Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill

I move, That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. This bill provides the foundation for transformational reform across the care, protection, and youth justice systems and support for the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, which will focus on five core services: prevention, intensive intervention, care support, youth justice, and transition support into adulthood. It represents the most far-reaching changes to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act since its commencement nearly 30 years ago. It also amends the Vulnerable Children Act and makes some minor amendments to other legislation.

This bill follows on from the changes recently passed through the House in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. This bill will ensure that we place children and young people at the heart of what we do so that we can provide them with safe, loving, and stable homes and the successful lives that they deserve. These reforms are vital.

We have heard time and time again of the poor long-term outcomes children in care face. We have heard these young people talk about how they were not listened to and that they need more support as they move into adulthood. We have also heard that the current system is complex and difficult for families, communities, and professionals to navigate, and we have heard that when things do go wrong, the system lacks the accountability that children and young people deserve.

This bill makes several important changes aimed at improving the long-term life outcomes for New Zealand’s most vulnerable children and young people, and I want to start with a change the Hon Amy Adams and I announced just last week. This bill enhances support for those at risk of reoffending by including lower-risk 17-year-olds in our youth justice system. Let me be clear from the outset: 17-year-olds who commit serious crimes will continue to be dealt with in adult courts, but the research tells us that dealing with 17-year-olds in the youth justice system offers us the best opportunity to break that cycle of reoffending and help these young people grow into responsible adults.

That is what this bill is all about—ensuring that our most vulnerable young people can live the successful lives they deserve. One 13-year-old boy wrote to me, sharing his experience of living in care. He told me of how scary it is to leave your family, especially when you do not get to see your brothers and sisters very much. He said he is living with good people but that he has had 18 Child, Youth and Family social workers during his time in care. He told me, as many other young people have, that this is simply not good enough and that he is looking forward to the changes that we are making. It is voices like this that we need to listen to, and we must have a system that puts the interests, the rights, and the views of children at the centre of all decisions and actions.

To provide the foundation for this new system, the bill makes changes to the purposes and principles of the Act to embed a truly child-centred approach and to ensure children’s and young people’s participation. But we know that the system must balance the need to take account of the views of children and young people while making it possible for their families, iwi, hapū, and whānau to take important and significant roles in decision making about their children and young people. This means continuing to consider children in the context of their family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and community and recognising the need to strengthen families to continue caring for their children at the earliest opportunity. With six out of 10 children currently in care being Māori, we must—and we will—do better, which is why the bill includes new purposes, principles, and duties that recognise mana tamaiti (tamariki), whakapapa, and whanaungatanga, which promote capability-building at the whānau level and encourage strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations.

We also know we need sustained and coordinated efforts by social sector agencies if we are to make a real difference in the outcomes for vulnerable children and prevent problems from escalating. The bill amends the Vulnerable Children Act to ensure social sector agency chief executives work together to improve the lives of our most vulnerable children and young people, and it places duties on the chief executive of the ministry to ensure coordination of prevention services and to promote the services that are designed to improve the outcomes for those vulnerable children.

The enduring credibility of all our work requires checks and balances, and the bill requires the ministry’s chief executive to establish a complaints system that is accessible and responsive and requires the Minister to report to Parliament on whether the accountability settings are meeting the needs of vulnerable children. New and amended principles focus on intervening early to improve the safety and well-being of children, young people, and their families, and these changes will support a change in focus, from crisis management to proactive and early support, so that families are assisted to provide the love and care their own children need and deserve.

Where a child is unable to live within their family, arrangements need to be made for that child to form a stable and loving relationship with a caring family at the earliest opportunity. But, make no mistake, these changes do not diminish the central role of parents, families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. Family placements and community placements will be considered in the context of the best interests, needs, and views of the child.

To support children in care the bill requires regulations to be made, setting out national care standards, to ensure that children are cared for in a way that meets their needs and expectations and improves their outcomes. And, of course, it is vital that we not only protect our most vulnerable young people while they are in care but also support them as they transition out of care and take on the responsibilities of adulthood. So this bill creates an entitlement for young people to remain in care, or return to care, up to the age of 21, and it extends the chief executive’s ability to provide support and advice up to 25 years of age. This will ensure that those young people have the ongoing support that we know they need to thrive, because for some of them it takes a bit longer to develop.

Finally, I would like to touch on an aspect of the bill that is crucial to realising our commitment to our most vulnerable children. For years, those working to protect children at risk of harm have told us that a major barrier to keeping them safe is the lack of a consistent approach to information sharing across agencies and professionals. So the bill creates a bespoke information-sharing framework to enable timely and appropriate exchange of information about vulnerable children, to promote their safety and well-being. Within strong safeguards, this framework will allow information to flow as required to those who need it, when they need it.

In conclusion, this bill is the next stage in the multi-year transformation of the whole system, which will ensure that children’s and young people’s safety, protection, and needs always come first. It is important that the public, professionals, and, most importantly, young people with experience in care have an opportunity to have their say on the bill. That is why, alongside the select committee process, I will be continuing to actively engage and meet with young people in care, with communities, and with iwi chairs and organisations like the Māori Women’s Welfare League in the new year.

The changes needed to be achieved are too important to leave to recommendations and goodwill, as so many past reviews have done. Achieving real and enduring change that improves the long-term life outcomes for our most vulnerable children and young people requires bold legislative reform, and that is what this bill is about. I commend this bill to the House.

I want to start with at least some common ground. I am sure that every single member of this House would absolutely concede that we have a care and protection regime that can and must be improved. There are 5,000 young people in State care at any given time. It is incumbent on us to do as much as we can, not only in the first instance, to ensure that those families and whānau are given the greatest opportunity possible to retain the key roles that they have as primary caregivers—not the State, but them—but also in those instances where safety is a concern for a child, to ensure that the State improves the role that it then steps in to play. There is no doubt that we have failed far too many on both the prevention and the intervention side.

I think one of the more devastating reflections of that that I have seen is the Children’s Commissioner’s State of Care 2015 report, where he blatantly stated that having looked at the state of care in New Zealand, he could not confirm, hand on heart, that children in care were better off than in the situations they were removed from. That is an indictment in every respect. So there is no denying that we can and should do better.

The debate that then arises is: what does that look like? How can we reform the legislation in a way that is, yes, child-centred but recognises the important ties and bonds with whānau, iwi, and hapū and the important need for cultural connectedness, and how do we improve practice on the ground? That is something I have heard professionals talking about a lot. One thing that is absolutely unwavering is the desire amongst our social work professionals, be they within Child, Youth and Family (CYF) or out in the NGO sector—their unwavering desire—to do the best that they can by the communities that they work in. It is something that I think we need to reflect more often in this debate.

Our concern is, though, that this bill takes us backwards. At one point, in fact: “During the 1980s”—and I am taking this from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) website—“there was increasing dissatisfaction with the negative effects statutory care practices were having on a growing number of children.”—that is according to Dr Marie Connolly in 2004—“Children were frequently placed outside their kinship network, and the overrepresentation of Maori children in care meant that Maori families felt the effects of this cultural loss.” I reiterate that this report is on the MSD website. “In 1986 the most significant report to address welfare issues and the needs of Maori was introduced, Puao-te-ata-tu (Ministerial Advisory Committee, 1986). The report made many recommendations regarding the particular needs of Maori children and their families,”—again, they are overrepresented in our CYF numbers—“but most critically with respect to the care and safety of children it reinforced the centrality of whanau and the maintenance of the child within the family group.”

