Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As has been indicated, this is the third reading of the Oranga Tamariki—the first reading of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. It is the first reading, but undoubtedly the Government has the numbers, as it always does, and with this being a Government bill, it is indicative that it will go to a third reading eventually.

As the National Party spokesperson for children, Oranga Tamariki, I have those caps in one hand and in the other hand I have my Whānau Ora and Māori development caps. When I rise to speak, I talk about the interconnectivity of these relationships, and the relationships I talk about are not just the portfolios, but the people who work in this sector.

Before coming into the House this morning, there were the officials from Oranga Tamariki and the chief executive, Chappie Te Kani, with his officials who appeared before the Social Services and Community Committee. I acknowledged, and I acknowledge again today in the House, the importance of the work that is provided by Oranga Tamariki, formerly Child, Youth and Family services and the people who work in that sector, importantly—about the care, the protection, and the welfare of our children. That’s what this bill is about. It is an amendment bill and this amendment is to the principal Act, which is the Oranga Tamariki Act of 1989—the Children’s and Young People’s Well-being Act 1989.

Now, I’ll give a bit of context before I address the details of the amendment bill itself, and the context is to highlight that, as I indicated before the select committee—and acknowledging Oranga Tamariki and all of the kaimahi, the workers in that speciality field, in looking after our children and the relationships that are important to be had between the State, also with our communities. And bearing in mind that the majority of children who come into care, regrettably—there are a number of non-Māori children—are predominantly Māori. And the importance of the relationships into our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi communities, but also the importance of relationships with our non-Māori communities.

The principal Act, giving context about the nature, the scope, the complexity, and the demands associated with child welfare and legislation—the principal Act of 1989 has 469 sections, it has 11 parts, and it has three schedules. That in itself indicates the scale, the size, the complexity, and the specialist nature of social work practice and the law.

Now, this amendment bill is one that is comprised of 40 substantive amendments. Three of those are to do with the title and the purpose of the Act. So, as I say by way of introduction, the principal Act and the amendment bill, itself comprised of 40 amendments, is signalling the substantive, complex nature in a very specialised area of law in terms of navigating, interpreting, and application in social work practice. Now, I say that because it’s very difficult for a person who hasn’t worked in this field to appreciate the nature and the demands of what’s imposed not only by the law, but the imposition of that in terms of how that relays out into practice.

So the six minutes that I have left now, I’m going to turn to the bill itself, the amendment bill itself, and in saying that, it is—I’m always cognisant of context. So I’m going to give some overlay, an overview too, in terms of the nature and the demand of the work that Oranga Tamariki has to deal with. In its annual report of 2021—this indicates the scale of the issues of concern around child abuse—the reports of concern, that’s child abuse and child welfare, some 77,953. That’s for the year 2020 to 2021. The referrals for assessment of investigation are 4,250. The children who’ve been taken into care for that period has reduced significantly by approximately 59 percent down to 822, and family group conferences, which are the precursors for a child being taken into formal State welfare status—the number of family group conferences (FGCs), which is that level of engagement and connectivity between the agency, or Oranga Tamariki, with the communities are some 8,909 FGCs. So that just gives the scale, the complexity, and also the pressures that are there on the agency.

The Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill came to the attention of the National Party about one and a half weeks ago. I’ve just outlined the complexity and the scale and the size of this legislation. The amendments that are proposed are some 44 clauses with 40 substantive amendments there. There are approximately, by way of those that have been identified in the legislative statement—there are a number of what’s called minor and technical changes to the bill, and they number approximately 36. There are three significant parts to the amendment bill, and those significant parts deal with—the first one is the subsequent child legislation, and it has been proposed in this amendment bill for what’s called a partial repeal of that subsequent child provision. I will come back to that.

The second part of it is the repeal of what’s called section 66D within the principal Act, dealing with data set provision—the information that’s required to be collected by Oranga Tamariki and other agencies that’s accumulated and amalgamated into a data set to be able to identify to those working in the child welfare sector. It imposes on them quite detailed and huge burdensome administrative requirements of compliance. That’s the second part of this amendment bill. The third part, as I said, are those minor and technical amendments.

