Vulnerable Children Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVulnerable Children Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13382. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Vulnerable Children BillFirst ReadingHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I moveThat the Vulnerable Children Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. I am going to speak quickly as there is a lot of detail I would like to get through and I know that that will be a surprise to everyone! This omnibus bill proposes two new Acts: the Vulnerable Children Act and the Child Harm Prevention Orders Act. It amends the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 and the KiwiSaver Act 2006 and it makes consequential amendments to a number of other Acts. This bill is about protecting vulnerable children and putting that priority ahead of the needs of adults. These changes are bold and by their nature controversial. This work has been driven not just by—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Would members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly and show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address us.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you Mr Speaker. These changes are bold and by their nature controversial. This work has been driven not just by my own and this Government’s passion to better protect children but also by the determination of the New Zealand public to address this country’s horrific record of child abuse. I hope Opposition parties will at least support this bill going to the select committee so that it can be heard there. I can say hand on heart that I have not played party politics with this work and I believe that it is above politics.Every year Child Youth and Family substantiates 22000 cases of physical sexual and emotional abuse and neglect. We have already introduced significant changes that are making a difference and there is an enormous amount of work under way on the Children’s Action Plan. For me personally the most important work I will ever do as a Minister is contained in the Children’s Action Plan.Firstly the bill aims to make Government agencies jointly accountable to a responsible Minister for producing reviewing and reporting on a vulnerable children’s plan. The measure combined with clear child protection policies—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Courtesy is contagious. I am looking to the members on my right.Hon PAULA BENNETT: —will help to ensure that front-line staff take responsibility for keeping children safe from abuse and neglect. The bill also introduces measures to protect children from adults who may harm them. Finally it addresses how we can better respond to those children who have already been harmed and are in the care of the State. The legislative programme will ensure that changes are enduring.The bill introduces a new requirement for certain chief executives to collectively develop and report on a vulnerable children’s plan. That plan must set out how these agencies will work together towards collectively achieving the Government’s priorities for vulnerable children. Chief executives will have to report annually on that plan and answer to the responsible Minister on whether or on the extent to which each agency has implemented the plan for these children. The plan will be made public. Do not underestimate the power of this unprecedented move. Never before in this country have the chief executives of health education police and justice had this specific accountability for vulnerable children. Now they will alongside the Ministry of Social Development of course. It will significantly change the way they work.These five agencies as well as TePuniKōkiri and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment are all well represented on the Vulnerable Children’s Board. That board is an important part in the accountability chain leading from the children’s teams working on the ground up to a ministerial oversight group. To support better identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect this bill requires clear child protection policies to be introduced. Specified Government organisations including district health boards and boards of trustees of State schools integrated State schools and partnership schools must have child protection policies.The bill also requires these agencies providing children’s services as well as those they contract or fund to adopt policies on identifying and reporting child abuse and neglect. Too often individuals and organisations know of abuse but do not take the required action. There will no longer be justifiable excuses.I now turn to screening and vetting of what we call the children’s workforce. Although many organisations have checks in place to ensure that unsuitable people do not work with children there is no consistent approach and there are a number of gaps. The bill will introduce a rigorous approach to vetting and screening with new standardsafety checks of the children’s workforce in New Zealand. This approach will reduce the risk of children being harmed by those who are entrusted to look after them and to work around them. The legislative scope of the standard safety check regime focuses first on paid employees within the Government sector and the services that they fund. Beyond that it provides voluntary guidance for all other organisations to encourage sound practices in safety checking.The bill will specify the minimum checks that must be conducted and further detail will be outlined in regulations and guidelines. A workforce restriction will be based on a list of qualifying offences in order to prevent known child abusers and offenders from having control of or working alone with children. The workforce restriction will apply to the same category of organisations as the requirement to conduct standard safety checks. There are cases where children have been abused because a dangerous individual got close enough to do so sometimes literally by moving into their home. We will not tolerate abusive adults having that freedom and that power over children.New Zealanders are sick of known abusers repeatedly hurting more children. It is time to put those children first. This bill introduces civil orders to be made against those who pose a high risk of abusing or neglecting children in the future. These orders will be called child harm prevention orders and I want to acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins for the work that she and her department did in pulling this together. These orders will apply where a person has been convicted of or found on the balance of probabilities to have committed a qualifying offence. Only three individuals can make an application for a child harm prevention order. They are the chief executives of the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Social Development and the Commissioner of Police.The High Court or the District Court must be satisfied that the person poses a high risk of causing serious harm to a child or children in the future in order to place these restrictions. The restrictions will be proportionate with the level of risk the person poses. Restrictions may apply to a specific child or home or to loitering in parks and other areas where children may be. The duration of the order will be for the period necessary to provide the required degree of protection to children up to a maximum of 10 years.Because these orders are new we have put new checks in place as well. They will be reviewed once every 12 months by a panel to determine the continuing justification for the order and the terms imposed. The chief executive of the monitoring agency and the person subject to the order can apply for a review at any time and the court must also review the order every 3 years. Child harm prevention orders will better protect children from abusers. Cabinet thought long and hard about these orders cognisant of the trade-off between individual freedoms and preventing potential abuse of children. Unapologetically we have come down on the side of children.To improve the lives of our most vulnerable children who have suffered abuse and neglect this bill includes amendments to the Children Young Persons and their Families Act to clarify section 13(a) “the principle that children and young persons must be protected from harm their rights upheld and their welfare promoted;”. It strengthens family group conferences and court plans so that parental obligations include steps to be taken before a child placed out of the home can be returned to a parent’s care as well as definite decision time frames about a child’s future. It allows external family group conference coordinators to be appointed includes new guardianship provisions to increase stability for children with home-for-life caregivers and includes an obligation on the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development to provide specific types of financial assistance to the permanent caregiver of a child or young person. It establishes a Family Court review an appeal process for permanentcaregivers who consider that the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development has wrongly or unreasonably declined financial assistance and it provides more support for those young people aged 15 right through to 20 years.That is very important because we see too many of them going out on their own when they are 17 and it is too young for some and just not right. The financial backing really will help these young people. There is the issue of the safety of subsequent children. There are significant risks to children born into the care of parents who have already had children permanently removed or in whose care children have died due to abuse or neglect.Currently when abusive parents have a subsequent child come to the attention of Child Youth and Family the child’s safety is assessed and then if Child Youth and Family believes that the child is unsafe it takes the case to court to prove it. We will reverse that burden of proof. There is hope that that person can prove they have changed but they will have to show they have taken steps that mean they are no longer unsafe and they actually can look after a child and put that child’s needs first. It is unfortunate but necessary if we are truly to protect those children who are coming along and we know that past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour and is absolutely important.That was a lot and very quickly. It is an unfortunate reality that these changes are necessary.Iain Lees-Galloway: You’re working too hard.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Something like that. This legislation will make a fundamental difference to protecting the most vulnerable children and allowing them to thrive. We are doing everything we can for New Zealand’s most vulnerable children and these changes complement the work already under way. I move that the Social Services Committee consider the Vulnerable Children Bill.