The consequence of that report was that in 1989, we had groundbreaking legislation in the form of the Child, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. It was groundbreaking, it was world leading, and it placed children and family at the centre of that legislation but it also introduced practices like family group conferences. In particular, the principles of that Act, under section 13(2), included sentiments like, for instance, “(f) where a child or young person is removed from his or her family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group, … that,—(i) wherever practicable, the child or young person should be returned to, and protected from harm within, that family, whanau, hapu, iwi,”.

So, of course, it puts safety first. That has never ever been in question. Safety has always been first in that legislation of 1989. But it then went on to say that “where the child or young person cannot [immediately] be returned to, and protected from harm within, his or her family,” wherever practicable, the child should live, where appropriate, in the same locality as that in which the child or young person was living and in which the child’s or young person’s links with his or her family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group are maintained and strengthened. The idea of these provisions was that there was priority—safety first, but, secondary to that, priority was placed on the idea that children would be retained in kinship and whānau care. That might not be immediate family; it might be an outer layer. But, either way, it was recognising—it was recognising—that that was of primary importance. This bill removes that provision.

I am not just taking an interpretation of that. The Minister has been explicit that she has removed that provision because she believes that that has led to distorted practice on the ground. Our argument is that if the practice is wrong, change the practice. Change the practice guidelines. But the legislation is the biggest guide we have to inform practice, and if the legislation purposely omits priority around kinship care—which, I have to add, is not just a New Zealand principle, as much as we have grasped it. It is internationally recognised and evidence-based, because it reduces trauma on children, it reduces harm done to children, and it is child-centred practice. The fact that it has been explicitly and purposefully removed from this legislation is something we cannot support.

If the Minister says to us: “We want greater priority placed on what the child wants.”, no problem—let us put the child’s view front and centre. If the child says “No, I don’t want to be placed with family. I do not feel safe”, that should be front and centre—no question. Sibling placement—absolutely we agree that being placed with your siblings is of huge importance. That is a connection that we should be retaining as a priority. Let us put that as a principle—front and centre. But let us also maintain the importance of that kinship care—for Māori, yes, but also for non-Māori, for Pasifika, and for all kids in care—and if it is not possible, then of course you look more widely.

That is what the legislation in 1989 should have achieved. The problem that we had was that, in practice, Child, Youth and Family, yes, treated it as a priority, but it did not treat it the same as wider care. It did not undertake the same risk analysis and risk assessments. In fact, in many ways, you could assume that it was seen as a less risky option to the State to place a child in family care, because then we were no care and no responsibility—we did not support those placements in nearly the same way we have supported every other form of placement. So we do not do proper risk assessment and we do not properly support whānau and family in kinship care, and then when things go wrong, we stand back and say: “Oh, kinship care is broken.” That is not true. What this legislation should have done was put kinship care on equal footing with other forms of care in terms of support and actually lift the priority of it—retain the priority.

I want to highlight again: no one has said that that should happen over and above safety for the child, or over and above a child’s view on what they want. But to remove it altogether is plain wrong. It takes us a massive step backwards from where we were as a world-leading nation on child protection issues, and that is a bottom line for us.

I have to say that there are other provisions around prevention that we support. There are provisions around youth justice and raising the age of the Youth Court jurisdiction that we support, but we cannot support a bill that makes such a fundamentally wrong move on kinship care. So we in the select committee will be absolutely as pragmatic and helpful as we can to have those provisions returned. We will work alongside our fellow members, but right now we will not support this bill at this reading until those provisions are returned to this bill.

I want to finish on a final point—and my colleagues will talk about the lack of consultation with iwi leaders, in particular, and the Māori Women’s Welfare League case before the Waitangi Tribunal. I want to finish on one final point: how can you truly take a preventative approach if we do not factor in child poverty, financial stability, and the economic conditions that children are growing up in? It is the No. 1 determinant of child well-being, and yet a bill that purports to deal with child well-being is not allowing the ministry to take into account any issues around child poverty.

A ministry for children under Labour would have a plan to eradicate child poverty. That is what our ministry for children will do. “Oranga Tamariki, Ministry for Children” will care about the well-being of all children, and that means the financial security of their whānau.

I rise to take a call on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill in its first reading. I just want to comment on what the previous member, Jacinda Ardern, spoke on, and I would agree. She said that for all of us here in the House we have the same intent and purpose, which is to ensure that our children, our tamariki, and our whānau are well cared for, especially those who are more vulnerable. In fact, I can remember us being in a debate—I think it might have been in 2014—where we talked about the challenges of poverty for our children, and the member is right: the reality is that poverty and the issues and the challenge of it have been around for some time.

In fact, the comment that the member made at that point in time was that, actually, for those members, under Labour over those previous 9 years, it was a job unfinished. What that goes to prove is that the challenges are very complex. They cannot be solved even in a short period of time. They are systemic. They need a critical point of change, constantly along that process. So the member is right. In that debate, when questioned about why, in the 9 years under a Labour Government, it had not reduced child poverty, the response was that that was a job unfinished. It was a job unfinished.

I agree with the member, because it is complex and it is difficult. So I agree with the member that this is something that we need to be consistent about. The process in order to be able to deal with these things—if we think about this bill—sits inside a range of other issues that need to be addressed: issues around housing, employment, and issues around health and education. When we talk about them they are systemic—the challenges that we face and that our children face. So I would agree with the member.

If we then narrow down to where this bill sits—I can remember that back in the day, in fact, in 1995, I actually began a period of time where for about 6 or 7 years I was on the care and protection resource panel out in Royal Oak. I can remember that at that time part of our role and responsibility was, as social workers came in and talked about the challenges that they faced in their case management approach, to be able to give them feedback from us as community representatives to talk about those challenges and how they were accommodating the complexities of what they were facing. They were talking about kin carers, they were talking about placements, and the statutory roles and responsibilities that they had to remove children from a traumatic situation. Even compared with that time, I would have to say that when I read the current stories and casework of social workers at present, nothing has changed. I would say that nothing has changed—those issues are still present.

I have to commend the Minister for Social Development because, after 14 reviews, this is the second part of a transformation overhauling this part of the legislation. I think that is important. The thing that I think is significant about this—and we think about significant change—is that the current Act from 1989, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, became more focused on crisis management. The point of difference for this bill is to ensure that actually it is looking at a number of long-term life outcomes for children in care. I suppose it is more outcome-focused, rather than focused on the immediate aspect of ensuring the care and protection and the well-being of the child. So what we would call crisis management moving into a more outcome-focused approach is quite critical to that.