I’ve made substantive notes here and this is going to go before the select committee and it will require substantive input from interested parties. Those interested parties, to date, have been by way of other agencies and entities that have provided reports over the last two to three years which have come before Oranga Tamariki. Those are reports from the Ombudsman’s office, from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, by way of two reports, from Whānau Ora commissioning agency, and also an internal examination or investigation by Oranga Tamariki itself about the uplift of babies soon after birth, and that came to prominence within our local media about a year ago. There’s also been a Waitangi Tribunal hearing in relation to the concerns associated with the nature of Oranga Tamariki’s operations. As a result of those investigations, there’ve been 25 recommendations made by the ministerial Māori advisory committee. Those 25 recommendations, in summary, identify a complete overhaul that’s required of Oranga Tamariki.

The subsequent child provisions: essentially, in 2016 the National Party introduced an automatic and a mandatory—which means that it’s required on the agency, Oranga Tamariki, and the social workers, for any child that’s born after an earlier child who’s been taken into permanent care from the family, the parent, that subsequent child must be the subject of oversight. That’s the mandatory nature. And it’s been deemed in this overview by the Minister that this subsequent child provision needs to be repealed. The part to be repealed is that it’s removed the onus and the burden of responsibility not so much on the parent—and it’s been framed that way in the papers before the House. The onus and burden of responsibility is actually on the social worker under the provision of sections 18A through to 18D. The burden of responsibility is on the social worker and the agency to provide that wraparound support for any subsequent child who is born to a parent whose earlier child has been taken into care. It’s been described that there is a reverse of onus on the parent to do it. The reverse of onus is the responsibility of the State to provide that monitoring and to check that the child will be safe with that parent.

I’ve quickly run out of time. The National Party caucus at this time does not support this bill. It goes to select committee—

Order! The member’s time is up.

I just want to thank that member, even though she opposes this bill. I want to thank her for her contribution, because she is quite right. This goes right across the spectrum in terms of Māori development, Whānau Ora, and it’s a very, very important piece of legislation—one of the most important pieces of legislation for Te Ao Māori, actually, that’s why I’m having a little bit of a contribution with regards to it. With respect to the previous member, Harete Hipango, she said Jacqui Te Kani, who was the former leader of the Māori Women’s Welfare League—and it’s actually her son Chappie Te Kani who’s, as you know, the CEO.

I wanted to just say this kaupapa is incredibly important, as the previous member touched on, and I want to pay tribute to an old friend of mine, a man by the name of Des Ratima, who brought this to the fore. Des was a very close friend of mine—he passed away about three months ago—but it was his work in Hastings where he supported a young woman who was traumatised, sadly, by some of the actions of our Oranga Tamariki staff at the time, and it was around the whole upliftment kaupapa. Des supported this young woman, and then this story blew up on one of the entities. A woman by the name of Melanie Reid highlighted this kaupapa to the nation, and I think people were a bit stunned by what was happening. So I mihi my mate for his contribution being the catalyst to this kaupapa, and he was a wonderful advocate for Te Ao Māori. Nō reira taku hoa, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[Therefore oh friend, rest, rest, rest well.]

But Des followed up on much of the mahi that we had done at ground level with my organisation, Manukau Urban Māori Authority (MUMA), with the Waipareira Trust, who have worked at this—and that’s John Tamihere’s organisation. We’ve worked at ground level with our whānau for many, many years, and we would never ever—ever—put up with our babies being threatened.

So when the strategy, or the campaign, came out in terms of not one more baby would be taken, we—I’m a person who has taken babies. We took babies. I worked with my mother and other social workers at ground level. When we had babies who were being threatened, we would go in and take the babies and make sure that the whānau was OK, and if that meant removing people who were in the way, we would remove those people. Sometimes they were gang members; sometimes they were people who were threatening whānau and community—whatever. Our organisation worked at ground level to make sure that there was safety paramount in terms of the baby and in terms of the mother, and we did that for a number of years and, sadly, out of sync with our Government agency.