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you Minister for Social Development for outlining the rationale behind what is a bill with many many elements to it and one for which I hope the Social Services Committee will have enough time and space available for both ourselves and the public to give due consideration to the bill. I also want to acknowledge Minister that there has been a long process in reaching this final stage for the Vulnerable Children Bill beginning with the green paper. It is correct that at the time the green paper was first brought into the public domain it was Labour’s view that enough evidence already existed around what we needed to do collectively to address the challenge of not only child protection issues but wider child well-being issues. But there is no doubt that since the green paper process began there has been unprecedented engagement both by the general public and also by those who work in the children’s sector more generally. From the green paper process to the white paper process then finally through to the action plan I think there have been two very clear messages that have come through.The first has been the desire that Parliament—but particularly the Government—brought in its perspective around the issue of vulnerability. It is a plea that Labour has made continually—that if you want to look at well-being for children generally if you want to take a preventative approach to child protection issues we do need to look at issues like child poverty. It is one of the single biggest determinants for child well-being if you look at all of the research and evidence that exist. There are small glimmers in this bill around the action plan that the Minister intends for Government departments to come on board with where we could use that action plan to ensure that a family’s economic well-being is a key consideration for the Government. I will come to that. But we must make sure that that is what happens and at the moment it is a bit of an openquestion. So that would be Labour’s first plea: let us broaden the perspective that we take on child well-being; let us consider child poverty. Let us act on it.We agree with the Minister that we must work together. There was a strong message that the public wanted a cross-party approach that goes beyond electoral cycles when it comes to child protection issues. I agree with the Minister that we should be able to take the politics out of it and it should come down to a simple matter of an evidence base. In fact that has been Labour’s hope from the beginning. We made the offer to work collaboratively in October 2009 we made it again in July 2011 and I made it again in January 2012. It is an offer I make again today.Hon Paula Bennett: Respond to my letter then.JACINDA ARDERN: I also responded to the Minister today on her broader question around the Children’s Action Plan and more specifically the Children’s Teams. Labour gives its pledge that in Government we will continue with the broad framework that has been set out by the Minister. We maintain our right however to review the action plan based on evidence continue what is working and revise what is not. We maintain our position that we have severe concerns with the risk predictor model and as I have stated that we wish to broaden generally the view of child well-being and be much more holistic. But we believe we would be doing a disservice to the sector and the public who have engaged in this process if we were to dump the plan as a whole. There are good elements to this plan. We acknowledge that. That is the pledge that Labour gives today to the sector and to the Government.I want to go through some of the key elements of this particular bill though to highlight some of the areas that we will be looking atat the select committee. As the Minister has highlighted one key element of this bill actually brings together something that Labour has been advocating for some time via our Child Poverty Reduction and Eradication Bill and that this to have a cross-government plan for children’s well-being. Probably where there is one main point of difference though is that Labour wants to see the Government commit to targets to reduce child poverty. At the moment we have a general framework but we have no specific targets. We think it is much easier to hold the Government to account whichever party happens to be in Government if we are very specific about what we hope to achieve. So that is something that we will be asking questions about at the select committee.We also want assurances from the Government that the one note in the bill about the action plan the Vulnerable Children’s Plan can include improving children’s economic and social well-being. We want to see what specifically that means and whether it means we will be looking directly at child poverty. Otherwise this element of the bill very closely mirrors the Labour member’s bill that is in my name and we are pleased to see that this element is going to progress more quickly in this form. But like I said we will be seeking a bit more meat on the bones when it comes to that plan which is a bit of a hollow plan at the moment.The second element of the bill is to require State services to have policies in place containing provisions on the identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect. This provision has been called pseudo-mandatory reporting. I understand the Minister’s rationale for not going as far as having mandatory reporting. We ourselves have said that we think that before mandatory reporting comes into place you need to have two elements. You need to have appropriate training for front-line workers who are required to identify child abuse and neglect. Otherwise you run the risk of over-reporting and as a result either Child Youth and Family being overwhelmed with reports of child abuse that are false reports or those most significant reports getting swamped and not addressed in a timely manner. So we will be seeking at the select committee some assurances and some evidence that training will be occurring because it is not containedin this bill. The work that groups like Child Matters does should be happening across the board. If we are requiring some form of plan for reporting we should be requiring that that training goes alongside it. We also want to ensure that Child Youth and Family is appropriately resourced to deal with any increase in reporting. At the moment we are continually expressing our concern that it is under-resourced at present. That will be an issue that we will continue to raise in this House and at the select committee.The third element is the new standard safety checks for employees. There are a number of issues that we would like to get into. I believe that the Ministry of Education has been heavily involved in these provisions. One question I will raise now though is why alongside this we still have not made the step of mandatory registration for social workers. If we are seeking these kinds of safety checks for employees surely we would finally take that step. I know that the registration board has been seeking that move for some time. Labour has been seeking that move for some time. We will want to explore at the select committee why we have not taken that step.Probably one of the most controversial elements of this bill though is allowing for new civil orders the child harm prevention orders. Labour has said from the outset that of course we want to support measures that protect children from harm but we will be seeking evidence at the select committee that that is what these orders will do particularly because this is such a significant change and because of the threshold around the burden required to impose a significant order. The regulatory impact statement by the Ministry of Justice tries to liken these orders to those in overseas jurisdictions but in fact I have not seen any evidence of any overseas jurisdiction that allows an order to be in place where there has not been a criminal conviction. So that is a considerable change in the threshold. We accept that the Minister is still setting a bar that has to be reached via the justice system but still it is on the balance of evidence rather than a criminal conviction. That deserves significant scrutiny at the select committee and we have already expressed our concerns. Our spokesperson on justice Andrew Little will speak further to that point in his contribution to this House.I want to commend the fact that the Minister has heard concerns about children in foster care and their need for care to go beyond the age of 17. That is something I absolutely agree with. I believe that it should be legislated. I would like to see how far that support will go. I believe that it needs to go into pastoral care and not just financial care and that is something that I look forward to discussing at the select committee. Equally there is merit in reversing the onus of proof where parents have already proven that they have failed in their responsibility to care for their current children and where they look to have further children. I do believe that there is justification for reversing the onus as the Minister has done.Overall as I have said Labour supports measures that evidence shows will protect children. We absolutely agree that children need to be at the centre of everything we do. We will bring in a Minister for Children. We will have a Ministry for Children. We will give greater support to the Children’s Commissioner to be independent. We will make sure that children are indeed at the heart of everything we do but we will also make sure that there is continuity of policy.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I am going to take a short call on this matter. I do so specifically to deal with some of the issues that have been raised by the member who has just resumed her seat Jacinda Ardern in regard to the Vulnerable Children Bill and in particular creating the new civil order called a child harm prevention order. I think that if we look at the background to this we can see why this is absolutely necessary. Perhaps before I start into that I will just assure the House that this matter will be going through the full Social Services Committee process. I welcome the debate and the tone of it so far.More than 50 children have died in New Zealand in the last 5 years not because of poverty actually but because of extreme abuse. I do not think for a moment that poverty is any excuse for killing one’s child or the child of somebody else either or of harming them. Because of abuse a child under 2 is hospitalised every 5 days in this country—this country the best country in the world except for children who are abused. Every year Child Youth and Family substantiates 22000 cases of physical sexual and emotional abuse and neglect in this country of plenty this country of free education this country of opportunity where some children’s lives are destroyed by either their own families or the people whom their families allow into their homes often because those families do not even realise what they are dealing with.If we are going to look at poverty as an excuse have a look at the convicted paedophile James Parker the well-respected teacher from Northland who has destroyed the lives of families children and young men. It does not just stop because the offending stopped. It never stops because every single day of those victims’ lives they live