government has backed away from what was a very clearly communicated intention. 
The next important purpose requires the commissioner to have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is important that that is now part of the Children’s Commissioner Bill so that the commissioner has express powers to ensure that that particular convention is promoted. 
One of the important changes we have seen in this bill is the change that allows the commissioner to give evidence in a court and gives the commissioner express powers to obtain information and documents for the purpose of investigation. I think tomorrow with the release of the Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson reports we will see a fine example of the commissioner using those powers to collect information to be able to put forward an explanation for some of the high-profile cases that bother this country. We saw the same sort of work done with the James Whakaruru report and I think tomorrow we will see an equally important piece of work and hopefully some explanation as to why those two girls were murdered. 
I suppose this part of the bill is quite straightforward in terms of the preliminary provisions. There really is not much in terms of detail but if one looks at the purposes one can see it does very clearly give a broad-brush view of the changes that will be made to the commissioner’s functions and the modifications that will be made in an attempt to strengthen the role. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 The purpose of Part 1 appears to New Zealand First to be very straightforward. The purpose statements in themselves are very clear as are the definitions listed there. I was pleased to see that there was no date specified on this particular bill as to when it comes into force as the bill has been on the Order Paper for quite some time. It is really good too to see the reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am fully aware that although we do not always follow through on some of the recommendations from that particular body we do need to be reminded of that convention from time to time. So New Zealand First will support this part of the bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party is pleased to see that the commissioner will have a role in helping to support and advocate for children in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We view the rights of the child as absolutely paramount. In particular when reviewing again the Convention on the Rights of the Child it was interesting to see that one of the most important parts is the right of a child and the rights of parents to have common responsibilities in the upbringing and development of the child and the declaration that parents and/or the legal guardians have the primary responsibility in the upbringing and development of the child and that is a fact recognised by the UN. We are particularly pleased to see that the commissioner will now have an absolute role in promoting this. We believe there has been too little acceptance that a child’s rights to acknowledge his or her own parents and for those parents to have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child have to be paramount and recognised. We hope that the commissioner can take a very robust role in this regard will not feel at all concerned about accepting any direction from any Government Minister or anyone else and can be an absolutely independent advocate for children. We are particularly pleased to see this part in the bill. 
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. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the Children’s Commissioner Bill. We were thrilled to see the work that has been undertaken so far by the Commissioner for Children and also the recent appointment of our commissioner. I guess the current care and protection issues that have been highlighted over the last couple of years stress the fact that it is essential for children to have their voices heard. The long-awaited time has arrived and we can now process this bill. 
I want to reflect on why we have commissions and to put that in the context of this particular commission. We have commissions because we recognise a particular set of circumstances or some particular values that as a society we want protected and advocated for and not left vulnerable to the whim of any given Government. We have privacy and human rights commissions an environment commissioner and very soon a families commission which will protect and advocate for that particular context. As children are undoubtedly the treasure of the nation the Office of the Commissioner for Children has a noble mandate to uphold their needs and rights for a safe and nurturing passage into adulthood. We are thrilled that the bill raises awareness and understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the work the commission does in upholding it and that the bill will allow the commissioner to monitor the application of the convention by Government departments and other instruments of the Crown. United Future has a particular interest in those articles of the convention that highlight the rights of children to have healthy participation in their family context in particular articles 7 9 and 10 of the convention which specify those areas. 
The bill also relates to decisions that affect the lives of children promotes greater participation of children in decisions that affect them and takes an approach that gives their views a weight in accordance with the age and maturity of each child concerned. The bill will promote the establishment of accessible and effective complaints mechanisms for children. The pendulum has truly moved on and away from the days in which children were deemed to be seen but not heard. We welcome the opportunity for children’s opinions to be considered and commend the bill to the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Appointment functions and powers of Commissioner 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Before I get into some of the specifics of Part 2 I think it is worthwhile just taking at look at parts of the Supplementary Order Paper that relate to the particular part the Minister has just put through the Committee. The whole point of the Commissioner for Children Bill is to increase the amount of independence and strength that the Commissioner for Children has but if we look at some of the clauses in the Supplementary Order Paper that has just been supported by Labour we can see that the clauses are designed to claw back any of the independence and strength that this bill could have given the commissioner. I find it extraordinary that the Minister has put in a few clauses that basically allow him to control the work of the commissioner to review the operations and performance of the commissioner at any time and also to require the commissioner to supply the Minister with any information reasonably required and requested by him. That basically leaves everything absolutely wide open. That means the Minister can ask for any information whatsoever and the commissioner will be in a position—unless he or she has certain reasons for not providing that information—to hand it over. 