But we said that you have to be careful when you take babies. It’s not about not taking babies; it’s about ensuring that the whānau is safe. The problem we had was that we had our social workers from Oranga Tamariki going and traumatising whānau, and you can’t just take a baby and not talk to the mother. You can’t just take a baby and not talk to the whānau. You can’t traumatise our communities—that was the essence and the catalyst to this bill.

I’m pleased that we’ve been able to work through this and reach a position with our good people in Oranga Tamariki. Don’t get me wrong, we all know there are some wonderful social workers in Oranga Tamariki. But if the policies are not right, then you get a consequence, and the consequences have been traumatised whānau and traumatised communities.

Now, after us observing things, after us seeing the work of Jean Te Huia and some of our groups from Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and MUMA, we built a strategy to combat that. That strategy has been a top-heavy and heavyweight Māori group led by Matthew Tukaki and people like Naida Glavish on there, fantastic group, overseeing what our whānau need, and that group has come up with 25 recommendations to make sure that our families are more comfortable, that our families are safer. I’m proud that our Minister, Kelvin Davis, has taken that on board, because he knows the way forward is that there has to be some devolvement to NGOs and recognition of the work that our groups do at community level. That’s why this legislation is so incredibly important. So I mihi to our Minister, Kelvin Davis, and that group who’ve done some important work going forward.

Our work is now. Even though I talk about Oranga Tamariki in the past tense, I know the changes are happening now with Chappie Te Kani and the people there. I think that if they can work in tandem with our community, they can lay down a future that will be good and safe for all our tamariki and all our whānau. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. Kia ora.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. National—[Adjusts microphone] There we go—just because I’m sure everyone wants to hear this speech! Look, National does oppose this bill. You heard from my colleague Harete Hipango some of the nuances involved, so we will look forward to the select committee process.

Look, the fundamental point—and, actually, the Labour speakers in the previous bill were talking about putting the child at the centre, and I suppose that’s the fundamental reason, at this point, that we oppose it, because we do not believe the child’s been put in the centre through this amendment bill. Removing the subsequent child is traumatic; in fact, removing any child from parents is a traumatic event. But, put really, really simply, we remove subsequent children because there’s been an immediate, real, and substantial threat to a previous child, and the onus of proof, ultimately, has to fall on those parents to show that they have properly and really changed, and we just feel that this is not quite balanced.

As I say, we’ll look forward to engaging it in the select committee, but I think the fundamental point has to be that it is about the child. And I’ve stood in this House before and other bills related to Child, Youth and Family, or, now, Oranga Tamariki—and, actually, it’s not about the community and it’s not about the family; in fact, so much legislation now becomes so much about that that the child becomes secondary. And that can’t be the case; the child must be centred—of course, in a community, in a family—but we just feel that this is out of balance.

But I do want to acknowledge, actually, the staff, those who are in Oranga Tamariki—it’s an exceptionally difficult job; it’s one that I can only conceptualise academically. This is not a direct experience of mine, but I thank them for the work they do and acknowledging as well the politicisation of topics like this is unhelpful at times, as they get pushed around and accused of poor behaviour. But we understand that, by and large, they’re putting the child first and are doing all that they can.

So we oppose this bill, but at the same time we look forward to engaging further in the select committee if this bill passes—we’ll see what happens.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. As the chair of the select committee that will receive this bill, I’m very delighted to be here speaking on it. I have to say, I remember in 2016 when the onus of evidence, the burden of proof, fell from Oranga Tamariki—or Child, Youth and Family (CYF) as it was at the time—to the parent. I remember sitting in a meeting with my Women’s Refuge colleague and we talked about the hope that these families have, when a child has been permanently removed, the hope for the next child.

