Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Children: I present to the House a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

I move, That the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 by partially repealing the subsequent child provisions so that the subsequent child provisions will only apply in respect of parents with a conviction relating to the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child in their care; repealing a redundant provision relating to data sets; making a number of minor and technical amendments aimed at improving clarity and addressing omissions and ambiguity in the Act. I’ll talk more about the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions later in this speech.

But before I do, I’d like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their examination of the bill during the select committee stage, and all of the submitters for their time and contribution to the bill. By majority, the Social Services and Community Committee recommends the passing of the bill, with a number of changes aimed at improving the readability and workability of the bill. These changes are set out in the legislative statement, so I’ll only mention three of the changes in this speech.

The first change reflects the importance of ensuring that the family is able to have private deliberation time as part of family group conferences, without the chief executive and/or their delegate present, unless they’re invited by the family, of course. New clause 6A clarifies that there is no automatic entitlement for the chief executive or their delegate to attend family deliberation time.

Another change relates to clauses 33 and 34 and new clause 6B. Clauses 33 and 34 sought to clarify that youth justice family group conferences could make decisions and formulate plans when a child or young person was not in need of care or protection but was in need of assistance. However, submitters considered that the phrase “in need of assistance” required further clarification. The committee has recommended modifying section 28B of the Act, in new clause 6B, and clauses 33 and 34 to remove the term “in need of assistance”. These changes will also help to align provisions relating to youth justice family group conferences with those relating to care and protection family group conferences.

The final change I want to mention relates to the power to make regulations in relation to the assessment, training, and support of caregivers and care providers. Submitters were concerned that clause 43 as drafted would mean that an assessment of the suitability of care providers would no longer be covered. The committee has recommended changes to address this and clarify the wording used to describe care providers.

I’d also like to acknowledge that there were and are some submitters who are disappointed that this bill does not make the fundamental changes to Oranga Tamariki. I can understand that—people, particularly Māori, have been waiting for change for a number of years. When Oranga Tamariki was established, it was recognised that what had gone before and its predecessors had not worked—that is, they were not sufficiently working with families and whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities to protect our children. We know that Oranga Tamariki still has more to do to live up to expectations in that regard. Many of us want to see change and that Oranga Tamariki make a positive difference in the lives of all children and young people and for the families and whānau and the communities in which it operates. At the same time, I’m aware that progress and results will not happen immediately. Trying to achieve quick wins will not result in the fundamental change required.

This brings me back to the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions—the part of the bill that is not supported by all members of the committee, and I’m disappointed in that. The subsequent child provisions were enacted by the previous Government and currently apply where a parent has previously had a child permanently removed from their care or has a murder, manslaughter, or infanticide conviction for the death of a child in their care. The bill proposes to partially repeal those provisions as they apply to subsequent children where a parent has had the care of a previous child removed and it has been determined that there is no realistic prospect of return to the parents. These provisions will, however, be retained where they relate to parents who have been convicted of the death of a child in their care. This reflects the seriousness of those offences.

The proposed change reflects a first-principles review of the subsequent child provisions, which found that the provisions were not promoting the best interests of children, rather the provisions were causing harm, particularly for children with an older sibling already in care. This is because a court is required to determine that there’s no realistic prospect that an older sibling who has already been removed would be returned to their parents’ care, a process that results in additional and potentially traumatic court proceedings of that older sibling. The subsequent child provisions have also placed social workers in a difficult position and undermined their ability to work meaningfully with whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. The proposed change will support social workers to use their skills, their expertise, and their professional knowledge, as appropriate, in an area of work that requires significant sensitivity and skill.

Finally, the subsequent child provisions have significantly damaged the relationship between Oranga Tamariki and Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal found that the provisions caused prejudice to Māori and would be a continuing breach of the Treaty until they are partially repealed. Partial repeal, therefore, supports a rebuilding of relationships with Māori. Rebuilding the relationship with Māori and with communities is an important part of the future direction for Oranga Tamariki, which is about empowering communities, empowering whānau, hapū, and iwi to support their own, to help the children and young people, the parents and the whānau who live in their communities. And that change is vital if we’re going to improve the outcomes for children, young people, and their families and whānau in the long term.

Finally, I think it’s important again to acknowledge social workers and the work they do to support our most vulnerable children and young people and our most vulnerable families and whānau.

Nō reira, kei ngā kaihāpai, ngā kaitiaki o ā tātou nei whānau, tēnā koutou katoa.