The second part that I think is quite critical is that we have always talked about the point of difference, which is being child-centred. We know that has been quite fundamental. Part of that is the paramountcy of the child. But then when we think about the Whānau Ora model, for instance, which was introduced by our coalition partner, the Māori Party, the fact is that it is talking about the paramountcy of the whānau—the two collectively working together. Although we try to hold those two elements together, what I think is significant about this—and I am looking forward to hearing the submissions on this through the select committee—is how we allow the voices and the concerns of our children to be part of the planning of a safety plan and also of an outcome-focused plan into the future. I think this is going to be quite critically important to that, as well.

The bill allows us to have a single point of accountability and it has a social investment approach. In other words, when we think about the procurement of services that surround the child—if you think about education, for instance, it is a similar process, where the funding will follow the child. What was quite specific about this previously was that, in a sense, the funding was there for the providers to provide the service. What we have seen is that that model had to change. The model now has to be focused on the child, or the children—the tamariki in the situation—what is going to best serve their needs and the issues that they currently are experiencing? This is where there is a point of difference that I think is actually quite critical. So the whole procurement model of services is going to be quite critically important to this process, as well.

I am looking forward to this bill coming into our select committee, the Social Services Committee; we are actually meeting tomorrow. We will also then be able to open up for submissions and to hear from others. I am sure, as the member Jacinda Ardern said, that we will be able to debate the issues robustly. There are always opportunities to shift and change and remodel legislation as it sits. That is part of the grunt work of a select committee, so I look forward to that opportunity, and I do commend this bill in its first reading to the House.

Things most definitely have to change in the care system for our children. In fact, members across the House will know and understand acutely what the harsh impact of children being uplifted by State care has been on families. In my constituency alone we have numerous cases where the current system has failed the child and their whānau. However, are we there yet with this bill? We have to ask the question. I do not think so. We are not there yet.

If we look at the statistics to see that 60 percent of children who are uplifted are Māori, you would want to see the type of legislation that gives greater recognition to things that will ensure the care and protection of Māori children in a way that will lead to long-term integration back into their whānau settings. Why is this important? Because we know—and my colleague Jacinda Ardern has pointed to the research—that when a child is connected to their whakapapa, their culture, their language, their identity, and their place of belonging, then their opportunity to move forward can be so much more enhanced.

What are the barriers? Some of the barriers are legislative, and many are operational. That is a given. I think during the select committee process we will see some quite thoughtful and insightful submissions that will provide the committee with ample context to be able to argue in favour of making explicit in the legislation a provision for, and a preference towards, kin care. That is really what we are debating here. There are numerous aspects of the bill that I think the committee will consider and see the benefits in, such as the voice of the child being provided for in the recommendations of what is in their best interests. However, when you think about getting the balance of interests right and who makes the decision, that is where context will matter, and that is where the legislation and what is written in the bill will absolutely be critical. We would argue that ensuring that there is recognition at the front end, in the legislation, of kin care as a matter of equal priority to all those other aspects—observation should be put into that recommendation.

The other aspect is on information and data sharing. It seems to me at a first reading—albeit a first reading—that this will be a very challenging area, but necessary. If you want to make the best decisions for a child when there could be multiple agencies involved in offering information to the child and the whānau, information sharing and data collection are absolutely necessary. You only need to look at the family safety network and how that operates, and also the child safety teams and the amount of information gathered by various agencies and providers, to be able to say: “OK, what can we all do together to ensure the options around care for this child are better strengthened?”.

However, I want to come back to the germane issue, and it is a matter that Metiria Turei raised in her question to the Minister for Māori Development today. That is that at the heart of this bill, if we are trying to turn around and make fundamental changes to improve lifetime outcomes for tamariki Māori, then greater recognition of those aspects of a child’s context matters. She alluded to the Māori Women’s Welfare League’s Waitangi Tribunal claim and the issue of rangatiratanga. Well, at the heart of mana is rangatiratanga.

I am asking the question, certainly, of the Māori Party: what are the benefits of sitting around the table if the Government has ignored any advice that might have been given to it about a fundamental issue hinging off the Treaty of Waitangi, recognition of mana, rangatiratanga, and the interests of the child—this 60 percent of children who have been uplifted?

💬 Marama Fox: There wouldn’t even be a Treaty clause in this bill.

I am looking forward to the contribution of the member, because if the Māori Party has been sitting around the table and it has been totally ignored on this front, then absolutely we should be concerned, because those interests that have been advocated by Māori social workers, providers out there in our community, and even iwi providers—my own iwi, who are in this space right now and who have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government, have concerns about this bill.

There has been inadequate consultation. The Minister presented the architecture of the bill to the Iwi Leaders Forum. There was some trepidation about whether or not it would achieve what she said it would achieve. In fact, there has probably been quite a high level of concern about the lack of consultation, not just with iwi leaders but with those organisations that fundamentally want to be in the space of caring for our tamariki, those people who work at the front line, those people who have experience in family group conferences, and those Māori social workers who know intimately all the different aspects of trying to make the best decision for children so that they do not remain in non-kin care but, actually, can migrate back to their whānau. These are the things that we are concerned about.

Pūao-te-ata-tū—when John Rangihau, who used to be an early Māori welfare officer and who went to the University of Waikato, was commandeered back to advise the Minister of Māori Affairs at the time, he absolutely focused on health and absolutely focused on identity and these aspects to do with well-being. Pūao-te-ata-tū provided a number of opportunities for the Government of the day to think in a different context about getting things right. Matua Whāngai emerged out of Pūao-te-ata-tu. The issues around the early settings for State care and how we approached that in recognising whānau, hapū, and iwi in care models emerged from Pūao-te-ata-tu. In fact, the genesis of totally revamping the social welfare system to make greater provision for, at its time, a more targeted approach can be linked back to Pūao-te-ata-tu. But what we have seen is a systemic non-recognition of the intent of that earlier report, and I will leave the rest of it for other colleagues to comment on.

My point is that if this legislation is designed to help, support, and reverse the high numbers of Māori children in State care and to allow them to be better positioned or better put into care models that will have long-term gain, then we cannot ignore and deny the need for whānau kin care models to be prevalent within the way the legislation is written but also within the way that we support those models that are out there now, working. I heard the speaker previous to me, Alfred Ngaro, speak about the social investment model and the new procurement approach. If this is code for being able to support preventative solutions for care for children, which it may well be, then I would put this on the table: iwi providers that are currently in this space are identifying that the front end of the service is where you need to invest if you are going to go for long-term solutions. The funding does not follow the intent, and, right now, all of that responsibility is being borne through the innovation and the care and concern that iwi want to have within this space. I pointed to this issue in the previous debate on a child, youth, and family bill, and said to the Minister that if there was genuine consideration of the evaluation coming out of those early iwi-based care models, then, absolutely, they would be looking to see how preventative care can be better supported. It is unclear in this legislation.

I want to finally come back to whether or not the bill will actually fix the biggest challenge that we have, which is far too many Māori tamariki in State care. I do not think we are there yet. It does need to go to select committee, and it does need to get a full hearing. It is going to be really important, the way in which the select committee entertains aspects of this bill that fundamentally look at a different service delivery model. All that said, if the bill does not provide in some shape or form a preference towards iwi, hapū, and whānau care models, then I think we are leaving it to chance.

