Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. I remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you are on Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments, I will advise members so they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the member in charge during their call. Members, we come now to Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

We know that the Oranga Tamariki system has not operated as well as it should or as well as we all expect, but the system is incredibly important for our tamariki and rangatahi and for our future. It is important that it has strong oversight to ensure it better serves our tamariki and rangatahi, going forward. This bill does three things to support the system to achieve this: it establishes the independent monitor to have oversight over outcomes for children and young people receiving services through the Oranga Tamariki system; it simplifies and strengthens the independent complaints and investigations processes related to the Oranga Tamariki system led by the Ombudsman; and finally the bill strengthens advocacy for all New Zealand children and young people by expanding the existing Children’s Commissioner to a Children and Young People’s Commission and enhancing its functions.

I know there has been a lot of discussion at select committee, in the media, and with stakeholders about this bill. I want to be clear that we have listened and heard the concerns that have been raised. As a consequence, I’m already aware of many of the issues that may be raised by members in the House today. That is why I want to run this committee of the whole House differently from the way I usually would. As usual, I will talk to and answer questions on all of the key features of the bill as we work through the five parts, but in doing that, I’m going to take a little bit more time to step through what each part of the bill is actually going to do and why we are doing it the way we are, and respond to the particular issues that have been raised. The Government believes in this bill and the improvements it will make for our tamariki and rangatahi. I want to take this opportunity to explain why and to assure members in this House and the public that their concerns have been, can, and will be mitigated.

I’ll start that process with a few brief opening remarks on Part 1, which sets out the preliminary provisions of the bill. This includes the purpose and principles, Treaty of Waitangi obligations placed on the monitor and Ombudsman, common duties, interpretation section, and the definition of the Oranga Tamariki system. I won’t touch in detail on clause 3, because it is an overview of what is included in the bill, so all the matters covered in the clause are better discussed later in the process. I want to be clear, also, that any debate on the form and functions of the monitor, Ombudsman, and commission itself is outside the scope of Part 1, but we will discuss this as we move through the bill.

With respect to the purpose and principles of the bill, clauses 4 and 5, I think we can all agree on the purpose of the bill to uphold the rights and interests and improve the wellbeing of children and young people who are receiving or have previously received services or support through the Oranga Tamariki system and to promote effectiveness of the system. The principles of the bill are in clause 5 and complement this purpose by ensuring that the people working in the system will be focused on our tamariki and rangatahi. We heard from children, young people, and advocates how important our international obligations are as a statement of their rights in a korowai for our work in the Oranga Tamariki system. That is why the principles of the bill explicitly require any person who is operating under the Act to have regard to the rights set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Listening to these key stakeholders has also led us to change this clause through our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which strengthens the existing intent of the provision to ensure the best interests and perspectives of children and young people are considered. I know that there is concern that we have not given the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples the same status in the bill, and Jan Logie has submitted an SOP with regards to this. Because we haven’t ratified the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it’s not appropriate to reference it in legislation. However, that doesn’t mean that the changes we are making are not focused on improving outcomes for Māori.

I want to talk to the Treaty provision in clause 6. We know Māori are overrepresented in the Oranga Tamariki system. Addressing this is both a key priority of the bill and a Treaty obligation. When developing the bill, we listened to the concerns of stakeholders who didn’t want a broad Treaty clause that was open to interpretation or could be read down. That is why the bill includes the summary clause, which clearly states our commitment to give effect to the Treaty and improve the system for tamariki and rangatahi and their whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities, as well as setting out exactly what this will mean throughout the bill. This ensures that the Treaty is at the heart of this system, while also placing specific obligations on oversight bodies including the Ombudsman, whose status as an Officer of Parliament may have excluded them from a broad general clause.

The common duties provision in clause 7 should not require a great deal of discussion today, I would think. I think we all agree that achieving the aspirations I’ve just been talking to will require the monitor, Ombudsman, and Children and Young People’s Commission to work closely together. This is also important because of the burden that poorly connected agencies can place on our tamariki and rangatahi and the providers that support them, and the risk of harm if things slip through the cracks. We listened to stakeholders and included this provision in the bill to make clear our expectations with regards to the close relationship between the monitor, the Ombudsman, and the commission.

