Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Labour is actually opposing this bill—not because there are not some parts of it that are important and do make significant change but because there are significant parts of it that we cannot agree with.The Minister referenced a particular phrase around vulnerability. Like the Minister and the previous Minister for Social Development the sector has been engaged in discussions about vulnerable children for several years now. I recall when the sector was engaged in the discussion which was the green paper that became the White Paper for Vulnerable Children and then went on to become the Vulnerable Children Act. What was difficult at the time—which was never fully explored—was what is the definition of vulnerability" as it applies to our children. I am afraid that in this piece of legislation we are again at the stage where we are not able to completely define what vulnerability is. I recall during those earlier discussions people saying things like: "By virtue of your age you could be vulnerable or not"—by virtue of a birthday you would be put in a situation of vulnerability or not. I do not think we have necessarily addressed those concerns in this piece of legislation.In my contribution I want to address three key principles that are not significantly addressed under this legislation. The first is: what happens with the wider context of reforms that will go in place which the Minister has alluded to? We have singled out a piece of legislation that is quite significant in regard to the care and protection of children but we have been given no ability to see it within the wider context of reforms that the Minister refers to.The submitters to this particular piece of legislation were concerned about that. Some of the submitters—the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services the Nurses Organisation and the Public Service Association—said that they were really concerned that legislators are being asked to support radical reform to the core functions of the State before any detailed design including impact analysis and stakeholder consultation was undertaken. Further to that they were dubious about agreeing broadly to these preliminary proposals without knowing how they might impact on advocating for vulnerable children in the future. Our providers the sector and the people we rely on to provide services and to guide us in terms of our decisions around what we may put in place for our vulnerable children are saying they cannot get a good handle on this piece of legislation in the context of what may come later. So how can we fit this legislation into a wider picture if we do not know what that picture is?There is no doubt that there have been significant reforms and discussion of significant reforms and we are keen to see that the age for children in State care has risen to 18 years. But there is extraordinary pressure on the staff at Child Youth and Family—and in fact across the Ministry of Social Development—to ensure that sufficient care is put in place that children actually have an appropriate placement and that those placements are safe for those children to be placed into. We know the kinds of pressures that social workers are under to ensure safe placement for children and we also know that the vetting processes for those foster families are sometimes curtailed because of the desire and the need to actually place those children; there is an enormous amount of pressure. Do not get me wrong—I think the Child Youth and Family social workers do an extraordinary job under some very very difficult conditions. They are required to uplift children in the first instance and to place them under extraordinary pressure. So I do not think we have addressed that particular part of the pressure on the system.The second principle I have concern around is the delegation of responsibility. The Minister raised that in her contribution. We have not actually been given an opportunity to explore who those professionals may be to whom the delegation may be afforded. One of the examples that is used is around the process for the uplift of children and then placing them into suitable care. It is of significant concern to many people that that process is absolutely done with the most robust attention possible. But we are concerned that there may be opportunities for other organisations to become involved in the uplift and the placement of children which we will find very difficult.The uplift and placement of children has significant importance to specific population groups particularly Māori and Pacific. I know that the process around Pūao-te-ata-tū was around ensuring that the placements for Māori children in particular could be as culturally sensitive as possible. There is no regard for that within this legislation. So what will happen to the care of our Māori and Pacific children if that is not part of the legislation—if the Minister has not considered that important enough to ensure that that is part of the legislation? I have a real concern about that.The third principle that I am worried about is accountability. When we bring other people into a process where they may or may not have been part of that process in the past will they be required to be held to account as closely? Will their practice and performance be monitored and managed as closely as someone who is in the employ of the State and the Government? We have real concerns about accountability as we should do because the care for our children is the most important. These are very vulnerable children who are going through very difficult times; the families who are engaged in this are very vulnerable and going through difficult times. We must ensure that those professionals working with the children and families are as accountable to the process and to those children and families—and to the people of New Zealand—as possible.Those are the three main points that I wanted to make in my concern for this legislation and my opposition to this legislation. We must know the wider context of reform that this legislation will sit within. We must have some clear guidance around whom that responsibility will be delegated to. And after that process we must know that they will be truly accountable back to the children whom they serve."