I ask members to look at the recent case of Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson. That investigation basically required the Commissioner for Children to ask the families involved for some very sensitive information. The commissioner had to do some very sensitive investigations and build a rapport with people who had information about the case. These particular clauses make it quite clear that the Minister is now in a position to ask for any information from the commissioner that he so chooses and I think that very much compromises the independence we were hoping this bill would provide the Commissioner for Children in her work. 
Part 2 very clearly spells out the sort of person who cannot be a commissioner and although it seems common sense it is important to restate that. The commissioner is not allowed to be an undischarged bankrupt or someone who has a conviction and certainly not someone who has any convictions to do with children because that would be quite ridiculous. Unfortunately in this day and age when some people can provide CVs that only can be described as pieces of creative writing it is important to restate these sorts of clear indications of the sort of person we want to as a commissioner. 
I look now at the general functions. Once again we see restated the important role the commissioner has to investigate any decision or recommendation made in respect of any child or in that child’s personal capacity. That allows the commissioner to investigate any aspect relating to the treatment of a child or the life of a child in this country and therein lies the nub of the reason that we have a children’s commissioner in the first place. Importantly the role of the commissioner is to raise awareness and understanding of children’s interests and rights and that is why a commissioner needs to be incredibly independent and not able to be manipulated or controlled by the Minister in any way. So in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper we have seen I am concerned by some of the changes that have been made at the last minute.I think the Minister should take a call to explain the reasons for slipping in those clauses at the last minute. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Sneaky. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: As my colleague has just mentioned it is very sneaky to do that at the last minute when the bill is very close to being passed. 
The commissioner also has to raise awareness in other ways and she will do that by commissioning research into any matter she sees fit—mainly of course research to do with the welfare of children. Once again to be able to do that job effectively the commissioner needs to be aware that she is totally independent and at arm’s length from ministerial control. That is why I am concerned by some of the changes the Minister has made. I invite the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey to stand up and allay my concerns and tell me that that is not the intention with some of those last-minute changes because it is an important role. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to look particularly at clause 7 “Appointment of Commissioner”. It is really vital that the nomination and selection of the commissioner is a transparent process and as such the amendment to clause 7 is an important one. The bill takes some steps to ensure that suggestions for appointment are made from outside and are free of interference from any political party—and of course from ministerial processes. With the recent appointment of the new Commissioner for Children cross-party consultation would have been an advantage to the appointment process because it is essential that the role of the commissioner remains independent at all times. 
When we look at clause 11(1)(g) we see that the bill now appears to give the court greater powers to suggest that the commissioner can give both verbal and written reports on his or her work. This means that the work of the commissioner may be curtailed as she gets involved in this rapidly growing area because the court process seems to be a very lengthy one and increasing as time goes on. 
New clause 12A “Commissioner to develop means of consulting with children” places an obligation on the commissioner to consult with children in certain circumstances. It is really vital that the potential legislation promotes an approach that empowers children and young people to participate in the decisions that affect them. We really do have to consider what children and young people feel about their society and their lives so New Zealand First will be supporting this part. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on this part. I question clause 7 in particular as it relates to individuals who may not be appointed as commissioner. Subclause (3)(d) talks about an individual who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more or who has been sentenced to imprisonment for any other offence unless that individual has obtained a pardon. The thing that worries me a little is that it goes on to state “or served the sentence or otherwise suffered the penalty imposed on the individual”. On my reading of that subclause it means that someone who is a convicted criminal and has served a sentence can be appointed to be the Children’s Commissioner. I think that takes the clean slate rubbish slightly too far. I would like to hear from the Minister. If I am misreading that provision I would like him to have the opportunity to put me right. On a plain reading of that subclause it states to me that a convicted criminal as long as he or she has served his or her sentence can become the Children’s Commissioner. 
We may be a small country but I am sure that amongst our 4 million people we should be able to find someone who is not a convicted criminal and who is able to be the Children’s Commissioner. I certainly think we have not had difficulty with regard to that until this bill came in so I am sure the Minister could do a little better than that. We would obviously be very happy to support an amendment to this bill to make it perfectly plain that a criminal conviction and sentence whether served or not would render a person invalid in terms of being an appointee. 