Clause 9 defines the Oranga Tamariki system and includes the delivery of services and support to children, young people, and their families and whānau under or in connection with the Oranga Tamariki Act. This is not limited to the care and protection system. The definition also includes health, education, and youth justice, and we are introducing an SOP to make sure that tamariki or rangatahi in this part of the system are clearly covered.

To sum up, this part of the bill also includes the interpretation section, transition provisions in Schedule 1, and confirmation that the Act binds the Crown. I’m happy to take calls.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I address the Minister, I want to congratulate you on the ascension, the elevation, to the Speaker’s Chair but in the capacity this evening, at the moment, the committee of the whole House as the Chair.

Minister, tēnā koe, and thank you for the opening address to the committee this evening. And also, I thank you, Minister, although somewhat belatedly, for the receipt of the numerous proposed amendments under your Supplementary Order Paper 209, received on Thursday evening. Minister, this is an opportunity for us to canvass and seek clarity, but the first question that I do put to you, Minister, is to query why—why—it has taken so long. At the eleventh hour, seemingly, although your letter was welcome and received with due regard. The fact that there were up to an additional 49 to 50—and that was just by way of the letter and Supplementary Order Paper 209, and there are additional ones to come.

Further, in addition to the Supplementary Order Papers, proposed amendments from my colleagues from the Green Party, from ACT, and also from the National Party, why, Minister, did your members of Parliament for the Labour Party at the Social Services and Community Committee not heed and listen to the views that were expressed, importantly, by the public who submitted on these very issues now being addressed before the committee. A number of these amendments that are being proposed have been picked up and advanced by my colleagues in the Chamber this evening from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. I note also, Minister, that you too have picked up on some of those by way of Supplementary Order Paper proposed amendments. Why, Minister, has it been left so belatedly?

I acknowledge that you have addressed in the letter that was sent to myself—and, I’m anticipating, to my colleagues Jan Logie in the Green Party and Karen Chhour from ACT—indicating that there has been a continued engagement with stakeholders since select committee submissions were heard. But could you, Minister, in your capacity as leader and Minister for this portfolio, explain why your members sitting on the select committee dismissed and dispensed with the advice that was given, some of which has now been picked up by way of Supplementary Order Papers?

Then, Minister, we will come to the detail. I’m anticipating that you will address the committee in terms of the respective clauses that you’re seeking support on, by way of each amendment being spoken to, addressed, and hopefully passed in the committee this evening.

But Minister, in closing, before moving into the specifics of those clauses and the amendments, why has it been left to the eleventh hour? We know full well that this bill is going to advance because, Minister, with your members, you have the numbers. It’s hoped and, indeed, it’s implored that you heed the proposed amendments that we make in Opposition, because those amendments that we make, noting that you’ve picked up on some of those as well by saying that you’ve listened to and engaged with the stakeholders—why that was not done sooner rather than later to save a lot of the anguish and dismay that’s been expressed by the public, and the public maintaining the view, which is supported in the Opposition, that this bill is going to advance and proceed through because the numbers are there. But also why?

Too, stand before this committee and explain to the public—when the royal commission of inquiry into those children experienced in care and subjected to State abuse—why the Government is still proceeding with this when you say that the Minister has engaged with the public, heeding and listening to the views of the stakeholders. One of those key, significant views is that the royal commission of inquiry will have substantive recommendations and this Government is still proceeding to advance with this bill, dispensing with those recommendations, and it’s unknown what they will be—so for the Government to consider that the Government is clairvoyant, to be able to predict and anticipate what those are. The big question, Minister, is: why?

I will just start by saying that as Minister, I don’t have responsibility for the Social Services and Community Committee. However, despite the fact that that’s out of scope with respect to the bill, I do acknowledge that there were a number of submissions made that resulted in changes to the bill, changes to the bill that have impacted what we see in front of us. I’ve continued to engage with stakeholders, and through that engagement I have had it stressed to me that they would like to see further reassurance in the bill. So that has resulted in strengthening of language. It’s not any substantive change from what was being proposed. It was to further enhance and emphasise the protections, the focus on children with respect to the Government Supplementary Order Papers.