This is what I would say: if we think any Government department will, within its own good conscience, recognise that the things that we are saying must be written into legislation, you are dreaming—absolutely dreaming. If we make provisions specific that kin care matters and that it needs to be considered alongside those other aspects—the voice of the child, the role of the whānau, and the ability to support services; on balance, all those things considered together—then the best decision can be made, but you have to be explicit in the legislation.

I support the contribution of my colleague Jacinda Ardern, and the explanation as to why we cannot support this bill at its first reading. We would urge people to be involved in the debate. We would urge the Government to look at the Waitangi Tribunal claim, and at what has been expressed as a result of a number of contributions to the forum Hui Whakatipu, but, other than that, at other areas as well. We would also urge the Government to consult with those iwi who are involved in this care provision space, because they are creating the innovation and the practice model to ensure that our kids are better cared for. Kia ora.

This weekend my son Whatahoro marries his love, Matariki, at our marae at Hurunui o Rangi. It is home. Home—the place of our hearts, the place where our hearts return, the centre of our heritage and history, and the basis of all we are. The dictionary definition of “home” is a “social unit formed by a family living together; a familiar or usual setting; a place of origin”. It is, therefore, with the thought of home that I come to this legislation, the Children, Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill.

At the centre of the ceremonies this weekend will be my mokopuna. Although just a babe, he is surrounded by a loving legacy of Kahungunu and Whanganui. His waiata is sung to him, and already he understands the distinctive mita of his relations, the sacred spaces, and the stories that are his. I contrast the situation of my moko with that of a young man speaking of his experiences in care: “For my first 5 years in care I was beaten every day. I experienced fear every day. The day after the funeral of my father, I was picked up and placed in a new home. It took 12 years of letter writing to find my sister. There would be a standard 2 to 3 weeks’ delay to contact a social worker. I would disclose to the social worker, then go home and get beaten up again.”

No child anywhere, in any care, should have to live through such abuse. Safety must never be compromised. In exactly the same vein, no child should ever be disconnected from the very essence of who they are. Mana tamariki, whakapapa, and the love and connection of whānau are absolutely fundamental to a child’s ability to grow into a strong, confident, healthy adult.

If there is one group of New Zealanders that deserves our utmost respect, it is those young people who were brave enough to speak of their experiences to the expert panel last year. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence associated with the expert panel’s final report was a postcard from a Youth Advisory Panel member. One half of the postcard was a design with three simple words: “I am Māori.” The other half contained a letter, and I am going to quote from that letter: “Dear Anne Tolley. When you read the final report over Christmas, I’d like you to think about the importance of keeping whānau connections to keep the child’s identity intact, and supply them with the support needed to do so. This is important as a child should know where they are from, where they come from, and know that there people out there who love them. This identity is not just where the child comes from and what culture they are. It is everything that makes them who they are.”

There is nothing more important to tangata whenua than to know where they come from—who we are, what our connections are, and where we belong to. In this respect we are proud of and positive about the new purposes of the bill, which recognise mana tamaiti or tamariki, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga of the Māori children and young persons, but—and it is a major “but”—there is a particular word that appears over and over again throughout the bill that diminishes the intent of these very significant words.

The bill promotes “a child-centred approach that is culturally authentic and successful in delivering improved outcomes for Māori children, young persons, and whānau.” That is great—that is great—until we get to new section 5(c) Part 1, clause 8, when we learn that the “informal networks and supports of a child or young person and their family are acknowledged and, where practicable, utilised;”. Excuse me? When is it not practicable to understand the value and birthright—the genealogical connection, the power of the family connection—to our children?

Then we are told that “the importance of whakapapa and whanaungatanga is recognised by ensuring that wherever possible, their whānau, hapū, and iwi can participate in those decisions.” But later on, in new section 13(2) in Part 1, clause 13, it says: “where a child or young person is at risk of being removed from their immediate family, whānau, or usual caregivers, the child’s or young person’s usual caregivers, family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group should, unless it is unreasonable or impracticable in the circumstances, be assisted to enable them to provide a safe, stable, and loving home…”, as if those two things can be separated.

I thought we were putting the child at the centre. I thought we were listening to the child and making it most important that everything they need is contained in their care and protection. But only when it is practicable or reasonable or appropriate? We did fight very hard for the last 6 months to even have these words put in the bill, “whakapapa, whanaungatanga, mana tamariki”, only to have them qualified by “practicable”, weakened by “appropriate”, and given some sort of determination by “when reasonable”.

There is a really significant, new responsibility introduced in the bill that broadens and clarifies the duties of the chief executive to “provide a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” No provisos, no qualifiers, not “when practicable”, but always, because it is always important that a child has the right and the ability to know who they are, what their identity is, and from the mouths of the children themselves, they have said so.

“Practicable” denotes being capable of doing something if the circumstances are favourable, being viable, feasible—all well and good. But we know that whenever there is legislative flexibility, so too will officialdom exercise that flexibility. Resources—children’s needs are paramount. If the question of resourcing is associated with understanding whether a certain action is practicable, about finding their whakapapa and their whānau connections, we all know what the decision makers will do. If there is any indecisive hesitancy, we, as the Māori Party, cannot support this bill in its first reading if somebody is going to ask: “Do I have enough time? Is there enough resource? Am I going to spend too much time filling in a piece of paper to bother to find this children’s whānau?”.

If mana tamaiti, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga stand for something, then it will and must be done. We cannot be drawn into a debate about bureaucracy, about whether there is enough time, and about whether, in all reasonable circumstances, we should give heed to that message. It is part of who we are. It is intrinsic in every part of us. When we strip that away from our tamariki, when we go to place them, for ever, with another family—and we might “promote” their whakapapa, so I can give you a book about it and a picture, because that is promoting. Or do I need to “recognise” and “provide for”?

The little words in this bill are significant and important, and yes, the Māori Party has sat at the table and we have done everything. There would not be a Treaty clause in this bill had we not been at that table. For some people in the National Government, they might think that that would be better. But if 63 percent of Māori children make up the children in Child, Youth and Family (CYF) care, if 63 percent of those children are Māori, if 71 percent of the children, young people, in prison are Māori, we are the mainstream. We should not have a Māori issues paper on the side, to decide what we might do or might not do. The entire make-up, the entire structure, the entire rebuild of CYF needs to be done in accordance with Māori principles.

What has happened is a systematic failure, where even the Children’s Commissioner said that some of those children would have been better off staying in their abusive families than going into CYF care. In fact, going into CYF care has been detrimental to them. They are more likely to fall out of school without a qualification, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be incarcerated, and more likely to be abused in State care. That is double jeopardy. We cannot repeat the tragedy of the past. We cannot have a new stolen generation by removing links to whakapapa in this new design. It was not Māori families that failed all of their children; the system has failed all of their children.

Lastly, I want to say it is not a question of having a safe, loving, stable home or a Māori home, as if they are not mutually exclusive. We cannot support this bill. Thank you.