I would like to hear from the Minister. I see the Minister is smiling. Hopefully he wants to talk to us on this point. To me he looks very keen to do so. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 talks about the appointment functions and powers of the commissioner. I too would like to make mention of the fact that this position is so heavily controlled by the Government that it almost wipes out the necessity to have a Commissioner for Children. If we end up with a political puppet then what is the point in having a Commissioner for Children? The Minister may like to take a call to explain to us that that is not what is going to happen with regard to that office. I do reflect on the fact that the former Commissioner for Children was appointed by the previous National Government and stayed in office until very recently. I do not think anybody could have called him a puppet; that is for sure. It is quite a worry that Labour has a reputation for trying to keep everybody under its control. It usually appoints its cronies to positions of importance. 
I see that the Minister is looking up. I have caught his eye and his attention is now riveted on this speech. It would be very very appropriate for the Minister to stand and tell us exactly what process he went through in appointing the commissioner and let us know that the commissioner will be given the freedom to do an independent job. When we look at Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey we find that the Minister’s fingerprints are all over the position. Clause 30A(1) states: “The Minister may review the operations and performance of the Commissioner at any time.” That sounds to me to be quite sinister. Then clause 30B(1) states: “The Commissioner must supply to the Minister any information reasonably required by the Minister and requested by the Minister in connection with the exercise of his or her powers …”. That means that in respect of anything at all that the commissioner is working on the Minister can demand that the commissioner show it to him. He can then exercise his ministerial authority to tell the commissioner to leave that issue alone or to take it here there or anywhere. 
I suggest to Mr Maharey that this bill now has become one that makes the Commissioner for Children simply a political puppet. I think that most New Zealanders would resent that especially since the two clauses that I have just read out have come out on a Supplementary Order Paper. The Social Services Committee did not have a chance to see them beforehand and the public of New Zealand did not have a chance to comment on them. I say that the Office of the Commissioner for Children who most people believed was an independent Officer of Parliament is now being brought under the wing of the political system. We can no longer trust that office. If these powers are as far-reaching as they appear to be we will no longer be able to trust that office to provide the independent advice that we have grown to accept from not only Roger McClay but also Laurie O’Reilly before him. Both were men who spoke out freely and had a lot of autonomy. I think the Minister needs to set our minds at rest. If he does not take a call that means he cannot set our minds at rest and our suspicions are founded—that this is a bill to turn that office into another Government spin machine. That would be such an indictment on the Labour Government that it hardly bears thinking about. 
Our party does not support this bill mostly because most people believe that a commissioner can do something about their individual cases. All the time as MPs we get individuals and families writing to us to say that something has happened concerning their children and asking for our help. Most people would also write to the Commissioner for Children thinking that he or she is in a position to be able to help. The point is that the commissioner cannot help. During the select committee process we heard many submissioners say to us that the Office of the Commissioner for Children was toothless in that it could not intervene in cases and it could not help families who were having real trouble. I believe that those families should not be going to the commissioner but to the Minister. They should be complaining directly to the Government. Otherwise they get up all those false hopes and think that somebody will sort out their problem. But the reality is that the commissioner’s office was never set up to do that. In fact it does become a complaints operation. It has an advocacy role and I think everybody thinks that that is a good idea but there are so many dashed expectations held by people who had hoped that the commissioner would sort things out when he or she cannot do so. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to.  
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3Transitional and miscellaneous provisions 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Part 3 “Transitional and miscellaneous provisions” contains a range of clauses that basically need to be tidied up as a result of imposing new legislation on to an organisation that is already in existence. So of course one needs to restate a whole lot of things that we already know to be correct. For example the first clause in Part 3 just restates that the Office of the Commissioner for Children is the same as Children’s Commissioner. We know that with this Government language is everything but of course in terms of the day-to-day work being carried out by the Children’s Commissioner very little will change. Dr Cindy Kiro whom I met today will still be in the same position of being a very strong advocate for children. Although I thought this bill was designed to strengthen her role I am now concerned having studied the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper in detail that much of the increased strength that we thought this bill was designed to give the commissioner has been withdrawn in one fell swoop by the Minister. Perhaps he became concerned about some of her more outspoken statements about children—in particular the Government’s performance when it comes to implementing things like the Agenda for Children over the last couple of years. 