with what that man has done to them. Of course it does not affect just them; it affects their entire families who now look to see what it is that they could have done differently. Well they are not the perpetrators; they are also victims but who can blame parents for wondering whether they could not have done something differently and whether or not that might have saved their child.So I would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Development the Hon Paula Bennett on the work that she has done in this area. I join with Miss Ardern in noting that she has undertaken an unprecedented amount of consultation in this area on a matter that I think concerns all right-thinking New Zealanders who cannot for the life of us understand how anybody could harm a child on purpose. How could this be? The child harm prevention order is something that will be controversial for some. I make no apology for working with Minister Bennett on this area and I congratulate her on having the courage to bring this matter to the House.These orders aim to protect children from being abused or neglected by very high-risk adults. How many times have we heard of a child being killed or very seriously abused and then learnt that the perpetrator had a history of children in their care dying being killed or being seriously injured? How many times do we hear it and how many times are we going to hear it before this Parliament really does sit up take notice do something about it and do something to protect those children? What is more these orders are a very clear example of our commitment to keeping people safe and reducing crime because an ounce of prevention in this case is going to actually save a lifetime of misery particularly for a child.Currently available mechanisms do not always properly address the risk posed by some individuals. The tools either focus on a specific child or are too restrictive on the person whom they are imposed on. For example the Family Court can impose a restraining order to prevent an adult from residing with a specific child. In contrast child harm prevention orders will allow courts to restrict high-risk individuals from living working or associating with groups of children as well as with specific children. Another existing tool is extended supervision orders which can be used to monitor manage and recall serious offenders to prison. However extended supervision orders are applied only to people convicted of certain sexual offences. In contrast child harm prevention orders will be imposed by the High Court or the District Court where a person is convicted of specific offences against children or has been found on the balance of probabilities to have committed such an offence. The person must also be assessed as posing a high risk of causing serious harm to other children. The member who has resumed her seat quite rightly notes that that is a pretty tall order. This is a world-leading provision.I would like to run through some of the reasons why we would want to have that. It is partly because a dead child cannot say who has killed them. A smashed baby cannot say who has done anything. If we want to have an example of what happens when adults through all the fault of their own refuse to take responsibility let us just remember Chris and CruKāhui the little twins for whose murderous deaths nobody—nobody—has yet been convicted. Those children those babies could not say who killed them. Strangely enough no adult living in that home knew saw or heard anything. I can tell this House this for nothing: I would not let any of those adults look after my dog let alone a child ever because they are not fit to be anywhere near a child whether it is their child or anyone else’s. I do not care for a moment that they have not been convicted; I would not let them near them. I would be there taking them away.Each order though must be able to be reviewed and these will be regularly reviewed by a review panel and the District Court or the High Court. The orders will last up to 10 years and can be renewed at the end of that period. It is important and I think we should acknowledge that there may be something in someone’s life that for some reason means that they have abused a child—in other words they have taken those actions themselves and for which I hold them fully responsible. They may however turn their lives round. I believe in the power of redemption of people to change their lives to turn their lives round and to stop their behaviours. They will in fact be able to say: “Look I’m a better person now. I’ve learnt. I was under the influence of drugs or whatever but I have now owned my actions and I will not be doing that again.” They should be allowed to have that. I think that is in fact what gives these orders the ability to actually work. People can change their lives. But I am not silly enough or naive enough to believe that all people will change their lives.These child harm prevention orders are a very important way of protecting our vulnerable children. They demonstrate our commitment and they demonstrate the commitment of the Minister. So Minister Bennett I congratulate you. I believe that this bill is a bill that the select committee members will find very interesting and I hope they bring it back in as good condition as it is being sent. Thank you.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):Namaste. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call in the first reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill which will be a very important bill in the series of important discussions in the Social Services Committee and indeed through the other stages of this bill. I accept what the Minister for Social Development said about her sincerity in bringing this bill to the House arising out of concern for our most vulnerable children and that this is not politics. I hope the Minister will accept in return that this side of the House also is very sincere in trying to find solutions to longstanding problems around vulnerable children and that the select committee will use all of its intelligence and all of the resources available to it to interrogate in depth what these proposals are about and whether or not they are likely to succeed. I hope that we will not rush through the process and that we will have the information we require and that the changes made to this bill will be as a consequence of collaborative discussion. So Minister you have our assurances on that.It is often said and worth repeating that a nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members and vulnerable children are certainly its weakest members. If we just use that quote as a standard then greatness in this particular area is not something we can be proud of. I guess we can all take responsibility for that. But it is worth reflecting on how we got this way. New Zealand has one of the oldest child welfare systems in the world. When Minnie Dean was killing off children in Winton—she was the last person to be hanged in New Zealand for murder—we immediately passed child protection legislation and then the Child Welfare Act. That Act stood until the 1970s. We have had a long experience of protecting children and promoting them.How is it that in the 21st century our performance is so bad? Why have we not been more successful in protecting our most vulnerable? It is not as if we have not had many policies. We have had policies for Africa. We have had new ideas for Africa. We have had new reports for Africa. We have had new programmes being developed all the years that I have worked in this particular field and yet they end up in this place. When reading this particular bill I have been looking to see what is missing and throughout the select committee process I hope we as a committee will look at that. I do not think grand plans will achieve the goals that the Minister has set and we accept that our children should not be placed in a vulnerable position.There are a number of things missing and we should confront those. We should try to seek explanations about what is missing from the proposals so that we can make the proposals more comprehensive. My colleague Jacinda Ardern referred to a number of these. The time has come for us to look sincerely at the needs of our children particularly our most vulnerable as comprehensively as possible from the perspective of what impacts on their development. I think sometimes this House takes the idea that this is a comprehensive plan far too readily without actually interrogating what that means. We have the signs we have the knowledge and we have the research to do it and understand it. There are textbooks in libraries full of this information about what provides children with the best start in life and what protects them from vulnerability. Yet much of what we do in our society works against those interests.Jacinda Ardern talked about poverty. You cannot talk about addressing the needs of vulnerable children without addressing that as well. Poor housing poor health communities that are suboptimal—all of that—[Interruption] I do not know what the member is interjecting about. If the member would like to listen and just carry on listening we might get to it. We are on the same select committee Mr Sabin and I think unless we reach a level of understanding of these points we are going to make the same mistakes again. I say to the member to please listen because we are sincere about the select committee doing this work well and that information is there. Maybe in that member’s life experiences he has not come across this material. Well many of us have and we intend to ask the officials to show us where those are. Unless those are addressed—Mike Sabin: Twelve years as a detective—never saw a thing happening in child abuse!Dr RAJEN PRASAD: That is the problem with the member. If this is what carries on then this is how the select committee will progress. Here the Minister has very sincerely put her agenda on the table and we are responding to that sincerely but Minister if that is the kind of response your colleagues will give us then I think the member might need to speak to you to say how you intend this to progress because we intend it to progress well. So the total environment I say to Mr Sabin also needs examination and unless we do that we will not have it. We can all talk about those things inside the home that make for a good place to develop children. But if the community in which they live is toxic if the policies that inform that are toxic and if our whole perspective on what happens to that subset of society is toxic and negative then nothing will happen. Mr Sabin that is precisely the environment from which many of these vulnerable children come. So I ask the member to just contemplate that.We are not here looking for short-term gains. We are not looking for something to suit our particular ideological agendas. We are looking for some real change. Members of the select committee ought to look at that in some detail. I ask then: is the package that we see here likely to make a real difference? Have we examined the programmes that we have introduced over the years comprehensively enough to see what it was about them that we missed? There was a time that this