Now, I do not come to this House lightly and say that the world is a wonderful place. I know that our children need to be cared for; I know that it is important to do that, but this piece of legislation needs to be somewhat removed. We will still keep some standards in place. For those who have murdered, there is manslaughter or infanticide, there will still be an onus and a burden to do so, but certainly for us here on this side of the House, we believe that there is the opportunity to change, there is the opportunity to care for children, and to make a difference. This bill supports those children to stay with family, to stay with safe family, and for Oranga Tamariki to prove should the child need to be removed. That is where the evidence should sit, that is where the burden should sit. Families should have the opportunity to raise their children. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, and as has been pointed out by other speakers, this is doing three key things: one, the partially repealing the subsequent child provision, repealing redundant information-sharing provisions, and then a range of technical corrections to the Act.

The majority of my contribution this morning will be on the subsequent child provision aspect of this bill and we are very, very, very pleased to see this go. I know nobody likes a know-it-all, but in this instance I feel compelled to put it on the record that the Green Party is the only party in this House who opposed this legislation on its introduction. One of our key reasons for doing that was a concern about this provision and the shifting of the burden of proof onto whānau. Metiria Turei spoke in the second reading for us, articulating—I thought quite perfectly—concerns about the bill and acknowledging that actually it was already difficult for mothers particularly to demonstrate to then Child, Youth and Family that they’d had enough intervention that they’d be able to keep their baby and care for them properly, and then shifting that burden of proof quite significantly added hurdles for those women and that made that ability to keep family together so much harder and actually created disincentives to change, because if you’re doing all of the work without any support and you’re not getting any hope of being able to reunite your family, people give up.

The fact is that we also were pointing to her at that time having gone out and spoken to agencies who were working with families who were in this situation who noted that 50 percent of the parents of the families at risk come from State care—50 percent. Interestingly, we’ve seen that played out again and that the State care has failed to provide those parents when they were children with the resources that they needed to have a good and fulfilling life, and we still see that.

So a conversation about needing to put children first, the Greens have several issues with. Children are never isolated; actually, the wellbeing of the child, we have to understand that in the context of connection and that we should be putting all of our resources into preventing the need for uplift. If anybody has seen The Justice of Bunny King, I think it was, and the deep frustration of our system and the struggle for families to be reunited because the resources in our system are not there for them to provide that protective system. We get to see the fact that this is punishment of the children and the families, and that the drivers of harm, at heart, are our housing crisis, poverty, and family violence. We have to be addressing those core drivers if we are to truly say that we are putting our children first.

While we’ve heard from the National Party, unfortunately, that they won’t be supporting this, I do need to recall that this has been to the Waitangi Tribunal and the Waitangi Tribunal has called for the immediate, it was, repeal of this legislation. That was even after the then Minister in 2019 had said it would be repealed because they saw the pernicious impact of this provision in the legislation; not just in the removal of the children under this provision, but the impact it was having on social work practice across the organisation of creating a heightened and unrealistic sense of risk and a sense of shifting, subtly, that onus of proof from the organisation to prove that a family wasn’t fit to care to, actually, the organisation seeking to have the family prove that they were safe, which is an incredibly difficult thing to do for many families.

We saw that concern confirmed by the Waitangi Tribunal and by the Commissioner for Children who advocated very strongly in the Waitangi Tribunal, who described this provision in the legislation as “‘pernicious’ and ‘totally unnecessary piece of legislation’, which ‘should be repealed tomorrow’.” Judge Becroft, at that time, as the Children’s Commissioner, considered that the introduction of the legislation had led to a culture shift within Oranga Tamariki that exceeded the actual application of the statute and that it has actively caused harm and concluded that the existence of the second and subsequent child legislation constituted organisational racism. So I really want to ground the Opposition members’ contributions in those findings of the court.

If we are hearing from anybody that they are putting the wellbeing of children first, then I would suggest listening to the Children’s Commissioner and the Waitangi Tribunal and their views on the wellbeing. What it takes to put the wellbeing of the child first would be a good first step for their contributions.