In looking at the way the Office of Children’s Commissioner has been set up one wonders why the model was not used for another commission that is currently being established—that of the Families Commission. Here we have an office that is able to be a very strong advocate for children yet we have seen for the Families Commission a much more neutered version of an organisation that is unlikely to be able to advocate for much at all—given the scope of the Families Commission. Clause 30 deals with the application of the legislation to matters commenced under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. That piece of legislation basically underpins everything to do with children in this country and of course the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention is set out in schedule 2 of this bill. There is not much to Part 3. It is quite small but it deserves some comment and my colleague Judith Collins will be taking a very enthusiastic call on this part. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I thank my colleague for that enthusiastic speech. Part 3 concerns me the most. Apart from the fact that a convicted criminal can now be the Children’s Commissioner there is also a provision that says the commissioner will in fact be able to become a toothless tiger because the Minister will be able to review all the operations and performance of the commissioner at any time. One might wonder whether there should be some sort of accountability. Well is the Minister not the one who is accountable? The commissioner is someone who is appointed for up to 5 years and is able to be reappointed. Personally I think a position of this magnitude should only be for a 5-year term because a commissioner is hearing all the time about problems and difficulties. It is the sort of role in which if continued on for a maximum of 10 years a person is likely to lose his or her objectivity. It is a role in which the person is hearing only of the negative and that is a very tough job. 
I am concerned that the Minister has not yet chosen to take a call in relation to this part. I am concerned that the independence of the role of commissioner is being prejudiced by the Minister in this Supplementary Order Paper—which has been tabled at the last moment. It has not gone through the select committee process and we do not know what the current commissioner Ms Cindy Kiro thinks of this. We do not know in Parliament what her views are about having her role reviewed by the Minister when she has already—and I think it is great—come out as a forthright defender of the rights of children. 
I will slightly digress and mention that I know Ms Kiro. We were both on the Casino Control Authority before I came into Parliament—I as the chairperson and she as a Government appointee. She is pretty left of centre but a very decent person in my view and someone who I believe will do a good job for children. She is the mother of two boys and it is good to see someone with some practical knowledge of children being able to comment on children. I think personally it should be a requirement in the House that only people with practical knowledge should give advice on parenthood. In this particular respect however the fact that Ms Kiro is not going to be trusted by the Minister to be able to be a forthright advocate for children is concerning because the main thrust of her comments will of course be about the Minister and his department. That is something that is very concerning to the National Party. We are not supporting this particular provision. We believe that the children of this country need a commissioner who is utterly independent and who is able to be as forthright as possible. Otherwise what is the point? We might as well save the money and not even bother to have one if we are going to have one who is tied unable to advocate strongly and without any concern for her position on the rights of children. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to put on the record that the silence of Minister Maharey means that the Office of Children’s Commissioner is now becoming a political office and that the commissioner herself will become a political puppet. I challenged the Minister to set the record straight and stated that his silence would mean that he concurred with those remarks. He was silent so I think that from now on we can acknowledge that this is a political office. I have to say I feel sorry for the new Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro because I am sure she came into the job expecting to be able to act with some independence and she probably did not realise that the Minister was going to table a Supplementary Order Paper that I think she probably has not even seen—because no one else has seen it. It basically says that anything the commissioner does can be at the behest of the Minister. I think that is an absolutely appalling state of affairs. We already know that the Labour Government has a liking to control everything that goes on and if people step out of line the Government has no hesitation in basically dumping them sacking them—you name it. To have a situation now where an office that was independent is no longer going to be independent I think is appalling. 
I wonder even about the report from the Children’s Commissioner which is going to be tabled tomorrow concerning the deaths of Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson. I wonder about whether there has been any political interference with that report. It was delayed several times. It has taken well over a year to be tabled and I am aware of the fact as is everyone else that it was a previous Commissioner for Children who was writing the report. Now of course it has passed on to the new Children’s Commissioner. I would again in the same vein like an assurance from the Minister that there has not been any political interference with that report. 
Part 3 basically discusses the relationship of the Children’s Commissioner with the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act because the commissioner’s office was established under that Act. One of the reasons I am sure it was established was that the people who developed the idea of the commissioner’s office probably thought it would help to improve the ability of the department—what we now call the Department of Child Youth and Family Services—to do its job. But I have to say that the Office of the Commissioner for Children has not helped. It has given a lot of advice over the years but just recently we had probably the most damning report about a Government department in public-service history. I might add that it all happened under the watch of the Minister in the chair Mr Maharey. I do recall that when he stepped down from the position of Minister of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services Ms Dyson who took over said that he had been a bit busy. The relationship between the Children’s Commissioner and the department is a close one because the commissioner often comments on the actions of the department but it has not helped at all because the department as we now know is in a terrible state of affairs. Just today we heard here in Parliament that about 2700 cases of potential child abuse need further action. They have not been acted upon. Hundreds of them are critical and very urgent. One has to ask oneself how many more children out there are in a situation similar to some of the real tragedies we have had. Those cases are sitting on the case list uninvestigated because this Government has not got its act together with regard to its child welfare agency. 