I’m making the following amendments, particularly talking about this part: updating the overview, clause 3, to articulate what is included in the bill—for example, including the new independence clause for the monitor; amending the definition of the Oranga Tamariki system to better ensure important clauses in the bill capture youth justice; clarifying references to the Ombudsman; adding new provisions to the principles, clause 5, to explicitly require that the best interests and perspectives of children and young people are considered by any person operating under this Act; updating the common duties, clause 7, which sets out common duties of the monitor and Ombudsman to also refer to the Children and Young Persons Commission, to remove duplication of the same provision in the Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, Part 5—having all the common duties in one place makes the legislation simpler to navigate; also amending the definition of “approved provider” to ensure that all care and custody providers are included, and that’s in clause 8; removing the definition of “tikanga Māori” as this is already defined in the Oranga Tamariki Act, which is in clause 8; and inserting a new definition for “non-personal information” to improve clarity for the disclosure of information.

So, because of that ongoing stakeholder engagement, we continued to look at ways that we could further provide assurance that the protections would be in place for the children and the rangatahi so that the clarity that was being asked for was actually provided for in the bill. It’s not unusual to have a Government Supplementary Order Paper. We did share it, as soon as it was available, with other political parties, and so now we consider those things in the committee of the whole House.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased Minister Sepuloni took a call, but, really, it didn’t answer the questions that my colleague Harete Hipango asked. I appreciate that the Social Services and Community Committee is controlled by the Labour Party and not the Minister—I accept that—but the point with this is there were multiple opportunities and requests from stakeholders, throughout the select committee process, asking for time: asking for time so that submissions weren’t just over Christmas; asking for an extension to the time that stakeholders could submit on the bill. It’s fair to say, from many of the submissions that we heard, there were parts of the bill that were very unexpected to stakeholders, who were very surprised at the inclusion particularly around, for example, the movement of the supposedly independent monitor and not locating it the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, which was the original plan out of the Beatie report.

The question is: why was the time not taken at every opportunity? And now, when we have a substantial Supplementary Order Paper—which, on the one hand, the Minister says isn’t really changing anything, and so there’s pages and pages and pages of something that’s not really changing much. But she’s listened to the stakeholders and met with them and listened to them and strengthened the language, but not changed very much. It makes it really confusing in terms of what actually has changed. So this is going to take some time.

I want to put on record, for the people who have just started listening to this debate: this is about the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system and the Children and Young People’s Commission. Of any organisation the Government is responsible for, the oversight of Oranga Tamariki has to be the priority, and to do this in this manner is disgraceful. Stakeholders asked for time; members of Parliament asked for time; other select committee members from Labour ignored it. The Minister didn’t support the efforts of the stakeholders to ask for more time to do this thoroughly. And, actually, one of the requests from many of us, which still is on the table, is: why do all of this? Why confuse all of this, with changes that aren’t really changes, when the report of the royal commission into State abuse hasn’t come back?

The question, Minister, is simply: why this level of change? Is it real or is it not? And why not take more time, refer it back to the select committee, allow the level of scrutiny it deserves and the most vulnerable of children deserve too?

I’m going to stick closely to what is within scope of the bill. Discussing through the committee stage, when speaking specifically to the detail around the bill, doesn’t include extending that to why we wouldn’t take more time to deliberate over this. However, the one point I will make about it is that the Social Services and Community Committee did get an extension to hear more submissions, because the select committee saw that as being of importance.

Also, I was asked by the previous member from the National Party, Harete Hipango, about the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and to explain what they were. I think I went into great detail about what those SOPs were, and I also summarised what they do. I did say very clearly that, although they don’t change the intent of the bill, they do provide further clarity and the assurance that stakeholders were seeking with respect to protections for our young people in care or in contact with the system. So it was the assurance around protection, as well as the clarity, that we sought when pulling together the changes that we are discussing.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I too would like to offer my congratulations to the Speaker for ascension into the Chair and to thank the Minister for this type of engagement on the bill, because it is incredibly important and I know there are a lot of people who are deeply worried—as am I. I’m not hopeful, but it would be a wonderful outcome if I came out at the end of this being reassured.