Parliament debated proposals justlike this and passed policies and laws that were designed to address these issues and yet we come back and we have to redo them again.We all know a lot about vulnerable children. Early identification is not the problem. In many many environments those children who are vulnerable are identified sometimes 1 week after they are born sometimes 1 week after they enter early childhood education or sometimes 1 week after they enter primary school. Yet many of those children end up on the negative side of the effects of that vulnerability. A lot of professionals see this. Why is it then that even when we identify those children even when we refer them somewhere in many many cases they end up being vulnerable? Well there is something missing in this and the bit that is missing is the question of the people who are actually working in these vulnerable environments and how they are trained. What is their expertise? In order to do that it actually requires a lot of expertise. That is a piece that is missing out of the considerations here. Even after you identify vulnerable children the work to get them to the point where they receive the services that they need where they make the personal changes that they need and where their families are just as they need to be is a very very expert set of activities yet the profession largely charged to do that is social work and the allied professions.But we do not have minimum standards for their training. We do not have compulsory registration for them. We do not have workforce planning and development. We do not know how many we need. Many many courses around the country have great standards and very poor standards. There are 2-year programmes and 4-year programmes. There are postgraduate programmes and certificate programmes. And yet somehow these professionals are entitled to enter into the lives of these vulnerable children in the hope of making some difference. So writing a coordinated policy amongst Government agencies is easy but actually making sure that those vulnerable children are serviced by competent people who will make a change is harder. This will flounder again unless we have the right people working with that. Mandatory registration of social workers is important so that we can guarantee to the vulnerable that those who will come to work with you will be competent whether they are in the statutory agencies or the voluntary agencies. We want to say to social work educators that it is time they understood well what is demanded of the profession and they should be resourced and positioned to deliver to us the social workers we need.The final point is that we need to know that we are producing sufficient numbers of them so that we have a workforce pipeline. In this area for as long as I can remember there has been nothing there. The Social Workers Registration Board has come up with a very well written report saying that social worker registration should now be compulsory. I think it is that missing link that has to be tied into this programme. We certainly will be asking officials to tell us what those figures are. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party will be supporting the Vulnerable Children Bill to the Social Services Committee. We look forward to hearing from the experts and those with experience of these systems to guide us in our future vote. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development and the commitment that she has put inin terms of focusing on children in the work that she has done and acknowledge that this bill comes out of a good place and we can see that. I also acknowledge you Minister for the time that you have taken to brief us on this bill. With that said probably quite a bit of the content of my speech will now be raising concerns and issues that we will be wanting to look at in the select committee inquiry. I guess that is about good democratic process and about working together on these things in the future I hope.We certainly also have children at the heart of our concern and recognise that 152000 notifications every year are a sign of a real deep problem in this country. Athird of those are dealt with by Child Youth and Family and 22000 are substantiated through that process. I am sure that for all of us when we think about that we can have media stories that come to our minds or stories of people we know and the pictures and the faces of those children and we know where today in this process we are talking about their lives and their ability to be safe and grow into the people whom they would want to be. So it is incredibly important.I am compelled to point out that of the abuse in New Zealand 70 percent—and this has been pointed out by Child Matters and also in a different context by the police—of the abuse of children happens within the context of domestic violence. We will be looking and asking questions throughout the process to see whether those connections will work whether they are transparent and whether this system will respond to the reality of domestic violence and the tragic role that it plays in the abuse of children. For us at the moment it is not clear whether it will. In fact all too often we are hearing through people’s experiences of Child Youth and Family that in fact it is often working in the counter. So we will be definitely looking towards that.Improving the vulnerability of our children means measures that are aimed at protection from abuse and neglect; improving children’s physical mental cultural and emotional well-being; improving their education; strengthening their connections to familieswhānau iwi or other culturally recognised groups; increasing their participation in decision making in society; and improving their social and economic well-being. It is a big job if we are going to fix this. I think it is really important and I notice that the Minister has acknowledged that this bill is a small part of that work and that the Children’s Action Plan actually takes up an even bigger part of the Government’s agenda for this work. For us we need to be able to see those connections to be able to see how it is going to work. If we can see that the systems are being put in place and those systems need improving then we have to see that they are improving. Otherwise we are sending people into and fixing in systems that currently are we could say re-abusing.We also have a concern that the model suggested by this bill as it is at the moment does not look at the wider environmental impacts on children. Focusing on the individual and the State’s response to abuse potentially might undermine the well-being of children. We clearly need all of our Government policies to put children at the heart of them. Previously there have been several bills this year that have come before the House where there has been a refusal to put those clauses in. So that does create a sense of discomfort for us around that ability for the Government to actually really enact that across the board which is necessary for ensuring children’s safety.We also need to resource families and make it as easy as possible for them to get help when they are struggling. At the moment part of the result of the level of inequality in New Zealand is the distancing from the mainstream of people with the least and that has an impact in terms of people being able to get help and to create strength in their family when they are struggling. We also need to ensure that those helping systems we have are as robust as possible.Just last week the former Commissioner of Police Howard Broad released his review of the Child Youth and Family complaints system. He raised a number of concerns and for us that is really critical in terms of looking at this whole process. If we are going to be increasing referrals to Child Youth and Family and we are going to be setting up a cross-departmental group with that at the heart of it we need to know that that system is working and sadly at the moment there are a lot of concerns. In his report he noted that each child in State care is currently supposed to be visited by a responsible social worker on an 8-week rotation but doubts around compliance with that were raised because of the high levels of caseloads for social workers. Although this is a reallysignificant part of the defensive screen for child protection provided by the State at the moment even that is not happening at the moment. We are concerned about putting a whole lot more work into the system when the absolute fundamentals are not working—the children in State care have not got those protections working for them at the moment.We are also a bit worried that at the moment a lot of the information that is coming into Child Youth and Family in terms of the complaints and concerns is staying on the database as evidence which is locking in what turns out to be incorrect information. That needs to be sorted out as well. If we are particularly going to be making decisions around people’s suitability to be parents that are not based on court rulings we need to make sure that the information in the system is accurate. Concern around the evidence in court decisions was raised by former commissioner Howard Broad as well. At the moment those decisions are relying on social workers’ judgment and on the facts that they are bringing to the court. Currently I think they suggested that the process suffers frompredeterminable bias because of the reliance on that information and perhaps a lack of consistency from social workers across the board. So if we are going to be putting these systems in place we need to make sure that the evidentiary processes are solid and that the ability for the system to cope is sound because our children’s lives depend on it and at the moment we are worried and we are going to be looking to make sure that that is in there.I also just want to bring some people’s stories into this and recognise that we have a particular concern around the child harm protection order. I noted that the Minister of Justice spoke very passionately before about the importance of this particularly in relation to where there has not been a conviction and I cannot help but respond now on the basis of that Minister’s refusal to pick up the recommendations of the alternative pre-trial and trial hearings systems which mean that our justice system convicts only one in 100 sexual offenders. There was huge agreement right across sectors on significant aspects of that Law Commission work which could have improved that conviction rate. If we are talking about keeping children safe then we need to have a justice system that will deliver justice to those children before we remove anybody’s rights. This seems to be just saying: “Well the system does not deliver justice so we will work around that.” rather than fixing the problem.MELISSA LEE (National):Ahnnyung ha seyo. It is a great pleasure to rise to speak in the first reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill. The whole aim of the bill is to protect and improve the well-being of vulnerable children here in New Zealand especially in the area of reducing the number of assaults on our children. Too many of our children in New Zealand are seriously abused and neglected. In many cases of extreme abuse many people had a range of knowledge or some knowledge but no one in particular had pieced the whole together and hence the help was not actually available.This National-led Government is taking action to protect our children. New Zealanders asked us to do that and we are taking action and delivering on our promise. