Newman Muriel: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
Newman Muriel: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9782] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 When the Minister took the floor to talk about the Commissioner for Children Bill he said that it is evidence of the Labour Government’s commitment to make life better for children. I remind the Minister that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper ready to be debated in Parliament and passed by the House for the last 18 months. That is 18 long months that the Labour Government has failed to deliver on its so-called commitment to children. It goes further than that. The bill was introduced to the House in its first form as a member’s bill 5 years ago. Labour has been in power for 4 years. It could have fast-tracked this bill through the House 3 years ago. All I can say is that the Minister’s words in saying that the Government has a commitment to children are hollow words and that if he does not believe that all he has to do is re-read the baseline review on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in order to see what an appalling mess the Labour Government has made of child welfare in this country since it has been in power. 
There is a deepening crisis in child welfare in New Zealand and I will put on record in this House that the Minister Steve Maharey is responsible for it. For most of that time he was the Minister in charge of that department. He was essentially in charge of child welfare in this country and he has failed miserably not only the Department of Child Youth and Family Services but also every family and child that has been through the mill of that department. 
I will look at the history of that. We have a Minister who says one thing and does something different. When he was in Opposition Steve Maharey said that he would improve the lot of children in New Zealand. He was going to rebuild the department that deals with at-risk children in this country and he was going to develop a new culture. Well 3½ years on what do we see? There are more notifications—many of which are being referred to the Commissioner for Children—and a never-ending list of tragedies which were all referred to the commissioner. We have social workers leaving and the lowest morale in the department that we have ever had. That Minister sat there making all those promises and saying he would make things better but it all went to pieces and turned to custard around him. 
What happened? Did he stand there like a man should and take the rap? Did he sit in the House while we called for his resignation? No. He was saved by the Prime Minister because when the Government found out in May of this year how bad that baseline review would be all of a sudden he was stood down and a new Minister was put in his place. The new Minister will not be able to take the rap because she is brand-new. 
I put on record what the new Minister said about Steve Maharey. When she took over she said: “He wasn’t able to devote the time needed which is why he decided to move on.” How irresponsible is it for any Minister in a Government to not devote the time needed to the very agency that looks after the most vulnerable children in this society? How can he sit there knowing that he did not put in the time to give that department what it needed to be able to do the job and to be able to look after those children who most needed help? 
During the years we have seen the Commissioner for Children come out and try to do something about those children. He has put out reports—I think we all remember the report on James Whakaruru which showed a little boy who had been so many times in places where help could have been given to him and it all failed and he died. The Minister who knew and saw all of that in Opposition and promised to do something failed. Now we have a deepening crisis in child welfare and I would never have thought I would see that when a Labour Government was in power. I find it really worrying that the Minister can stand in this House and pay lip service to thoughts about needing to do better for children in this country when he holds the responsibility for the failure of that department on his shoulders. 
Sadly tomorrow when the department comes in front of the Social Services Committee for the financial review not only will we not be able to question a Minister who was responsible because Steve Maharey was the Minister for 10 months of the financial year and Ruth Dyson was there for only the last 2 months so we cannot hold her responsible—we have to hold Mr Maharey responsible—but now we have had the sudden resignation of the chief executive. The day before yesterday she suddenly went off on holiday so we cannot question her. 
So Parliament has a huge problem. Any select committee of Parliament is charged with the responsibility of examining the work of a department of the Government and tomorrow we have a situation where there is nobody who will say “Yes I can answer your questions.” That is because this Government is so cunning. It is so cunning that it wanted to avoid all responsibility. It knew what a crisis the department was in but it wanted to avoid all responsibility swap portfolios and ministerial responsibility get rid of the chief executive—hang her out to dry so she was on her own and so she leaves—and nobody is held accountable. 
I say that Labour is responsible. This Government is responsible for the problem we have in this country. What really worries me is that if Roger McClay were still the Commissioner for Children he would have something to say about this. One thing about the previous commissioner is that he was not afraid to put his neck on the block and say what he believed. Will the new Commissioner for Children have something deep and meaningful to say about what the Labour Government has done in this area? I think the answer is “not likely”. 
That is the problem when we have a Government that appoints to key positions in a Parliament and does not put in people who the whole of Parliament agrees have the courage to make the sorts of statements that New Zealanders want to hear but puts its cronies into its jobs because then it will know it will get reports and statements it can live with. That is wrong and that is one of the reasons our party does not support this bill. If we had a totally independent Commissioner for Children we might have relitigated it and looked to agree that the commisioner’s office would have the courage to say the right thing not what its political masters want it to say. 
The other point I would like to make here is that the bill gives more power to the Commissioner for Children to introduce the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although I think everybody would agree with many of those rights of the child I believe that this is part of Labour’s back-door conspiracy if one likes to introduce anti-smacking legislation. They will get the Office of the Commissioner for Children to look into it because that is one of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and lo and behold all of a sudden there will be recommendations coming out of that office to stop New Zealand parents from being allowed to smack their children. We are talking about smacking children not about child abuse. There is a complete distinction between those two things. Soon we will see the Labour Government intruding into the homes of every single New Zealander just as it has already intruded into so many walks of life since it has been in power. There are new laws regulations costs and inspectors and all of a sudden we will find that inspectors will come to our homes to see what is happening inside the family door. I finish by saying how disappointed I am in Labour for its record in child welfare.