Having read the material and quite a few substantive reports around this, for me, nothing in this has explained the “why this solution?” I would love to hear from the Minister why we’ve come up with this splitting of complaints and monitoring and advocacy. The reasons behind that seem opaque to me.

And why not the implementation of the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation for a Māori transitional authority that would have inherently had a monitoring role in it and ensured that the Crown started to move towards meeting the obligations towards honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which we are clearly in breach of, as the Waitangi Tribunal ruled, and which we have not fixed? They absolutely said there needed to be an agency that was independent of the Crown and all of its departments. That was part of the Waitangi Tribunal ruling and yet we get this, which is more of a tinkering with an existing system and, actually, a removing and shifting of roles from an agency that has a degree of independence from the Crown, which seems to me to be going in exactly the wrong direction.

I do just want to point to some of the specific points that the Waitangi Tribunal made. They were saying that that body should be established as a priority and given a wide mandate to consider systems improvement both within and outside of the legislative and policy settings of Oranga Tamariki. Surely, when we found we were in breach—when we know pēpi, tamariki, and rangatahi Māori and whānau are suffering extreme harm in our misnamed “care system”—surely, that should have been the legislation that came to this House.

Even if we weren’t going down that path, I still don’t understand: why not the proposal that was floated in the Beatie report of, yes, strengthened monitoring—and I think the Minister’s right that there is agreement in this House around the need for strengthening monitoring—and the proposal of that being moved back to the Children’s Commissioner? So where did the idea come from that said, “No, let’s not do that; let’s put this into a departmental agency.”?

I’d also like to know from the Minister—who’s saying she has listened to a lot of stakeholders and is engaged and has had the conversations—if any of those stakeholders asked for just these small changes and said they were fine with the monitor staying as a departmental agency. I have not spoken to one person who is advocating for change on this who has had that position. So I do think, if the Government is listening, that is an absolutely core point in the opposition—as well as the timing point. I understand the Minister’s saying that’s not in scope in this part of the debate at the moment, but the fact that we are debating it does mean that the timing when everybody said, “Please, hold off. Don’t do this now. Wait until the royal commission. Ensure that those voices and the experiences of people who have”—and there are almost a quarter of a million of those people—“been hurt in our supposed care who are telling us what we need to do to fix the system can be heard.” The advice that’s informed this bill, which we were told links to the royal commission, was at such an early stage, before those voices had really been heard.

That’s a first series of questions to the Minister.

I’m not going to speak to the review period that’s in the bill that will allow us to be able to, down the track, consider the report that comes from the royal commission, because that would be part of Part 3 of this bill.

The member has asked some questions around the Treaty provisions. I think that she may have said—correct me if I’m wrong—that the Waitangi Tribunal has ruled that they are not befitting. Now, the Waitangi Tribunal has not ruled on this bill—I need to be very clear.

The structure of clause 6, with the Treaty-specific obligations woven throughout the bill, were developed with stakeholders who wanted to see specific obligations placed on the oversight bodies. Their view was that a broad Treaty clause can be open to interpretation and its meaning can be diluted. The Ombudsman’s unique constitutional status as an Officer of Parliament created additional complexity as they are technically not considered to be part of the Crown. However, by providing for specific obligations, the bill ensures the Ombudsman is also able to demonstrate a practical commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty provisions in this bill were carefully crafted. We’re dealing with the Ombudsman, who is not part of the Crown; the Children and Young People’s Commission, who are independent; and then the departmental agency, now, that has independence written into the bill as well but is a departmental agency. So it’s a very different situation, in many regards.

I will acknowledge the Kāhui Group, who advised on the Treaty provisions specific to this particular context. It may be slightly different to what that member has seen before, and I understand that. But I will again articulate that the Waitangi Tribunal has not ruled on this bill—as I’ve said before, going through the clause and why we got to that point.

