Newman Muriel: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9897] 
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.