The Green Party will oppose this legislation. There are some positive aspects to the bill that we do support, such as extending the youth justice age—albeit with the restrictions that are in it, and we would like to see those restrictions moved—and extending the age of care, assuming that the care is safe, and we can understand the provisions for that. We support early intervention for families and whānau where children are unsafe and need to be protected. We do not support the permanent removal of children from their families. It is an absolutely outrageous proposition in this bill. It is typical of National to combine it with a couple of other provisions that will be supported. But the fundamental provision in this legislation is the deliberate intention to remove Māori children from Māori whānau for good. It is an assimilationist policy in this legislation. It is a crime against the rights of the child and their whānau. It is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is extremely serious.

As a result of the seriousness of these proposals for Māori whānau, I have proposed an amendment to the motion that the bill go to the Social Services Committee. It should go to the Māori Affairs Committee—absolutely this bill should go to the Māori Affairs Committee. Those are the provisions. We all, generally, agree with them. They are not that controversial. The fundamental premise of this bill is to take from whānau our babies. So the bill should go to the Māori Affairs Committee, which is the only safe committee for Māori whānau to speak to about the consequences of this legislation. I hope that other members, if there is an opportunity, will support that amendment to the motion.

There is a very abusive and difficult history of State intervention with Māori children, through the whole colonisation of this country. Right from the very beginning, there were requirements for whānau to send their children to school—send their Māori children to English-speaking schools—where they were required to learn English, based on the theory that assimilation was better for those children. What it led to was a significant destruction of our own language and our own tikanga. Beyond colonisation itself, that was the first of those serious interventions against Māori children and their right to be Māori in their own country. Much later the mokopuna of that first wave of assimilated children suffered from Government policy in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. That was a slightly softer version, saying that Māori whānau, particularly because so many of them were poor and rural, were not able to provide for their children the kinds of lives that Pākehā had decided were better for them, and so those children were taken and put into Children, Youth and Family (CYF) care—some for superficial and terrible reasons, but reasons that were largely about prejudice and racism against Māori whānau.

Those children were taken and put into State care, into institutions that were largely occupied by Māori children and run by Pākehā Government agents, and those children suffered appalling, horrific abuse in those institutions—all the children, Pākehā and Māori, who were in those institutions. We have seen the results from the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, which has only skimmed the very surface of the crimes committed against children in care, of just how appalling State care was for those children. They were taken, they were placed in institutions and with foster families, and they were horribly abused—particularly Māori boys. That Confidential Listening and Assistance Service report highlights the particularly nasty attacks on Māori boys. Now, another generation later, the mokopuna of those children are being subject to another legislative Government intention to remove those babies from their whānau.

Anne Tolley and her people think that it is better that we do not take care of our own kids. That is the only excuse for removing the “whānau-first” placement priority that has been in legislation and was hard-fought-for, and has now been taken out. It runs alongside the existing legislation that actually was put in place by Paula Bennett, the new Deputy Prime Minister, some years ago, which allows for even more babies to be taken from their mothers at birth, in the birthing unit. So there has been a significant increase in Māori babies being taken from their mothers at birth, and with this legislation, which removes the kin in placement priority, those babies will never go home. It does not matter how well that whānau is, it does not matter how much work that mother has done to get herself well, it does not matter what else is going on—those babies will never go home. It is a stolen generation, again. We have had waves and waves of the State telling Māori that the way we raise our kids and our love and our connection to our babies do not matter as much as they do for Pākehā families.

The trick to this is, of course, the numbers. More than 60 percent of the kids currently in care are Māori children. We know that the kids today in State care are not safe. There are hundreds of them missing. There are hundreds of them on the street because CYF does not know where they are—all right? They are being kept or taken into inadequate places. There was a report last Thursday about a CYF worker who took a kid—14 years old—and placed him in a well-known Mongrel Mob home. That kid then committed a crime—a burglary—and was convicted in the Youth Court, as a result of being placed by CYF in a Mongrel Mob home when his grandmother had said: “I will take him.” His grandmother said: “Give him to me. I am his family and I will help to take care of him.” And even under the existing rules, which are supposed to prioritise kinship placement, that child—because at 14 you are still a child—was placed in a Mongrel Mob environment, committed a crime, and has suffered the results.

If any provisions in the law change so as to reduce the priority of having our kids placed with our whānau and our hapū, those kids will suffer terrible consequences from that State intervention and assimilation. They will be left out. They will suffer abuse. They will have nowhere to go to have their lives repaired. And the whānau will have lost our whakapapa. After all this time, does the Government really have zero concept of the importance of whakapapa? I do not understand it, actually, because Government members would not do it to their own kids. They would not do it to their own—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Oh, come on.

No, it is true. They would not do it to their own kids.

This is a policy that the Government members know will have its greatest negative impact on Māori children and Māori whānau. They know that it will mean that more of our kids are taken, and more of our kids will be unsafe. It is one of the most disgraceful policy decisions by Government I have seen in a long time. We will oppose it. We will support the Māori Women’s Welfare League in its Treaty claim to oppose it on that basis. But, as a family person with kids of my own, attached to other families with kids of their own, I say there is no way that this legislation should proceed. There will be a fight on the Government’s hands. It will not keep taking our babies off us. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. At this stage New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill, for one very good reason. It is no secret that New Zealand First has made it quite clear that it will not be supporting any move in the youth justice age and the Youth Court age to include 17-year-olds. I will get into that in a second, but I think I need to address a couple of things that are of concern.

The first one is that this afternoon the Minister for Social Development had a briefing with the Labour Party spokesperson on social development on these matters that are going to be happening in this bill. New Zealand First members were not there. We were not invited to that briefing.

💬 Jono Naylor: Aw!

Oh, you might say “Aw!”, Mr Naylor, but this is why the people of New Zealand are sick and tired of the “Pepsi and Coke” pendulum swing that we have got. You know, the Minister might not realise that it is election year next year, or maybe she is just too arrogant to understand that perhaps the Labour Party is not the only party she needs to be briefing. But I digress. I will move on to the point I was going to make in detail about the reasons why we have got issues with the Youth Court age being increased to include 17-year-olds.

But before I do, I think I need to address the main issues that the Labour Party and the Green Party—and the Māori Party as well—have been spouting that they have got an issue with, which is the provision whereby the decisions of paramount importance that are made by the State should not be the care and protection of the children. Because that is what the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party are saying—that what should be of paramount importance is where that child is placed and that that child should be placed back into family, iwi, whānau, or hapū. That is what they are saying should be No. 1 in importance. Sixty-three percent of children—63 percent—in the care system are Māori, so why has that provision not worked yet? Why has that provision not worked yet? The fact of the matter is that the Māori Party, the Green Party, and the Labour Party—[Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Māori Party, the Green Party, and the Labour Party are living in some dream world, where in the ideal world all Māori children should be living with their Māori family. Of course they should, and ideally they should, but that is not the ideal world. Those are not the facts. The facts are that we have got foster kids, like Ron Mark who grew up in a foster family with Pākehā parents, not because he was forced there, but because the Pākehā parents were the ones willing to stand up and look after him. That is why.

💬 Marama Fox: And Māori aren’t? It is not mutually exclusive.

If the tangata whenua were so keen on looking after their children, why are they not doing that now? Why are they not doing that now? This is the reason why we have got issues in this country in regard to the care and protection of our children. I think that the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party need to wake up, come off their dream cloud, and understand the reality of the care and protection of our children.