I also do want to respond to the comments that were made earlier by Minister Jackson about the changes that are happening within Oranga Tamariki, and also noting that this law change did need to happen earlier and it’s incredibly important to see it happening now. But the Greens’ view is that the next steps is that really we need to be seeing that partnership between Māori show up in a strategy for how the organisation will change towards delivering our commitment and duty to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that that work of developing a strategy should also be reflected in work to decide what legislative changes are needed so that there can be a comprehensive plan. There is still concern coming from the community that legislative changes are happening in a piecemeal way and we’ve got conflicting intentions imbedded in the legislation at the moment, which were a result of a very difficult and rigorous process of bringing in that initial legislation. It was very hard fought, but you cannot, I believe—it still reflects the inconsistencies of the original intent and the battle to improve it, and it is not entirely coherent.

So we have heard that the Māori advisory group is actually kind of taking that role. But I will, again, point the Government to the fact that the Waitangi Tribunal recommended a transitional authority independent from the Crown to eliminate the need for State care of Tamariki. Again, to speak to Minister Jackson’s intervention, this is not saying that anybody wants children to stay in unsafe situations; we do not—we absolutely do not. We want intervention to provide them and their family with the best supports to make life safe, and if there are concerns, then we believe that the people that are going to be the safest are probably those within their extended whānau or community who have a better record of keeping of children safe than the State does. We have to acknowledge that the abuse of children in State care has not improved; our children are still at risk within our State organisations. So when we talk about safety of children, we have to acknowledge that reality. I am concerned that, at the moment, Whānau Ora providers who are on the ground are saying that they do not support the direction of that partnership that the Government is leading out, and that is putting people who need to be doing the work in conflict with the organisation and the Government, and that undermines the work. We have to come together for our tamariki—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member’s time is up.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of ACT to say we will be supporting this bill today, but with many concerns. When it comes to the security and safety of our children and changing the way we look at it, we should always be very careful that we get it right. I can see this from two sides. I can see this from the onus of proof being a huge burden on a parent that’s going through a lot at the time, facing a massive organisation and not knowing how they can prove they are good enough to have their child back. I really think the onus of proof should be on Oranga Tamariki (OT) and the courts to decide whether the child is safe or not, not relying on a parent having to prove that they’re a good enough parent. How do you do that against such a massive organisation?

We have many parents that might be put in this situation through no fault of—well, through no fault of their own, really. I see this from a mother that may have an abusive partner that has hurt a child that is in the care, and that mother will now come under the subsequent child provision, even if she’s moved on, got into a new relationship, and wanting to have a new child. So I can see how this can be a bad thing.

But I can also see how this can leave a loophole for parents that have abused their children in the past and may abuse their children in the future. So we have to find a good middle ground. I think by removing the provision of a parent who has had a previous child or young person removed from their care, and there is no realistic possibility that they will be returned to that person’s care, may be a step too far. Maybe we need to look at how we can fix the problem that you’re trying to solve. Maybe we need to have a provision in there that allows for a family group conference (FGC) process before going to the courts, which is a huge issue at the moment because we don’t have the provision for an FGC before the court process, and maybe also changing the onus of proof, the burden of proof, back to where it belongs.

I don’t feel that a parent who has been seen to be a good parent and a capable person should have a child removed just because of a piece of legislation that says so. So we have to find that middle ground and make sure we’re getting it right, both for the child and for the parent.

At the end of the day, New Zealand has a shocking record for abuse with children and we need to get this right. We have had multiple changes within the organisation over the last few years in the leadership roles. We’ve had major investigations into Oranga Tamariki in the way they behave around the care of our children, and there have been so many changes going on that I’m afraid OT cannot do their core job when the organisation itself doesn’t know where it’s at. So I hope we can have more stability within the leadership role and more understanding of the direction that we want to go.

OT was formed to fix a lot of these issues, and it was meant to be over a four-year period. We get to year four and we chuck it out and we start again. I would hate to see, we’re making all these changes, and in four years’ time we decide that’s not working and we chuck it out again. Our children can’t afford for us to get this wrong anymore. It’s been going on for too long. We need to support our families better, and pre-determining risk is not necessarily the correct way to go.