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Social Development who has done a great deal of work through the green paper consultation as well as the white paper consultation right throughout New Zealand. I have actually witnessed her speaking at many many public events. I congratulate her on the development of this bill and on bringing it to the House. I will welcome the submissions from the public and I look forward to the robust debate that will happen at the Social Services Committee.Sitting here listening to members from right across the House and seeing their passion I see that we are all focused on our children and I am very glad to see that. Iwas sitting here looking at the plaques on our walls and remembering that our forebears fought for this country to make sure that New Zealand was left in a better condition was in better hands and was better developed for the future of our children. When I hear that more than 50 children have died in the last 5 years in this country—and the Minister of Justice actually quoted this—and that two children are hospitalised every 5 days I wonder what our forebears would think about where New Zealand is right now in terms of the way we treat our children. Our children are the most vulnerable people and yet there are people in this country who maim kill and hurt innocent children who cannot even respond to that kind of abuse. They cannot even say who hurt them.This bill will result in two new Acts: the Vulnerable Children Act and the Child Harm Prevention Orders Act. It also amends the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 and the KiwiSaver Act 2006. This bill is about reinforcing the need for shared responsibility and about taking coordinated and collaborative action across the Government’s social services sector to better protect vulnerable children and to help ensure that our children are safe with those who work with them.When children come into contact with people who have bad things in their heads in terms of the outcomes for those children we have the responsibility to stop those people to protect our children and to make sure that those children have a future—the future that we all come in here as members of Parliament to provide for this country. We committed to halt the rise in the number of children who are physically abused and to reduce the current number 5 percent by 2017 as part of our Better Public Services target. We are absolutely—absolutely—committed to this goal and we are determined to build a safer environment for all vulnerable children.I am very glad that members right across the House are in support of this bill. I know that members have talked about the issues of poverty and some members have talked about how poverty actually affects the outcomes for children. I echo the Minister of Justice’s comment: poverty is no excuse for the abuse of our children. This Government has actually spent a lot of money to try to better the outcomes for people who are poor so that we can actually assist them in providing better conditions for their families.Over the past 4½ years 215000 families have been able to access Government grants to insulate their homes so that their houses are not cold and so that children do not end up with rheumatic fever colds and flu. We are on track to finish insulating every State house that is capable of being insulated by the end of this year. We are also providing more places in early childhood education for the children who need it the most and we are especially targeting funding to ensure that vulnerable children are enrolled in early childhood education. It is in fact vulnerable children who do not end up in early childhood education and we want to make sure that they are in early childhood education. We have put money into that and we are making sure of that.We have also improved immunisation rates for children. Often people say that poor people cannot afford immunisation. Well we are providing it. Under National 93 percent of 2-year-olds are fully immunised and that is a great result to boast about I believe. Doctors visits at any time of the day or night are free for all under-sixes.The Government has funded 149 extra social workers in low-decile schools and an additional 96 social workers have been added to the Child Youth and Family front line. We also know that the effects of the global recession were hardest on those with the lowest income so we took action to soften the sharpest edges of the recession. We did that by protecting Working for Families payments and increasing them this year by legislating consumer price index increases to benefit levels by lowering income tax rates across the board by raising the minimum wage every year since we have been in Government by overseeing the slowest rate of increase to the cost of living in 12 years and by increasing wage rates.There is a lot more that we can actually do and that is why we have this legislation in the House today. We are working on a care strategy for children in State care. We have the Child Protect line and the Vulnerable Kids Information System and we are increasing the pool of iwi caregivers. Anybody who works in Government with children will be screened and vetted and I welcome that. This measure will affect around 376000 workers and I am sure that some of them will think that that is very cumbersome. I am sure that some will even complain that they should not be vetted at all.Anyone with a serious conviction will be permanently restricted from working closely with children. We will introduce child harm prevention orders which can be placed on adults who pose a serious risk to children to prevent them from ever interacting with children. We are getting tough on people who abuse children. Where abusive parents go on to have further children they will have to prove that they are fit parents. I know that that can be quite controversial in some sectors but we must protect our children because often those children who have been hurt abused and even killed have been abused neglected and killed by those people who are closest to them—often their families—and we must do everything we can to protect our children.I think that this is a fantastic bill that the Minister for Social Development has brought to the House. I look forward to the select committee process and I commend this bill to the House.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Talofa lava greetings andtēnā koutou katoa. I rise to speak to the first reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. When the lives and the rights of children are at stake there must be no silent witnesses. There must be no silent witnesses. It is our duty as politicians decision makers policy makers and legislation makers to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected against harm and from those who inflict it. I commend the Minister for Social Development for the efforts that you have put through in this bill. Unfortunately it so happens that in our New Zealand society the term “vulnerable” is too often associated with our children.The bill has a number of objectives to be commended as it aims to No. 1 reinforce the need for shared responsibility and coordinated and collaborative action across the Government’s social service sector to better protect vulnerable children. This collaborative effort will see the police justice the Minister of Health the Minister of Education the Minister for Social Development and the chief executive officers be held accountable for protecting and improving the lives of vulnerable children. I think that is a very good thing. No. 2 it will help ensure children are safe with those who work with them. This intends to address the issue of having paedophiles or people with a history of an abusive nature come near vulnerable children who should never be allowed to. No. 3 is to minimise the risk of future harm posed by those who have abused children in the past and in doing so ensure the safety of children from adults who have previously had a child or young person permanently removed from their care due to abuse or neglect or where the adult has been convicted of murder manslaughter or infanticide of a child in his or her care. There have been many cases in recent months in this situation.The bill seeks to enhance the response to children who have already been abused or neglected. Given the recently released devastating records of children being re-abused in the care of Child Youth and Family one would expect a thorough process this time. Although this Government’s response to these issues is positive we cannot forget that it is a delayed response—a delayed response warranted by recent cases often resulting in the fatalities of many New Zealand children. It is unfortunate that the victims in thesecases did not have a reasonable response of preventable measures set out at the time to protect them from such devastating harm.New Zealand First was fully aware of this issue. That is why a bill was developed and submitted which was pulled out of the members’ ballot on 6 December last year. It should therefore be mentioned that the New Zealand First bill in my name the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill is the first step towards protecting our vulnerable children in New Zealand. It is rather odd that the Vulnerable Children Bill has been swiftly drafted for its first reading in the House when the New Zealand First bill has been waiting for its first reading for many months now. The Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill was formulated some time before today’s bill to address the very issues that this Vulnerable Children Bill intends to remedy and more. Furthermore my bill also aims to properly address the way in which New Zealand deals with criminals who continue to ignore the rights of our children to safe and secure environments as well as contain deterrents to prevent future criminal activity from occurring. It is for these reasons that I sincerely hope that the Government will support our bill when the time comes for its first reading.There are key changes within the Vulnerable Children Bill. It will dramatically alter the judicial system as we see it today. There will be two principal Acts. One is the Vulnerable Children Act and the second is the Child Harm Prevention Orders Act. It is important that the bill has exhausted all evidence to suggest that the two principal Acts are absolute justified and provide no room for error. Key changes in this bill include a number of areas. First of all it requires chief executives to work together to produce and report on the Vulnerable Children’s Plan. New Zealand First supports a cross-agency approach. We recognise the need to have a better-coordinated and collaborative system put in place to address issues concerned with vulnerable children. We also recognise the importance of accountability placed on these agencies