💬 Marama Fox: That all Māori people are bad and ugly—is that what you are saying? That’s what you just said, Darroch.

Stop that. Do not be ridiculous. Do not be ridiculous—grow up. I would like to think that I have made the New Zealand First position clear on that point.

I would like to move on to another point that we are just as passionate about, and that is the youth justice and Youth Court age. For the last 18 months to 2 years I have been standing up in this House, in the media, and in everything else and saying that this youth justice system is failing, and yet we have got the Minister for Social Development standing up and saying that she has the research that backs up her claims that 17-year-olds would be better off in the youth justice system. Well, I say table it. I say, where is that research? I asked the Minister whether part of her research was asking the front-line police and the youth aid officers, who work with these youth daily, and I can guarantee it would not be—I can guarantee it would not be.

Seventy-five percent of front-line police officers do not want the Youth Court age to change—75 percent. Does the Government listen? No. Fifty-five percent of the youth aid officers, who deal daily with these youth, do not want the Youth Court age to change. Does the Government listen? No. The Government wonders why there are accusations from the public that it is so far out of touch. And then the Labour Party wonders why there are all these accusations that it is so far out of touch.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Oh no, oh no.

Oh yes.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: You’re making that up.

Oh no, I am not.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Oh yes, you are, you know.

No, no, you are right: 23 percent means you are really in touch there—23 percent.

If the Minister is standing up and saying that a 60 percent reoffending rate in the youth justice system is a good thing and it wants to include more 17-year-olds with that, then I beg to differ. If this Government is seriously talking about early intervention, then why has it not focused at all on the Family Court and child offenders? Every single 14-year-old in the youth justice system who goes through the Youth Court has been a child offender. The fact is that, currently, the Family Court has no power. It has no room for intervention for the 10- to 13-year-olds. That is where we need to start focusing, but this Government, the Labour Party, and the Green Party have ignored that fact. They have ignored it.

We have got a youth justice system that is failing. We have got 40 percent of all youth offenders who are in the youth justice system who have offended three or more times. That is not a successful youth justice system. Fourteen percent of individuals, youth offenders in the youth justice system, have offended six or more times. The tragic fact is that this Government has stood up and talked about family group conferences (FCGs) being the cornerstone of the youth justice system. The fact is that 80 percent of youth offenders do not go into court, so they do not get to the FGCs. And when they do go to the FGCs, they have got an 80 percent reoffending rate—an 80 percent reoffending rate—and yet, apparently, the Government wants to increase the Youth Court age to include more young people, so it can fail more young people.

This Government is going to spend over a billion dollars on a new prison. The fact of the matter is that half of all our current adult prison population have gone through the Youth Court previously—half of all the current adult prison population have gone through the Youth Court. If the youth justice system was working and if the Youth Court was working, we would not have half the adult prisoners that we do now. We would not have to be spending the billion dollars on new prisons that we are now. But, instead of looking at the facts, the Government stands up and all the other Opposition parties stand up on ideological grounds, speaking rhetoric that is just bereft of fact. If they did have a look at the facts that we have to deal with, that the front-line police have to deal with, and that the people who work with these young people have to deal with, day in and day out, they would know that it is not the right decision to increase the Youth Court jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds.

I am more than looking forward to the different stages of this bill progressing through the House, and especially the select committee process, because I have got a ton of questions. New Zealand First wants some answers, especially in regard to the Youth Court age changes that this Government wants to make. But at this stage we will not be supporting this bill, for the reasons that we have set out. Thank you.

I would like to take a bit of a different tack compared with Darroch Ball, the last speaker, and talk about children and young people, and about how they should be at the centre of the legislation that we are talking about today. If we take a step back, I want to join my colleague Marama Fox and acknowledge the very brave children and young people who spoke very openly about their experiences in care, and those experiences have informed this bill that is before us in the House in its first reading today. I would also like to acknowledge Alfred Ngaro, the chair of our Social Services Committee, where this bill will be going after its first reading.

We have heard today some very empathic, energetic, and emphatic views and thoughts about where we are heading with this legislation. I think, overall, this level of debate is correct. It is something we need to get right. It is very clear from the expert panel’s recommendations that things have been broken for a long time. This is not just about a reform; it is a root and branch change to the way we care for some of our most vulnerable children and young people in New Zealand. I think what is important is that we stay focused on those vulnerable children and young people and put them at the heart of the decision making.

What we know about the life course that we travel on as we age is that it is all about transitions—transitioning from infancy into childhood, adolescence, teenage years, and adulthood. What we know is that these young people require a certain level of support that we have not been providing, so I think it is fantastic that this bill will be ensuring that children in care receive a transitionary service up to the age of 21, as well as future support up to the age of 25.

Also in this bill as well is provision for a lot more early intervention. Like me, there are other people in this House who will have worked in early intervention services for young people. They will know themselves that quite often you get to work with young people in an early intervention framework in their teenage years, but it becomes very clear very quickly that if it was early intervention, you would have intervened a lot earlier, and this bill will support that.

Unlike the last speaker, I welcome the introduction of 17-year-olds into youth justice. I think it is not only about being tough on crime—because we all know that for that level of youth criminal, they can go into the adult court—but it is also about being tough on the causes of crime. Through the youth justice system, we will be able to address that, and I applaud Minister Anne Tolley for being so bold in bringing in these changes under this bill.

I think what we also need to do is think about how we provide a whole-of-Government approach to ensure we work with these vulnerable children and young people. Behind the scenes with a lot of the services involved, this bill will be looking at sharing data better between services, to inform better outcomes. This goes to the heart of one of the principles of this bill, about this Government’s social investment approach. We know that with vulnerable children and young people, if we act earlier, if we put the resources up front, and if we invest earlier, we can support these children to go on and be productive members of New Zealand society. That is why I support this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Huri noa ki a tātau katoa, tēnā koutou. In September 2009 the then Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, said that what we know is that young Māori who are connected to their identity and culture do not offend any more than non-Māori. Wāhine Māori and Māori people, for years, have been saying this very thing. The research backs this up, but we have known this for ever.

The starting point for us as a country should be that when tamariki Māori are with safe whānau Māori, they are at the strongest that they can be. That is the starting point of where our policy transformations, our Government support, and our State responsibility have to begin. The research backs this up, Andrew Becroft backs this up, Māori Women’s Welfare League knows this and has been saying it for ever, and social workers know this and have been saying this for ever. That is our starting point. When tamariki Māori are with safe whānau Māori, they are at their strongest, and when they are at their strongest, we, as Aotearoa, are at our strongest. So that is the starting point.

We will not be supporting the legislation that feeds into the dangerous narrative that Māori whānau do not love our children as much. I want to note that matua Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party have clearly put it on the table that they do not think that whakapapa is important. They do not have an understanding that the strength and the well-being of tamariki Māori depends on whakapapa. They are not mutually exclusive. We are not saying that we want Māori to be unsafely placed.