Let’s support these families. Let’s have something in place where if a parent is deciding that they are going to have a subsequent child and they have had problems with OT in the past, instead of having the fear of God in them and going to OT and saying, “I’m about to have another child.”, where is the support and the leadership within the communities and OT to set up ways that these parents can have some kind of training, some kind of support, to be ready for this next child?

I think this is the direction that the Government is trying to go, and I really appreciate that, because OT needs to be an organisation where parents are not afraid to stand up and say, “I need help.” We have a lot of parents that need help that are too scared to speak up, and we end up in situations like this where our children are at risk and it’s avoidable.

So this piece of legislation is not a small piece of legislation. There are 44 clauses in this, and I am really looking forward to the select committee process, hearing what the communities have to say and hearing some ideas about where we could go in a better direction. Instead of being reactive all the time, let’s be proactive and let’s come up with some solutions together to make our children’s lives better and to make New Zealand a country we can all be proud of.

So, in saying that, we will support this through to select committee and I look forward to hearing what people have to say.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and meri Kirihimete. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. I stand here in the House this morning not as a social worker, not as a lawyer or a lawyer for a child. I stand here as a mere layperson, as a caregiver, who has been part of the Oranga Tamariki system for the past 20 years. I’m proud for us to be standing here this morning supporting the Hon Kelvin Davis and his work to rebuild the trust, to rebuild the organisation that is Oranga Tamariki, to ensure that communities and whānau trust this system, and to build a system where our young people, our tamariki, thrive.

I want to acknowledge Karen Chhour and her contribution. We need to get this right for our tamariki, and for that I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As has already been commented, National will be opposing this to the first reading for a number of reasons. Fundamentally, I think we’re all agreeing that where there is increased risk, there needs to be increased care. It just seems to us that what this bill does is acknowledge the increased risk but actually reduces the care that we should be bringing around cases of the sort. And if we look at several parts of the bill—everyone recognises the risk-care relationship by saying, “Look, if a child has been killed, there’s absolutely increased risk and subsequent care should proceed, as it’s detailed in the legislation.” Part of the question, though, is that if a child has been taken into care, is there that same degree of risk and is this the way to manage? But that’s really what we’re talking about here.

To answer the first question: I think the risk impact assessment—table 7, section 2—answers the first question that if a child has been taken and placed into care, the subsequent children are at risk. It quite nicely points out that in the general population there is only a 2 percent risk of a child needing to be taken into care, but 7 percent if an older sibling has already been placed in a home for life placement. So no disagreement that there’s increased risk if a previous child has been placed. What seem to be some of the issues, though, are more around the implementation rather than the policy intent. That comment that—and I correctly heard—the difficulties in requiring Family Court involvement to establish a determination, those are implementation. The core policy intent is still good. Focus on the implementation would seem to be where we should be looking.

So these are but some of the reasons why we’ll be pleased if in select committee we can address some of these issues. I heard some suggestions to my side here a moment ago that will be useful to discuss in select committee. But, I’d have to say, looking for support from us in a bill of the sort should also come with some degree of transparency and I’m afraid I don’t see that in the risk impact analysis—clause 11, Part 1—where some of these solutions are proposed. The first one is implementing tailored support for parents. That’s a good idea, but then why are solutions 2 and 3 redacted? What is the secrecy around some of the solutions and the remedies to this bill? It then goes on: clauses 17, 18, 19—where do the costs fall?—completely redacted. Look, we’re happy to—I think we’ve all got agreement here: increased risk needs increased care. But if you want our support, really, you need to be a bit more transparent around some of these things in really core documents like this.

We understand the intent. We’re supportive of the intent. We may well be able to figure some of these things out in select committee, but where some of the solutions are hidden—why would you do that?—and where the whole section on where do the costs fall are redacted, you know, you just start wondering if there’s any transparency in other parts of this bill. When you start adding it all together, it sort of leads us, reluctantly, to a position of needing to oppose it at this reading anyway.

So what we’re putting on the table here is: there may be some things in select committee that can help us change that position, but coming at first blush to a first reading when you’re seeing redactions in the risk impact assessment—it’s not a good start.