in achieving results for vulnerable children. However what we need to see is a transparent plan that sets out how these performance targets will be demonstrated and evaluated. I sincerely hope that the Minister could give that some consideration.Recently the Minister announced that the first two Children’s Teams had been established in Rotorua and Whangarei. The design of these two teams is driven by the communities they serve. With two demonstration sites in place it is important to see the differences these teams will make in assisting vulnerable children in New Zealand. A Vulnerable Children’s Board is already established so what accountability measures are in place for this board? Is there a risk of shifting the blame from one agency to another? These are some of the questions we want to ask from the teams to the board: who at the end will be accountable and where is the transparent plan to show how this structure will succeed?The bill seeks to have State services put in place policies containing provisions for the identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect. Although New Zealand First finds this an integral part of the reporting system we are yet to see what the provisions will be and whether enough focus has been placed on making sure that staff of State services are adequately trained to recognise abuse when it occurs. We do not want to run the risk of false accusations or neglecting to see when abuse is occurring. It is important that the code of practice for working with children which is being developed for professionals working with children is one that will appropriately provide guidelines for professionals. It is also vital that training is provided in conjunction with the code.No. 3 is new safety standard checks for employers in the Government and Government-funded children’s workforce. This means that over 370000 employeeswould be screened and vetted. In addition there will be the implementation of a permanent restriction on people with serious convictions being able to work closely with children. New Zealand First recognises the importance of having in place these appropriate safety measures when it comes to protecting children. At an estimated cost of $200000 every 3 years there will be no argument against the reduction of child abuse in our society. There is no doubt that early and appropriate intervention is crucial in preventing the abuse of children. The restrictions suggest the immediate dismissal of employees found to have serious convictions from working in roles in the core children’s workforce. We would query though whether this is to be extended to those suspected of untoward actions against children.There are many areas in this bill that we would like the select committee to consider. This is probably one of the reasons why New Zealand First will only support this bill going to the select committee at this time because we do have a number of concerns that we hope the select committee will consider and we hope that an opportunity will be provided to the wider public of New Zealand to either submit or comment on the bill in order for us to be satisfied that the bill will deliver the outcomes that New Zealand First believes New Zealand deserves. The bill comes with really great intentions Minister—I must reiterate that. I do believe that we are on the right track. You know it is a step in the right direction of addressing this very serious and very important issue in our country. Thank you.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I too rise and congratulate the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett on bringing the Vulnerable Children Bill to the House and of course on the considerable amount of work that has gone on behind the scenes but also publicly in putting this together. There is nothing like talking to and hearing from those on the front line both in Government departments and those who work in the NGO sector and also privately. I know too that the Minister has spent a lot of time talking to families who have been on the receiving end of tragic news and also families who want to help out particularly those who want to adopt or take children into their homes at a level perhaps below adoption but caring for them just as intensely and proactively.This bill is part of a series of measures that the National Government is putting together to provide wraparound care for those in this country who are not cared for. Too many New Zealand children are abused and put in difficult stressful and physically harmful circumstances. I would like to take the time to repeat some statistics that have been put about publicly. First of all more than 50 children have died in the last 5 years because of extreme abuse. You cannot get more extreme than death. Because of abuse a child under 2 is hospitalised every 5 days—an extraordinary statistic. Every year Child Youth and Family substantiates 22000 cases of physical sexual or emotional abuse and neglect. Those are not just reported cases; they are substantiated cases. That is something that clearly this House has given a lot of thought to given the fact that there is considerable cross-party support for this piece of legislation.In terms of the main provisions of the bill I think the one that is highlighted for me is requiring chief executives from across Government departments and agencies to work together to put together a plan that addresses the whole issue of vulnerable children and children who could be exposed to abuse. But not just putting together a plan; those chief executives are held to account on exactly how that plan is progressing and what results they are getting. That is so important so that changes can be made—tweaks—or if required they can stop doing something and replace it with something else more successful. The bill will require the ministries of social development education health and justice and the police to have policies in place as a ministry across the country to ensure that child abuse is reported is identified and is acted upon.I find that particularly interesting because to some it might seem like a Wellington approach with chief executives settled here in Wellington and ministries based here in Wellington but in fact this will affect those front-line staff out in the regions. Although we have this bill underpinning the Children’s Action Plan at a ministerial level at a chief executive level and a ministry level the reality is that we have examples in Rotorua at the moment and in Whangarei where in the regions staff on the front line are working together—the front line for TePuniKōkiri for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for district health boards for the police for education departments and of course for the local courts. We are seeing in Rotorua and Whangarei a coming together of minds and strategies in making sure that information is shared and that child abuse is brought to a head is reported and is acted on.I gladly commend this piece of legislation to the House. I support it and look forward to the select committee process where we can hear from those on the front line and can add to it and make it even better. May I congratulate the Minister.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I take a call on the Vulnerable Children Bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the work of the Minister for Social Development and by saying that no one doubts or challenges the motives or objects that sit behind this bill. There is no question that we in New Zealand have a serious problem when it comes to the safety well-being and health of our children. Both the Minister for Social Development and the Minister of Justice have spoken on this bill and they are entitled to be supported in improving the protection and standing of children in New Zealand today. Some would say it is overdue and I agree with that sentiment.It is easy to pass off violence to children as sickness stress or some other sort of cause but the reality is that the youngest children in our country—our most vulnerable—are being beaten up killed and savaged at the hands of adults and that is never acceptable. The track record we have in New Zealand is a bad one and it is time to do something about it. So I acknowledge the work that the Minister has done and the consultation that has taken place to arrive at a set of measures that have as their intention and their objective the protection of children. Nothing less will do or is acceptable.But I want to sound a note of caution. This House is faced with a lot of legislation now that has as its purpose the restriction of others’ freedom in the name of public safety. We have this bill we have the next such bill on the Order Paper and we have legislation like the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. They are all well intended all well meaning but we are being asked to legislate for processes that limit freedom stigmatise and have the power to be seen as punishment. Even though the explanatory note of the bill says that no punishment is intended with the civil orders that the bill provides for the reality is that they do punish because they restrict access not only to children but to family events and other things as well. When we are faced with that legislation then we in this House are obliged to proceed with caution—and that is not about protecting the abusers the damagers the hitters and thesmashers. It is not about protecting the violent and sadistic. It is about protecting the innocent.We do not protect the vulnerable by convicting and shaming the innocent. There will be obvious targets of the measures in this bill—the child harm prevention orders—but as we lower the thresholds that justify the granting of these orders then others come into the frame and others have to defend themselves. As we lower those thresholds we raise the risk of injustice because the reality is that our courts are not perfect and they do get things wrong. Well-meaning but zealous social workers Government officials and the chief executives of the departments who can apply for these orders can get things wrong.There are difficult and awkward people in our communities—some would describe them as misfits—who fit a set of prejudices and stereotypes but who are not child abusers. They might be the victims of misunderstanding and misapprehension and become the target of applications such as these. When as clause 48 provides an application can be based not only on past convictions but on the applicant’s belief—that is one of the qualifying chief executives—on reasonable grounds that a respondent has committed a qualifying offence we are going into territory that might suit the civil jurisdiction but might actually be more related to what is criminal. That is when the alarm bells should go off.That is not a reason to oppose the bill—certainly at this stage—but it is a reason to be alert to the potential for getting it wrong and to ask whether the safeguards we have built up over many years to protect the innocent are being afforded their proper place in this legislation. Let the criminal justice system do its part punishing offenders and those who do wrong those who beat up and smash our children—let them be dealt with in that sort