The Green Party understands intrinsically that tamariki Māori are strongest when they are with safe whānau Māori. All of our support and legislation and reforms should be geared with that starting point. It should be the inspiration of our nation. And I want to say that most of whānau Māori are safe. The narrative that we continue in this House by supporting this legislation, which wants to weaken the priority to keep tamariki Māori with whānau Māori—when we uphold that legislation, we are feeding the narrative that Māori do not love our children as much and that we do not understand how to properly and safely care for our children. The Green Party will not stand next to any legislation that upholds that damaging narrative. It is a narrative that States have upheld against indigenous peoples around the world for generations. The State manipulation to remove children under the sneaky guise that we are not strong enough to care for our children has been a damaging and proactive one all around the world. We know this. The Green Party knows this, and we will strongly oppose any changes and any proposals that uphold that racist narrative.

Instead of State removal of Māori children, we should be looking at State responsibility to ensure that all whānau have what they need to live good lives. That is when our housing is working, that is when our education is delivering, and that is when our justice system is not blatantly and systemically racist. That is when everything is working to ensure that families have what they need to live good lives.

I want to finish by congratulating the Hands Off Our Tamariki campaign, which has worked hard and has been holding meetings around the country for many months now, and is analysing how neglectful and violent our State has been as a foster parent. It has been researching and analysing that for a long time—Māori at the coalface, like Paora Crawford Moyle, like Moana Jackson. And I will finish—please, Mr Deputy Speaker—by acknowledging the many whāngai parents everywhere in our communities who, absolutely, have been taking on our tamariki Māori for ever. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Not one more of our tamariki mokopuna. I think that needs to be the position of this House.

My contribution today will focus on the updated objects and principles in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, and I want to focus on where they came from. I would just like to read from section 13 of the current Act. Section 13(2)(b) says: “the principle that the primary role in caring for and protecting a child or young person lies with the child’s or young person’s family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group, …”. Where did that come from? Actually, it came from the report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Māori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare. If you google it, what it says is that it was “a detailed commentary and enquiry into racism within New Zealand society, and in particular within the Department of Social Welfare.”

The relevance of this piece of legislation to Māori is actually monumental. Between 1955 and 1985 there were 45,000 closed stranger adoptions. Most of those were Māori children who were placed within Pākehā families. Today we are talking about 5,000 children in State care—3,000 those children are Māori. So the relevance of this particular piece of legislation to Māori is huge.

I also want to quote from the Pūao-te-Ata-tū report, on page 7: “At the heart of the issue is a profound misunderstanding or ignorance of the place of the child in Maori society and its relationship with whanau, hapu, iwi structures.” Currently, there are over 26 references to whānau, hapū, and iwi in the Child, Youth and Family legislation. When this piece of legislation goes through, there will be only six, and the biggest issue that we have is that kin placements—or Māori children being placed within whānau, hapū, and iwi—will cease to be a priority.

In 2012 the Families Commission published a report by Dr Fiona Cram. It was a very interesting report, because what it did was look at children in care and it noted that, worldwide, indigenous children were overrepresented in child welfare systems. These were the reasons: systemic racism, the application of white, middle-class standards and values to indigenous communities, and also intergenerational fragmentation of the family and community structure. So, really, it was a commentary about the continued consequence of colonisation. Overrepresentation was exacerbated by structural risk factors, and those were poor housing and poverty. That context, I think, is incredibly important, especially when we try to answer the question: who is best to care for Māori children?

Well, from Pūao-te-Ata-tū, who is best to care for Māori children? It actually is whānau. Ultimately, it is the children’s parents. If they are unavailable, then we are looking at grandparents, we are looking at their aunties and uncles, or we are looking at siblings, cousins. But, ultimately, why do we want children placed within whānau? Because it is within whānau that we know who we are and where we come from. Who we are and where we come from is about our identity, and that is where our whakapapa is incredibly important.

Who helps answer that question: “Ko wai au?”. Ko Tongariro Te Maunga, ko Taupō Te Moana.

[“Who am I?”. Tongariro is the mountain and Taupō is the lake.]

Am I not really lucky? I can quote my pepeha. I know where my maunga is. I know where my awa is. I know where my marae is. I know who I am.

So, unfortunately, I think the implementation of the legislation has really been about shifting responsibility from the State to any other kin carer, and it did not matter who they were. What we have never done is fully implement the findings and the recommendations of Pūao-te-Ata-tū. Professor Mason Durie, actually, in 2006 presented to Treasury a whole lot of indicators of measuring well-being. But, central to that, was the capacity of manaakitanga, and that is about the capacity of the family to care for itself and for its tamariki and the mokopuna. And why is that so fundamental? Because, actually, it is about access to Te Reo, to tikanga Māori—to what makes you who you are.

So if we erode that from this piece of legislation, essentially, what we are saying is that as a Māori indigenous person of Aotearoa, we can go back to the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s and place you outside your whānau, hapū, and iwi, and you can be brought up by some random, and that is in your best interests. Well, we refute that fundamental principle. Thank you.

I am taking this call to support the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill in its first reading. It is good to see that, in general, we all agree that our current Child, Youth and Family system is not working. It is not delivering what we expect it to deliver for our young people.

Child, Youth and Family reform is a huge task. It is a huge task. It is about having a new operating model. It is about having a new approach that will be effective and that will be an accountable, child-centred system that will help us improve outcomes for young, vulnerable children. That is why the Minister for Social Development has already announced that there will be a stand-alone ministry to deliver this new approach. As this is a huge task, there is already quite a bit of work that is under way, and we have seen some other pieces of legislation that have been through the House complementing the bill that we have in front of us today.

In this whole thing, we know that it is a huge commitment. In Budget 2016 we saw a financial commitment to this. There was $200 million as an initial commitment to this reform, along with the $144 million that was an extra to Child, Youth and Family for its operation costs. It is really important to see that, actually, the system works for the people whom it is designed to work for. What we have come up with in this bill is after huge consultation with stakeholders. With that consultation we have identified issues, and we have also come up with a plan, which is a long-term plan to take us ahead and to help young children.

This bill is actually to reform the Child, Youth and Family system in a way that will deliver objectives that are around children who come into State care, because we want to get good outcomes for these children. We also want to see that there is a single point of accountability. With that single point of accountability we will know that all agencies are actually working together to provide the support that is needed for children.

So, overall, it is about early intervention, it is about addressing the needs of children—those who come from very, very complex family situations—and it is about using the data that we have from data sharing. I am really looking forward to what submitters have to say on this bill in the select committee process. So I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I just want to start by speaking to the point that was raised by the New Zealand First MP Darroch Ball, and that was with regard to a briefing that the Minister for Social Development held for Labour MPs at 1 o’clock today on this bill. Actually, we thought that it was a briefing for all parties outside the National Party, so we were surprised to attend and find out that it was just for me, Nanaia Mahuta, and also Jacinda Ardern. We were unaware that that briefing was just for Labour MPs, and actually we do, and would, expect that a briefing of that nature would be given to all political parties so that when we come to debate it—particularly because this has been pushed through rather quickly—we are all on the same page with regard to background information. So we are disappointed as well that that briefing—that opportunity for a briefing—was not extended to other political parties.