I just want to lay on the table again: we understand the relationship between risk and care. I think most of the House does. I don’t think that’s a point in question. Where we’re questioning here is it seems to us that this bill is reducing the care imperative—acknowledging the risk and reducing the care imperative and that will be a challenge for the select committee to see if they can persuade our minds because here, today, this morning, we’re not persuaded, but we’ll see what select committee can do with it. So happy to pass this through select committee. We will be opposing it as it stands today. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, it’s an honour to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. What this bill does is that the State believes that mokopuna has the right for their parents to be given the opportunity to change once they have gone through a traumatic experience of being removed from home in terms of subsequent children. That’s what this bill does. It actually provides opportunity for mokopuna to return home to their parents and for parents the ability to change, and that’s what some of this bill does.

I want to take this opportunity to wish all the children in care a merry Christmas and to pray that social workers find the opportunity for them to see their parents or whānau over this Christmas. I want to acknowledge the caregivers. Thank you so much for what you do for our children in care, throughout the 365 days of the year, and especially the caregivers at Dingwall Trust. Thank you so much for what you do for our children, and for looking after my pet chicken, the French cottage, thank you. Merry Christmas.

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare.

I have never forgotten being told by a very experienced family therapist that even the most badly abused children do not want to lose their parents. What they want is those parents to have their behaviour changed so they are safe to go home to. This is what that is about. I remember a case when I was a young lawyer—which I am not any more, and I am no expert in the field—but I remember this case where it took us 11 years—11 years—to reunite a māmā and her pēpi who had been taken away, not because of the mother’s behaviour but because of her partner’s abuse. She could not escape him. Even when she did, it took us that many years, and three more children, each one was a struggle to help her retain them. This bill will keep those whānau, give them the chance, and give our children the chance, to grow up in safe families with the support that their mothers and fathers need to become the safe parents those children want. I commend it to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand along with my colleagues on this side of the House in opposition to the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. It’s another one of those bills that we see where the Government has not come up with any solutions but all they are doing is unwinding yet another piece of legislation, with nothing to replace it. And that seems to be the modus operandi of this Government. Where are the solutions? As my colleague and friend Dr Shane Reti alluded to, we need solutions. But we also need the transparency and openness from the most open and transparent Government—not!

In terms of the detail that is informing this policy change, when you get information back that is blacked out—and it reminds me of the official information requests that my colleague Jacqui Dean got from the Department of Conservation. She’s got black wallpaper in her office now, from the pages and pages of redacted information from this Government. So it’s a bit ironic that we stand here today with less information than the Government has got because they’ve blanked out that information. And here we are, trying to debate why we need to undo yet another piece of legislation. A piece of legislation, I have to say, that was introduced as, in using the Government’s own words, “an abundance of caution”. It was brought in to protect the most vulnerable children in this country.

I’d just like to start some of my contribution by referring to the UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 7. In that report card it says, “as of March 2021”—so it’s current information—New Zealand ranks 35th out of 41 developed countries for child wellbeing outcomes. In 2003, UNICEF ranked us the third-highest amongst rich countries for its child maltreatment death rates. That’s why that legislation was brought in: to be another stopgap in the maltreatment of our children. In this country, five children die every week as a result of family violence. We’ve got a shocking record in this space. But interestingly, I found that the UNICEF report also made no correlation between the levels of child wellbeing and GDP per capita. In fact, the report actually went on to mention the Czech Republic as achieving higher levels of child wellbeing than many rich countries, including us. We ranked below them.