Now, there are some other things that were raised by the member that actually also come up in other parts of the bill, including, I think, Part 3, where we talk more about the Independent Children’s Monitor and the structure and why it was set up. But I will give a brief statement to that, despite the fact that the actual structure and wording is in Part 3, and just say that the Beatie report that the member referred to did not propose a perfect solution. It’s really important to note that. The current arrangement in monitoring and advocacy being in the same organisation potentially not working has been an issue that has been raised with us throughout this whole process—and the issue around potential tension between advocacy and monitoring. But we are moving outside of Part 1 by discussing this in too great a detail, and so I am going to end it there, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and congratulations on your appointment to the role. I want to join my parliamentary colleague Jan Logie from the Green Party, because I think the issue of timing is significant in this bill. I actually want to bring the words of a former member of Parliament, but not one from my side of the House; one from the Labour side of the House, and that is, of course, a former leader, the Hon David Cunliffe, who also in his submission talks about the fact that the bill “specifically weakens the Children’s Commissioner, undermines the Commissioners’ independent oversight of Oranga Tamariki.” and “the truncated process and the drafting of the Bill clearly fails to consider children and young people’s perspectives”. This is, of course, something we’ve heard throughout.

I would be interested in the Minister tabling a list of the organisations she has consulted with since the departmental report and since the report back from the Social Services and Community Committee, because that is the bit that is invisible to the Parliament, and I think it would help in our deliberations if the list of the stakeholders could be tabled. So that is a request that I’m making of the Minister in this section. There aren’t many occasions in the Parliament where every party except one is opposed to the bill, and that’s why we have to traverse this in detail. So I want to specifically raise and ask questions of the Minister in response to the submission that was raised by the Hon David Cunliffe, who specifically said that he doesn’t support the bill in its current form and recommends that it not proceed until more work is done, specifically that progress on the bill should be paused to allow the specific issues related to the monitoring of Oranga Tamariki and the structure and function of the Children’s Commissioner to be more thoroughly considered.

He even goes as far as recommending the Minister take time to take this back to Cabinet, and I would like to put that offer on the table from the Parliament today, to say we would be happy. I’m looking at my colleagues across the House. We would be happy for the Minister to take time to fully traverse these issues. We now have a very complex set of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) before the Parliament, and what I do know from 14 years in this place is that legislation that is driven through with masses of SOPs creates great risk in the law coming out wrong. I put this plea—I put this plea—to the Minister: we do not want to get this wrong. We do not want to get this wrong. So the offer from the National Party and from others would be that we take a breath on this bill. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has met with stakeholders and sees fit to make some improvements to this bill. We would like to be supportive of that and to do it properly and thoroughly.

There’s been nothing that we’ve heard that drives any urgency for why this bill has to be passed by a certain date. So I would ask the Minister to provide a list of the stakeholders that have been consulted since this bill was reported back from the select committee, and I would ask the Minister to consider very seriously pausing this bill so that many of the issues that she herself has raised with changes in the SOPs, and parliamentary colleagues have in their SOPs, could be considered fully. It would be a wonderful day in this House for our children and for the children in the care of Oranga Tamariki to have a Parliament that is unanimously supporting the legislation. I think we could do that. We could do that if we took time and did it properly. So that is my request and my questions of the Minister.

The submission that David Cunliffe made and the points that the member Louise Upston has raised that were in his submission are not within scope of Part 1. I am going to stick closely to the provisions in the bill, because that is what we are here to debate. I will say that, if the other side of the House want to speak broadly to this bill, they should have sought leave to take this as one part. I am quite happy to speak specifically to the parts and the clauses of the bill, but I will not be going out of scope of the bill.

I’d just state that these primary provisions do give the opportunity to be broader-ranging. We are moving out of the provisions of Part 1, and I will be looking for speakers henceforth to be concentrating more on the provisions in Part 1. We’ve had a fairly wide-ranging debate to date, and we’d be looking for a little more specificity now, please.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I just was looking at one of the Supplementary Order Papers that’s been put forward in your name, and part of me is relieved that the change was made, and another part of me is kind of a bit disappointed that it took this long to get it written into this bill. I mean, I’ve constantly heard talk about how this bill has been in progress since 2019, I think it was—2018—how you’ve been looking at ways we can strengthen the oversight of Oranga Tamariki, and how important it is we get this done very, very quickly. I look at the purpose of this bill and the purpose of this bill is to “uphold the rights and interests and improve the well-being of children and young people who are receiving, or have previously received, services or support through … Oranga Tamariki”—that’s great. It’s a great purpose to have. But why did it take so long to add “best interests” into this bill? I mean, surely the best interests of children and young people should have been one of the first things that was stuck in this bill.