The Office of Children’s Commissioner can advise advocate and say everything it wants but if the Government of the day does not have a desire to actually fix things then children will be harmed; they will be damaged. One of the things I would like to see the Children’s Commissioner do is to be very bold and very brave and start to talk about the real issues surrounding child abuse—the real factors that are influencing families to damage their children. I hope that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner will advocate for proper welfare reform because the Minister knows that that is at the heart of the problems. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call. One of the things that attracted my attention during the debate and that I think is worth making a very quick comment on is the pronunciation of the name of the new Children’s Commissioner. We are talking about someone who is a fantastic person and I think everybody agrees with that regardless of where they come from around the Chamber. She has a practical and an academic track record that makes her highly appointable. In fact I cannot imagine anybody in the Chamber who would not have appointed her. However she is having a little bit of difficulty in getting people to pronounce her name properly. It is pronounced “Kiro” not “Ki-roe” and the various other pronunciations that have occurred in the Chamber. I just say that for the sake of getting the commissioner’s name right. She is a person who deserves to have her name pronounced properly. She is a person of real standing and independence and she has had a real impact already. So “Kiro” is the way that her name is pronounced. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 The schedules of a bill are really the nuts and bolts. Basically it is where the explanations to many of the points made in the body of the bill are found and it sets out the other Acts of Parliament that are affected by the bill. In this case the schedules go into some detail about the actual funding of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and so on. We are coming to the end of the Committee stage and I would again ask the Minister to take a call before the bill passes into law to reassure us that this is not a bill to turn the Office of the Children’s Commissioner into a political puppet for the Labour Party. The Minister did rise to his feet and I was very hopeful that he would address the issue he had been asked to address. 
The point is that the Committee stage of this bill is the only opportunity for Parliament for Opposition parties to question the Minister on his Supplementary Order Paper 116. We all know that this Labour Government is an expert at bringing in Supplementary Order Papers to amend bills often introducing totally new provisions that have far-reaching consequences. This Supplementary Order Paper is only five pages long so it is not big. But if it turns an office from being relatively independent into one that is controlled by the Government then that is the most significant change any Minister could bring in. 
The public of New Zealand deserve an explanation because once the legislation passes into law the opportunity is lost and we cannot then relitigate the issues. The Minister needs to take a call to explain to us whether he is now turning the Office of the Children’s Commissioner into a political arm of the Labour Party because that is exactly what it looks like. The funniest thing is that John Wright—an Alliance member of Parliament at the time—when he introduced this bill into Parliament in the years between 1996 and 1999 wanted to make the then Office of the Commissioner for Children an independent body of Parliament. He wanted to make the office like that of the Commissioner for the Environment. At the time the advice was given that no the Office of the Commissioner for Children could still retain a great deal of independence if it were beefed up from the way it was already set up under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Development. 
This Supplementary Order Paper changes everything. Now in one fell swoop the Minister is turning this independent office into an office that has to put every piece of work it does before the Minister for his approval or change. The Minister is now able to vet every bit of work from the Children’s Commissioner. I can tell members that all the people who made submissions on this bill would have been absolutely horrified had they thought the tentacles of the political parties were wrapping themselves around that office. The Labour Party is already known for its moves in that direction. It is trying to control everything by putting mates and friends in all positions of power so that it has widespread powers. 
I want the Minister to take a call about the words on Supplementary Order Paper that state in new clauses 30A and 30B that the commissioner must supply to the Minister any information that the Minister requests and that the Minister may review the operation and performance of the commissioner at all times. I want him to set our minds at rest and say that in fact those words do not mean what we think they do—that he is now taking over the independence of the Office of theChildren’s Commissioner. 
 I would just like to finish this call by reminding members of Parliament that this office was set up to advocate for children. It was set up to try to strengthen the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. To be perfectly honest I think the previous Government did do that. This Government unfortunately has not helped at all. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to the amendments to the schedules set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 116 under the heading  
Schedule 3: Higher Salaries Commission Act 1977 
 and substitute the words “To omit this item”; and 
to add to Supplementary Order Paper No 116 the following items: 
Schedule 3: Remuneration Authority Act 1977 
To insert after the item relating to the Public Finance Act 1989 the following item: 
Remuneration Authority Act 1977 (1977 No 110) 
Insert in the Fourth Schedule after the item relating to the Chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand: 
“The Children’s Commissioner.” 
Schedule 3: Children Young Persons and Their Families Rules 1989 
To omit the item relating to these rules and substitute the following item: 
Family Courts Rules 2002 (SR 2002/261) 
Omit from rule 427(3)(f) the words “Commissioner for Children in both places where they appear and substitute in each case the words “Children’s Commissioner”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to the schedules be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.