So what I want to do is pay tribute to some of the children who have not had the benefit of the interventions that this particular part of the Oranga Tamariki Act actually inserts. James Whakaruru, he was killed in 1999. The only part of that child’s little body that was not bruised were the soles of his feet. The Kahui twins, and this case is still unsolved, with Chris Kahui, the father, found not guilty for the murders of Christopher and Cru Kahui. Both twins died on 18 June 2006 from blunt force trauma causing brain injury, and it was suggested in the trial that the injuries were caused by either direct blows to the head or being thrown against a firm surface or severe shaking. Nia Glassie, 2007, died at the age of three, due to severe brain damage. Her mother was charged with failing to provide the necessities of life for that wee girl. Nia had been subjected to family violence for two months prior to her death. That is the absolute most cruellest way to bring up a child in this country. And it’s incumbent on us as a Government to ensure that all measures are included in our legislation to intervene in the most high-risk of cases. Tahani Mahomed: Tahani died on 1 January 2008, three days after she was admitted to hospital because she was failing to feed. When they got her there, they found that her head injuries were consistent with being hit with great force. The father was charged on one count of murder and two counts of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Duwayne Pailegutu: Dwayne died on 2 July 2008 due to 75 external injuries from assault by his stepfather that left him paralysed and struggling to breathe. The stepfather got 18 years non-parole for Duwayne’s death. But they were a result of an assault and the subsequent neglect to care for that little boy.

Now, in 2007, the rate of deaths of children and young persons under the age of 19 in New Zealand—we had the highest rate of such deaths along with the United States. Now, this is an abysmal record and it needs to be sorted out. I struggle to understand how unwinding a piece of legislation actually does get us to the objective of caring and protecting our most vulnerable: our children.

Now, this legislation was actually put in place to try and head off some of those potential cases. Just for the House’s information, when I was researching this bill, I found that only 19 times has this piece of legislation been used since it was first enacted. So it’s not a huge problem that is looking for a solution, but maybe in those 19 times it was used, we’ve given those parents or that mum the opportunity to turn her life around, but we’ve also had the opportunity to intervene, to protect and to save yet another child from being brutally murdered and adding to the abysmal record that we have as a country for looking after these little people.

For the record, too, as of 30 September this year, 2021, 74,400 reports of concern involving 54,600 individual children and young people was reported in New Zealand—54,600 children. Now, that is the reason this legislation exists. It exists to protect those children from the very people who they look to for their care and their safety.

Now, part of the proposal of this particular unwinding of legislation is to remove Section 66D of the Act. Now, that part of the Act only came into effect in 2019 and it’s around the information sharing, the data sharing between organisations. If I recall, some of the debates that happened in this House around that data sharing, it was opposed vigorously by the Opposition parties of the time. They were concerned about the security of that data and how it would be used. But then we heard about cases where families would present at A & E in hospitals, and there was no one within ACC reporting or sharing the information about the family violence that was going on. So ACC wasn’t sharing it—data—with the police. The police weren’t sharing their data with Work and Income New Zealand or Child, Youth and Family at the time. So there were big gaps in the communication between these organisations.

Now, it’s only been in since July 2019 and here is the Government unwinding that. So what replaces that in terms of how we connect with the various entities in this country that are looking at the symptoms and the results of family violence? How are we ever going to know what’s going on? Because we can’t see the big picture without this clause surviving.

Again, I say that it’s a travesty when the Government feels that they’re making progress when all they do is unwind legislation and replace it with nothing that is substantial in terms of how we are going to maintain the safety for our children in this country. I do not support this bill.

Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, not only as a member of the Ōtaki electorate but also as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, and also having worked for Oranga Tamariki and worked in the social services for decades now.

This bill is more than transformational change, and it is showing progress that this Government is doing. We don’t just sit on our hands around here; we do proper change. We love our tamariki, we love the people of Aotearoa, and that’s why this bill is essential to make sure that we keep our babies safe while providing tools for their whānau to be able to support a loving environment and be able to make sure that they can keep their whānau together.

So thanks to the Minister Davis and his officials, and also to Matthew Tukaki and the board, which has been able to see the change that was definitely needed, and be brave enough to make sure that we start to trek towards that.

Part of this bill is to repeal the subsequent child provision, which has not improved the safety of our children. In fact, it’s done the opposite. These provisions have been barriers to our social workers working meaningfully with our whānau.

So, again, for me, and with my experience and working and being connected to my community, this bill’s going to make massive change. Thanks to this Government once again, and merry Christmas to everyone out there, including our children in care.

The question is, That the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.