There were so many submissions where young people and organisations were concerned that the bill was more about protecting the organisation itself rather than protecting our young people. So I look at clause 5, “Principles”, and I see that we’ve added a few things in: the best interests of children and young people—yep, the perspectives of children and young people. I thought, “Yay! Something really good’s come out of the opposition coming from this side.” But then I read it and I think, well, actually, it doesn’t have much teeth because it’s only they must “have regard to” best interests, and “regard” to the perspectives of children and young people.

Unfortunately, Minister, I’ve seen what having regard to children’s voices has been like in the last six months, and it ain’t that hot. So where are the teeth? Where’s the making sure that the best interests actually are paramount when it comes to young people and their best interests? We’ve done this in other children’s Acts. We’ve done this in the Oranga Tamariki Act, where we define the best interests of the children. They become, you know, the basis of the whole bill. The best interest is the first thing that matters ahead of absolutely everything else. I’m just wondering if the Minister would be willing to define the best interest better and give it more teeth than just “having regard to”.

It’s explicitly required, what we’ve got in there. The member pointed out that she’s disappointed that it came late and it should have been done earlier. As I said before in reference to the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in front of us, basically we are further enhancing and providing assurance around the protections. An example of where the wording is changed slightly was that previously it was about “interests” as opposed to “best interests”, and so the SOP emphasises that. Previously, this part referred to “voices of children”, and now we’ve added “perspectives of children” as well. So we are trying to further emphasise the absolute importance of ensuring that children and rangatahi are at the centre of this bill.

I have traversed the SOPs and explained why. Hopefully, that explanation with regards to the point of difference is clear.

Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair. Congratulations on your ascension to the Speaker’s Chair and this evening as chair of this committee of the whole House.

So I put the question to the Minister. It’s on the record, Minister: the opening statement given by you this evening that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 209 with the proposed amendments—the approximate 49 to 50 of them. The statement is they are not substantive changes. So, Minister, would you please clarify, then, that clause 3—which is one of the proposed amendments under the bill—requiring the monitor to act independently, which was not previously part of this bill, is not a substantive change?

Then the other question is whether or not it is a substantive change—it’s, again, one of your Supplementary Order Paper amendments. Now, under clause 5, principles must have regard to the best interests of children and young people, the perspectives of children and young people. Is that not a substantive change to this bill? I put it to the Minister, I’ve put it to the House, and members of the public: it is certainly substantive. So to suggest for one moment that the amendments under the Minister’s SOP numbered 209 are not substantive changes—are effectively minor changes—is somewhat not the case.

So, Minister, if you could clarify whether or not those are deemed to be substantive or not, before we move on to some more substantive provisions of amendments that have been proposed by the Minister.

Just quickly, adding “independence” into clause 3 is not—as I said, it enhances; it provides further reassurance. But independence is stressed throughout the bill. It was just to provide, as I said earlier about the Supplementary Order Papers, further reassurance.

I move, That the question be now put.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak to my Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and pick up on some of the comments made by the Minister earlier specifically in relation around Te Tiriti clauses, and to clarify that when I was talking about the Waitangi Tribunal ruling, it was around the functioning of Oranga Tamariki. That report came out last year. It is very recent, but before the policy work on this piece of legislation, and it was, I would have thought, an essential thing that we actually address those recommendations and rulings of the Waitangi Tribunal. I want to note that that point about the broader clause in the Kāhui Group—I acknowledge that they recommended more specific rulings.