I want to start on this bill with the parts that we do support before getting into the area—the major area—that we do not support. Labour has, as this House knows, for a long time been calling for the age of care and protection as well as of youth justice to be raised to include 17-year-olds, in alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. So we are pleased to see that this is being considered and incorporated within the Child, Youth and Family (CYF) reforms. It is also positive in this bill to see the Government again taking into account the recommendations of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by enshrining the well-being of children as a central focus of the new ministry, Oranga Tamariki.

However, despite parts of the bill proposing a prioritisation of the interests of the child in State care, it goes against this overall concept by removing the emphasis on kinship care. At the moment priority is given to placing a child with a member of their family or wider hapū, or, if that is not possible, then with someone who has the same tribal, racial, or cultural background as the child. However, this bill removes that “whānau-first” preference. We heard one of the New Zealand First MPs saying that we were in some sort of la-la land for thinking that that could possibly work or that was the right thing to do. There is international evidence to show that it is the right thing to do. It should be enshrined in our legislation.

The problem is not with it being in legislation; the problem is the way in which it has been enacted and practised. Yes, the safety of the child should be the primary concern. So if you find a whānau member who is able to look after the child, firstly, you are going to assess whether or not that whānau member is then a safe person to look after the child. If that is not happening, then we have an issue with practice and the way in which it is enacted. It is not about putting that in the legislation. So the removal of section 13(2)(f) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act—the provision around kinship care—could significantly weaken the role of Māori in the care and protection of children.

So although there are some positive aspects to this bill, we cannot support it due to the overwhelming concerns we have in the proposal about the lack of incorporation of whānau, iwi, and hapū solutions in the care of children. The disregard for section 13(2)(f) goes against evidence both locally and internationally. We know that the best solutions for children include early intervention and the incorporation of iwi throughout the process. This is also true on an international level, as I said, with the prioritisation of a child’s cultural heritage being instrumental to their care. The new ministry must take into account the importance of culture in a child’s life, especially as to their identity and sense of belonging. As Green Party MP Jan Logie said when questioning the Minister last week, “for tamariki Māori their well-being is inextricably linked to their well-being of their whānau and hapū”.

There is also a strong need for a sense of belonging found amongst children in State care. This year’s State of Care report from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner stated that clearly. So, even through the conversations that I have had with National MPs, we all agree on safety, stability, identity. The other issue, of course, is being with family, with whānau—siblings, actually—as has come up in conversations. The report found that children and young people are already not given sufficient opportunities to build their sense of identity in the current process for children in State care. This can only get worse with the removal of the “whānau-first” section.

We are concerned that there has been a lack of consultation in respect of this bill. Around 60 percent of children in State care are Māori, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, yet there was not enough discussion with Māori groups and organisations that have experience in the care and protection of children. The Māori Women’s Welfare League has even raised concerns that the changes proposed in this bill could be in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and it did request that the bill not be put forward until it had been properly consulted.

Looking at the ethnic identity of children who are in State care, I saw, even with my own Pacific people, that Pacific children make up the third-highest ethnicity of children in State care, with 407 as of June 2016. In 2010 the Government’s pacific action plan specified an aim of keeping Pacific children and young people well cared for as part of a loving whānau. This was an acknowledgment of the different cultural upbringing and the importance and presence of wider family for Pacific families. Yet the removal of the kinship care section is far removed from this multicultural focus. There has also been a distinct lack of consideration given to Pacific groups and experts. The hurried nature of this current bill has meant little time for key Pacific organisations to consider these changes and provide input. It has been virtually impossible to find comment because it has gone through so quickly and people have had no time to consider the consequences of what this bill is putting forward.

This bill also proposes a requirement to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations. However, this cannot be possible without the kinship care section. Although this bill proposes that it will be more child-centred, it fails to address the key issue of what in the current CYF legislation is not and where the system is failing. As is addressed in the departmental disclosure statement, there is currently no cause given for the need to change legislation. Without acknowledging what the current issues are it cannot be possible for this bill to improve the situation. The example I want to give is that the Minister has argued that the current legislation is being employed in a way that kin care is given as the only option—whether or not it is the safest and best option. However, in this case it is not the legislation that is the problem, but, as I said before, the implementation and the practice at a service level. This is where the change needs to occur, rather than the removal of a “whānau-first” approach.

The proposal to make this bill child-centred raises the issue of why the Government will not commit to making other key sectors that have an effect on a child’s well-being child-centred. Areas such as health, social housing, and social development are all oriented around policies and laws that do not put the needs of the child first. For the plight of children in hardship to be addressed, there needs to be a holistic and Government-wide commitment to putting children at the centre, not just in this one area but across the board. So it is unfortunate that the Minister has shown an unwillingness to do this even across her own portfolios, having dismissed my proposed amendment to the principles of the Social Security Act, which would have included a new principle that “primary consideration is to be given to the welfare and best interests of any child or children who may be directly or indirectly affected by the exercise of that duty or function:”. Why would any Government not want that to be an underlying principle of our Social Security Act?

So, as I said, we have some serious concerns. The final concern I want to share is in respect of data. The Privacy Commissioner has also raised several concerns about this. Firstly, the issue is not confined to this bill, but is slowly being implemented across the social development sector. Concerns have already been raised, from those who will be affected, about the Government’s current inability to deal with the data, the increased level of surveillance for those seeking help, and a potential reluctance from people in sharing information, knowing it will be held by the Government.

The commissioner highlighted the unintended consequences of this data-sharing clause, given that there is not currently a fully designed operating model for Oranga Tamariki and there has not been consultation with those who could be affected. The level of data sharing proposed could also risk the trust and rapport between case managers and their clients, potentially impacting on the level of support given. This proposed data-sharing is a part of the Government’s investment approach, which frames people and children as potential liabilities. The data collection, in itself, will encroach on the privacy of individuals and is akin to selective surveillance. On top of that, the data will be used to target those who are considered to be fiscal drains.

We know that the Government believes our young people are already “pretty damned hopeless”—thank you to the Prime Minister of New Zealand for saying that—meaning they are not interested in investing in our young people but, rather, in viewing them as financial risks. What a way to view our young people! It is really hard to reconcile those kinds of statements with the statements that come out of the Minister for Social Development, who says that it should be about being child-centred, when, in fact, it does not feel that way at all—

Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.

I was privileged enough to have lunch today with my 21-year-old son, and during the course of our lunch he reminded me that, actually, over the last 3 years, I have helped him shift six times. It is no mean feat, actually, because the last one involved trying to get furniture like beds up three storeys—it would not fit in the lift. Anyway, he seemed to be quite grateful for that. I thought it was probably a reasonable expectation that he could have of me as a father, that I would help him out. Although, I have got to say, six times in 3 years is pushing the limits.

I guess my point in telling this story is this: when we have children who are in the care of the State and we just sort of cut them off without any conversation—at the age of 17 in the past, and after the last piece of legislation it would have been 18—I do not think that is the State taking the level of care that ordinary parents would actually take for their own children.

I think what has been glossed over a little bit, because it has been sidetracked into other issues this afternoon, is the fact that we are looking now, in special circumstances, for certain people to be able to extend that level of care—where the State can still have some involvement up to the age of 21. I support that. It is what ordinary parents would do, and it is exactly what the State should do to ensure that the young people who have been in our care receive the very best chance that they can have going forward. I support this bill.