Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I am very pleased to take a call on the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Advocacy Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. I do want to acknowledge the work that Minister Anne Tolley has done in her time as Minister for Social Development and that you know I am aware that the Minister is wanting to make some changes to support our most vulnerable citizens and I do commend her for that work.What I want to point to in this bill is that I do believe that there are some bigger principles and some wider policy discussion that needs to go in place because I believe that this is one of a suite of changes that the Minister wants to make. It is evident that some of those changes will impact on the way that this particular piece of legislation will operate when it becomes an Act and actually is enacted into Child Youth and Family.Why I say that is because of some of the comments that the submitters made at the select committee. There were several submitters such as the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services the Nurses Organisation and the Public Service Association (PSA) and they had a similar theme. Their theme was that they were concerned about the fact that the legislators were 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. Also there was a comment by the PSA to say that its members were dubious about agreeing broadly to these preliminary proposals without knowing how they might impact on advocating for vulnerable children in the future. The submitters were giving us a sense that there is a broader plan in place and that this is one aspect of that broader plan and without actually knowing the aspects of what the Government has in mind it is difficult for us to be supporting some of these proposals.One of the most significant proposals in here which Jacinda Arden spoke to and which relates to new Part 7—the details that are in schedule 2 of new Part 10—relates to the ability of the chief executive to delegate responsibility. The example that has been quoted by other members in the House has been about the responsibility with regard to the uplift of children. That is a significant issue. It is a significant issue for Māori and Pacific families and it causes an awful lot of distress. My concern in this regard is that we have not been given fulsome details about who might be the responsible agencies that may then take up the role of caring for our vulnerable children should they be uplifted. I believe that part of that discussion is yet to be decided and that is part of a wider broader policy debate that is currently happening within the Ministry of Social Development.I would really recommend that we get a sense of what is going to happen before we actually decide the mechanism with which we are going to allow that to happen. I understand that there are some principles in some clauses within this piece of legislation that sit outside that framework but in this regard which is the most significant—the uplift of children is a hugely distressing and disruptive thing to happen within a family and many families do not recover from that. It takes many many years—sometimes generations—to recover from that if it is not done well and in this regard I would want us to give full consideration to the mechanisms of that and to who is actually going to provide that support.I do want to pick up on the discussion of the previous speaker David Clark about accountability because not only does the responsibility of that particular act need some further discussion but also how we are going to ensure accountability back to the ministry in that regard. It is a significant part of the legislation and one we need to give considerable discussion to. Thank you.