But I also noticed, from the Auckland University Aotearoa New Zealand Indigenous Peoples and the Law report, Time to Taihoa, that they noted that the Waitangi Tribunal has found the specific definitive types of Treaty clauses to be problematic, especially when the legislative provisions that these clauses claim will give effect to the Crown’s Te Tiriti obligations fall short of what is guaranteed under Te Tiriti. I think, from the specificity of the Waitangi Tribunal’s rulings last year around tino rangatiratanga over kāinga, the way that the current Treaty provisions are worded falls short, and I would love to hear the Minister’s outline of how that does not fall short when it has no reference to upholding tino rangatiratanga over kāinga.

I also want to address the point made by the Minister of the complexity of this when the Ombudsman comes into play, and we heard that advice from officials that we couldn’t have a general clause because of the Ombudsman’s independence. Well, my understanding is that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has the same status as the Ombudsman as an Officer of Parliament, and the Environment Act that set up that office includes reference to the Treaty in the purpose section. Actually, you could argue that it is in the exact control of Parliament to be able to make these decisions and put these clauses in place in that Officers of Parliament are closer to the Crown than local government, who also have provisions for honouring Te Tiriti.

Also, one of our SOPs is around ensuring that the key priority is the need to support outcomes for Māori children, young people, and their whānau, and prioritise rather than just recognise the importance of children and young people’s families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. I understand that the Government’s position on this is wanting to maintain that direct focus just on children, and just to say that this is a very longstanding conversation and point of conflict between the Crown and Māori, where children are not seen as separate from whānau, from hapū, from iwi, and that harm to one is harm to the other. What has been so integral to the damage that has been done to Māori by our so-called care system is the failure of our systems to acknowledge that symbiotic relationship, and the failure to actually even understand what whānau is. Unless we prioritise that connection, then it is very hard for me to understand how we are not just going to keep replicating those same patterns.

Also, the other point in my last minute here is the question for the Minister around this. I understand New Zealand hasn’t ratified the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, but I understand we have signed that declaration. Again, it is in the power of this Parliament and the Government to make a proposal for us to ensure that that is part of the focus of our agencies in this area, because—and it’s so important—it is the history of using child protection as a tool of colonisation. I hope that we all recognise that by now, and the importance of having systems in place to undo that from our systems. It can’t be passive; it needs to be active, and it needs strong assertions to make those changes.

Without wanting to be repetitive, I did explain perhaps three times—but I’m going to go into this again with specific reference to the Supplementary Order Paper put up by the member as well—how we came to have the Treaty provisions that are in the bill that we do. We had the Kāhui Group, who advised on what would be appropriate, given this set of very unique circumstances where you have an Ombudsman, who isn’t part of the Crown; you have the Children and Young People’s Commission, who is a Crown entity; and then you have the Independent Children’s Monitor, who is a departmental agency, but with independence written into the bill. The provisions that were put in place were specifically crafted for this particular situation, and, certainly, as I said earlier, the Waitangi Tribunal has not ruled against these Treaty provisions.

I want to also refer to the member’s Supplementary Order Paper that I just received a copy of. The member specifically refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—which we’ve already covered with regards to what the Government is proposing—but also includes reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As I’ve already said in the House, it hasn’t been ratified by us. But on top of that—

💬 Jan Logie: It’s been signed.

The member has said that we’ve signed it. It is still being consulted on here in Aotearoa, so it would be premature to mention it when we have not actually finished consultation and ratified it as a nation. Mr Chair, I’m sorry for being repetitive, but just sharing that again.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour will say Aye, those against will say No. The Ayes have it. [A party vote was called for] The question will be put. [Interruption] The vote will be in silence, please.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: This is an outrage.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I’ll leave. This is outrageous. This is absolutely outrageous. I can’t believe you’re doing this.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member will leave the Chamber.

Hon Louise Upston withdrew from the Chamber.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 209 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that Jan Logie’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 be agreed to.

The question is that Harete Hipango’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 220 be agreed to.

The question is that Harete Hipango’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 224 be agreed to.

The question is that Harete Hipango’s amendment to clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 be agreed to.

The question is that Harete Hipango’s amendments to clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 be agreed to.

The question is that Harete Hipango’s amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 be agreed to.

The question is that Harete Hipango’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 be agreed to.

The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.