of way. Let us protect children from those with a track record of offending. Let us have meaningful measures to deal with those who may not have been convicted but about whom there is evidence that they are unsafe around children. But the obligation on this House—and I say this in light of the speech by the Minister of Justice—is to rise above the emotional outrage that is easy to bring to bear on an issue such as this the emotional outrage that is easy to bring to bear on the extreme cases that we know about normally when there is a conviction.We must keep our focus on the objects of this bill and remember our obligation to all citizens including those who might be described as misfits the awkward the personality disordered and the slightly socially maladjusted who will not be child abusers but who can easily win that allegation and that sobriquet. I simply sound that note of caution. When we come to examine this bill let us make sure that the object of the bill is to protect the most vulnerable in our community—actually I think the Minister is right; those to whom this House ought to give absolute priority when it comes to protection—but let us in this House also make sure that we do not subject innocent citizens to unnecessary shame and ridicule and the expense of a process for which there is no justification to submit them to.I want to make the point—because we sometimes find it uncomfortable to talk about social morality in this House—that we do live in a permissive society. We do have young people who are exposed to the demands of adulthood whether it is choices about alcohol drugs and sex at an early age and at an earlier age than perhaps was the case 30 40 or 50 years ago. We do have in our prisons and in our youth centres teenage boys who have committed sexual offences not because they are child abusers but because they have taken risks and made decisions usually under the influence of alcohol or drugs and committed what are sexual crimes against under-age girls or young women. They are not boys or young men who are predestined to a life of criminal offending; they have just done dumb things made wrong choices or taken silly risks. In our quest to protect as we should children and the most vulnerable we have to make sure that this bill does not consign those people to a life where they cannot have their own families and lead a family life.It is important when we consider these important issues and issues of legislation that do encroach on rights and freedoms that we proceed with our eyes open that we proceed with caution and that we proceed on the basis that we understand the limitations and the restrictions that we are imposing and placing on people. We recognise that there is that tension. We recognise what the paramount objective is. We recognise our responsibility to all citizens. On that basis there is no question that wesupport the objects of the bill and we look forward to good and effective scrutiny of those important measures when it goes before the Social Services Committee.ALFRED NGARO (National): The member who has just taken his seat Andrew Little has raised some issues of concern and we would agree that when we look at the Vulnerable Children Bill we need to be mindful of that. But I rise to take a call and I want to actually state that this is more than just legislation. The reason I say that is that in 2011 when the Minister for Social Development undertook to consult with the New Zealand public this is what she said in her ministerial foreword: “Welcome to the single most important debate this country can have. It’s about New Zealand’s most vulnerable children; about how we care for and protect them the trade-offs and sacrifices we’re prepared to make and the opportunities we want them to have. It’s about how we ensure every child thrives belongs and achieves.” I want to state that because we can look at this as just one part of the legislation in which we are participating and wanting to pass through into the select committee work that we will have but I think we could miss the point. Those New Zealanders who are out there need to hear that this is a vision statement that has been set by this Government in particular by the Minister. Hence the reason it has the support of the majority of the parties that are here—because all of us would agree that this is an important issue.I think it is important that that vision statement in the consultation document that went out set out four key planks that I think are really important. What is important is that the process is equal to the end result. The integrity of a process is equal to its process in ensuring that what has been heard by the public is followed through with the recommendations. So here are the four key planks of the consultation document from July 2011 to 2012. It stated that in addressing the issues of vulnerable children it is about shared responsibilities. In other words it is not just about Government; it is about parents and caregivers. It is about the services that are in our communities and ensuring that they deliver the best possible services. It is about showing leadership. As a Government we show leadership by having a Children’s Action Plan. So from the consultation document which is a green paper to the white paper here is the leadership that this Government is making. It is about legislation changes. So we are here today in the first reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill to discuss the legislation changes but I do not want people to miss the overall vision under which we are trying to address the issues that are affecting our children who are vulnerable. It is also about working withwhānau withhapū with iwi and with our Māori leaders as well.There are two other things that are important. The plan talks about child-centred policy—in other words it is about reviewing the Government’s spend and allocation. And lastly it is talking about child-centred practice—in other words what are the best practices that are delivered to improve the conditions of children. Here is where it becomes really important. What the Government is saying and what the Minister is saying in particular is this: we cannot expect changes in our communities in the services we deliver to them and also to our families and our vulnerable children unless we as a Government department are willing to change ourselves. In other words the changes also need to come from the inside out. It is a whole-of-system approach.I finally want to respond to and just acknowledge Jacinda Ardern and Mr Prasad when they talked about needing to take a broader perspective. I look forward to our Social Services Committee where we can talk about a number of the measures in which we as a Government are addressing that. I want to just finish off by saying this. It is one thing to talk about the outputs. We can talk about the investment and the spend that we are making. We can talk about some of the shifts and changes we are making. We can tick them off as outputs. But what will really be telling—what truly will make the difference—are the transformational outcomes and I think we are going to see those.What we are going to see and we look forward to the debate is where we sit down we see the investment that we have made we see the whole-of-system change that is taking place but most important we ask whether we can track it according to the narrative of change—transformational change—that is happening in the whole system all the way down to our vulnerable children as well. That is what I look forward to. I know that New Zealanders are looking forward to the debate. We look forward to the submissions and also to the opportunity in the select committee. I really look forward to more than just this legislation; I look forward to the ongoing vision that this Minister has for our vulnerable children and our families in Aotearoa. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Phil Twyford; 5 minutes.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): I want to note the very serious tone and genuine spirit of collaboration that I have observed in this debate and what seems to be a commitment across the House to really look for solutions and to try to find agreement. I have got no doubt that at the Social Services Committee there will be an earnest effort to test the provisions in the Vulnerable Children Bill to improve them where possible and to give the bill serious scrutiny.I want to devote my time—rather than rehearse the provisions in the bill and the things that colleagues have already covered—to addressing some comments to Part 1 in the bill “Cross-agency measures” and in particular clause 6. This is one of the core provisions in the bill. It is about establishing the Government’s priorities for improving the well-being of vulnerable children and ensuring that children’s agencies work together to improve the well-being of vulnerable children. The House can see that in clause 6 there is a list of measures aimed at this purpose including protecting children from abuse and neglect improving education and training increasing participation in decision making about them and so on and then finally in that list of things improving their social and economic well-being.The question I have is whether or not that final item—in the shopping list of measures there that could shape the Government’s priorities under this part of the bill—is there simply as a token gesture and whether it is there as a kind of an afterthought. I ask that question because when the Minister of Justice spoke she devoted most of her contribution to trying to rubbish the straw man—that somehow she said members on this side of the House were suggesting that poverty should be some kind of excuse for child abuse. That was the main rhetorical flourish of Judith Collins’ speech. A number of other members on the National benches have continued in the same vein including Melissa Lee and Alfred Ngaro.The first thing I want to say is that no one on this side of the House thinks that poverty is an excuse for child abuse—no one does. I have never heard anyone say that and certainly not in this debate. That is a total straw man. The reason that I want to focus on it is that it is very revealing about the National mind-set on issues of poverty welfare and social development including child abuse and vulnerable children. It is very revealing about the National mind-set that this is such a big issue for them. Although poverty is not an excuse for the abuse of children members on that side of the House must recognise that there is an overwhelming correlation between crime and poverty and that the perpetrators and the victims of crime in this country and in any other country that I have ever come across are drawn from the poorest and the most disadvantaged members of our society.It is not just poverty; it is inequality as well. The comparative data on inequality is very very clear. The social determinants of ill health also apply to mental health imprisonment teenage pregnancy violent crime and the abuse of children. Is it some kind of coincidence that we are a gold medallist nation when it comes to abusing our children and we are one of the most unequal societies in the Western World? This iswhy National members have no intention of ever tackling the root causes of the vulnerability of children. They are locked into a mind-set that cannot contemplate the more challenging task of actually addressing the inequality and poverty that is such a hallmark of New Zealand society. It is social factors that cause people to brutalise and neglect their children. It is not an excuse it does not let individuals off the hook and as far as I am concerned you can throw the book at them.I totally support the intention in this bill to improve procedures and regulations but as my colleague Jacinda Ardern outlined this will always be a partial and selective approach unless the Government is willing to contemplate—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time has expired.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker.Tēnā koutou katoa. I am pleased to follow the previous speaker Phil Twyford and I applaud his courage in naming that issue. I think it is important that we talk about the whole issue of vulnerable children in a holistic way. The Green Party is supporting the Vulnerable Children Bill to the Social Services Committee because we want the debate and we do appreciate the Minister for Social Development coming and giving us a good briefing on the issues. That gave us an opportunity to have a dialogue and to raise with the Minister some of the concerns that we do have and there are some specific issues that I will cover.Above and beyond all that the question that is raised for me is why we are so violent as a society. Why when Sue Bradford put up the section 59 legislation—which most parliamentarians supported—were there death threats howls of violence and parents writing to us saying “These children are our property and we have the right to beat them or hit them if we want to.”? That was depressing and revealing at the same time but what it tells me is that violence is not just restricted to the 25 or so dreadful individuals a year who commit murder against children but also permeates our society. As a society we do not have a respectful attitude towards children. It was horrific to see the death threats about children as property that came out in the section 59 debate. Children are not our property and until we change not only the behaviour of offenders and potential offenders but the consciousness of a whole society towards the real value of children and their mothers who are also often subjected to the same violence no bill—no matter how well intentioned and this one is—will change that.We have got a lot of work to do. I do not think this House is a big part of the problem. I think we are willing to try to find solutions—some of us most of us—but we do have to acknowledge the complex matrix that has led us to being one of the most violent societies in the world. Violence cannot be solved through violence so we need to take a hard look at what this is all about. There are no excuses for violence against anyone let alone children. There are reasons why it has become a pandemic in our society and those are the tough issues that we absolutely have to face.So I draw my attention back to the bill. We do think that the relationship between child abuse and domestic violence cannot be separated. One of the reasons we are still concerned about what this bill misses is the economic vulnerability of women in violent relationships. The DPB was created so that women and children could be safe. In other laws in this Parliament where the welfare system has become based on sanctions women do not have the same opportunity to escape violent relationships if they are going to be taken into even greater poverty. The problem that these women and these children face is that we need holistic and consistent support for women and children so that violence is not their only reality and that they have genuine and real options. This bill addresses a number of specific situations but does not take on that really tough issue—where do these women and children go? Will they just go underground now because otherwise they will be in trouble? Potentially mothers could lose their childrenand Child Youth and Family could become more bureaucratic. So we want these issues addressed at the select committee. We appreciate the effort that is being made by all sides of the House to address these issues but we are really concerned.We applaud the idea of cross-department cooperation but we do not want it to lead to more bureaucracy more reporting and more statistics when what we need is not a top-down but a bottom-up change of consciousness towards this as well. I am interested in what the relationship is betweenWhānau Ora and this bill. What is the relationship between what the Minister forWhānau Ora Tariana Turia said which was that the Child Youth and Family system can never work for our families—she wanted to try something new—and how that relates to this bill? I want to see that.Whānau Ora was trying to healwhānau through self-determination versus the idea that bureaucracies and Government departments with more powers will solve this issue.I think that the member Rajen Prasad made a very good analysis of the challenge of social workers who are not always skilled—and as someone who has tutored social workers I know what he is talking about—in terms of dealing with the complexity of issues that they are confronted with. So we do have concerns about a number of things. We have concerns about the child harm prevention orders in terms of monitoring and spouse manipulation and also this issue of the balance of probabilities. We think that people need escape paths from violence. We did try to talk to the Minister about what has happened to the Ministry of Social Development and the law the Social Security Act around women and options to escape from violence. We do think those issues are intimately connected with child abuse and domestic violence.We do believe that when women and children are at the heart of not only social welfare legislation but also economic legislation then we will see change in this country. When women and children are the basis for the decision making around bills to do with the economy rather than being sidelined into social welfare we may see change. At the moment we are supporting the bill. We will continue to do that.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am pleased to take the last call on the Vulnerable Children Bill. I also want to join in commending the Minister for Social Development not only for this bill but also for the work that she has done right through the green paper and white paper process.I want to cover off just a few points because most of it has already been traversed. This has been an issue where the can has been kicked down the road year upon year for many many years. I remember the inquiry into JamesWhakaruru back in 1999 the abhorrence that New Zealanders expressed at that stage and the conversations that have gone on since. The conversations have amounted to a whole lot of hui and not much do-ey as far as I am concerned. While that has been happening over 50 children a year have been dying often at the hands of those whom they most rely on for their existence and protection: their caregivers and their parents. What I saw in the Minister’s efforts to actually make a substantial action-focused approach to this was the fact that she went out to the grassroots and she developed bottom-up ownership of this issue. Out there in the community not here in the halls of Parliament people actually know what is going on and they know where the deficits are. They know the cracks through which these children are falling notwithstanding the fact that so many agencies are often involved in the cases of children who are most often abused and who end up dying.We have heard the argument raised and I commend the fact that all members across this House believe that we need to come together and put the politics to one side to resolve the issues but I will not stand here and accept it when members turn this conversation into one about what they say is “poverty”. There are many many families in this country who are in challenging financial situations for a variety of reasons andwho do not beat their children and do not sexually violate them because of the fact that they may not earn what their neighbour does. The thing that really gets me—Iain Lees-Galloway: Try listening Mike. For once in your life try listening.MIKE SABIN: —and which comes from members like that member over there—is that they will sit there and wax lyrical as they have for year upon year as this can has been kicked further down the road and yet they will oppose every effort that this Government makes to actually do what is most important in ensuring that families have more ability to spend the money. If they raise the argument that it is about poverty then why vote against every effort to actually grow the economy? If it is about jobs then why vote against every effort that this Minister and this Social Services Committee have put in place to ensure that the focus for those who do not have work is on getting work and having the skills and the attitude to get into work?When I interviewed offenders who had abused raped and murdered children not once did they say to me: “Oh well sir the reason I have committed this offence is that I am living in poverty.” No it was because they were living in a situation where they had seen their parents and their parents’ parents doing that. It was because they had lived in an environment where they had no education no quality and no prospects for a future—again efforts in those areas that that party will vote against; our efforts to make sure that the one in five who are not succeeding actually have a chance to succeed—and it was because of substance abuse. I will bet the House that there are plenty of members on that side who are quite happy—in fact Iain Lees-Galloway is one—to see some more liberal approaches to what we see around drugs and alcohol.Those were the reasons that members opposite raised. Those were the reasons. If the members on that side are genuinely concerned about the children of New Zealand then they should stop voting against bills that are about ensuring that the economy grows and stop voting against bills that are about ensuring that people on welfare are given the opportunity to get into work because otherwise those arguments are disingenuous.This bill provides an important fabric and a vehicle for change and it does it for two reasons. It does it because it provides leadership and accountability a top-down process which ultimately through theViKi system the Vulnerable Kids Information System provides a bottom-up synchromesh with the vehicle of accountability and the direction that must come from a cohesive collaborate cross-government approach. When you join the top down with the bottom up you get a result.I commend this bill. I commend the work of the Minister. My challenge to those on the select committee is to not play politics but to actually deal with what this bill is dealing with. We will then look forward to seeing you supporting us in growing the economy and bills that support that.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Social Services Committee.