[And so, to the advocates and the caregivers of our families, thank you all.]

Thank you for what you do.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand for the National Party in opposition to this bill. As the Minister has pointed out, it was a split decision within the Social Services and Community Committee—a select committee that, I have to say, does tend to work very well on many of the issues that we deal with and in a collegial manner. But, of course, there are some philosophical differences around the table, and this happens to be one of them.

The Minister has outlined the changes that are going to happen as a result of this piece of legislation, but I would just like to realise, for the House’s benefit, and clarify the two main ones that are of particular concern.

One of them is the subsequent child provision, which is in the principal Act in section 18B, and the consequential changes associated with that partial repeal, which I will explain a little bit soon. And then there was another repeal which is considered to be redundant, and that was information sharing which is contained in section 66D of the principal Act.

Now, this wasn’t a bill that attracted a huge amount of attention from the public. One of those reasons may have been that the select committee was also dealing with the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, which did attract a huge amount of attention. And so having these bills running concurrently I think distracted a little bit from this one actually reaching out to many of the submitters that may have otherwise been involved in providing feedback to the select committee.

As a consequence, only 24 written submissions were received by the select committee. Out of those, 11 submitters presented orally to the select committee. So not a huge amount of feedback for the select committee to be able to gauge the interest, nor to have provided to us some of the arguments for or against some of the provisions contained in this bill.

The bill, as I said, contains a couple of parts. The first of those is around the subsequent child provision. The part of that that’s being repealed does not apply to this one. This is the one that’s actually being retained within the bill. And that is, as it relates to parents who have a conviction for murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or young person in their care, which is the section 18B(1)(a) provision in the principal Act. The decision was made and the bill was not designed to exclude that, so that has been the part of this section 18 that is staying active.

The other part of it is the bit that is going to be removed, and that is, for parents who had a previous child or a young person removed from their care where there was no realistic possibility that that child would be returned to that parent.

So these are the most extreme cases of concern around wellbeing and safety for these children. For many of those children, they go on to be placed into homes for life, where they are considered to be safe, secure, and loved by the adopted parents or the caregivers who provide those homes to them.

So the part that is staying is the bit that is probably the most extreme, which is around murder or manslaughter or infanticide. The bit that is being removed is the bit where a previous child has been removed from a parent and has no likelihood of being returned. So the design this provision was put in for in the first place was to ensure that where a child had been removed from a parent, the children born subsequently to the same parent was an automatic consideration for the safety of that subsequent child—that second or third or fourth child, or however many the parents went on to have. So, in effect, what it was doing was ensuring that there was a mandated and automatic response when subsequent children were born into that family. Basically, what it was there for was to provide greater oversight of the safety of those subsequent children. So that is the National Party’s view: it is that the reason that that provision was put there in the first place was focused entirely on the safety of subsequent children—and there is no argument that lots of work needs to be done with families, that wraparound services are provided to families to ensure that they get the support that they need to make sure that they become safe, loving parents, providing for their children—but by eliminating this clause in this piece of legislation, it simply removes a safety valve that is in place.

It’s interesting, when we go back and look at some of the statistics, this provision has been used around 19 times since the Act came into force, which was in mid-2016. So it’s not something that has been used without a huge amount of consideration and discretion. So when I look at the rationale for unwinding this provision within this bill—and I’ve heard the Minister express this in her opening remarks, where we need to build relationships with families and rebuild relationships. And that’s all very well, but actually, this isn’t about the families; this is about the children. This is where we separated in the select committee when we were debating this bill. This bill is focused on the parents. It’s focused on the system. It is not focused on the children. And we make no apology for taking that position.

We have to remember, too, some of the children that have been victims of serious crime, and it’s a sad day for New Zealand when we have international rankings that refer to New Zealand as one of the poor performers in the world. We are ranked really lowly in terms of being able to provide for child wellbeing outcomes. I’m going to quote—this is outdated data; it was last year’s data—we were 35 out of 41 in developed countries for child wellbeing outcomes. In 2003, which was the latest data I was able to source, UNICEF ranked us as the third highest amongst rich countries for its child maltreatment death rates. That is a shocking record of abuse of our children. And the sad thing is, this bill is not going to provide that safety net, that safety valve that we need.

So I think what we’re doing with this bill—or what the Government is doing with this bill—it’s setting out to improve practice within the system and it’s setting out to make pathways easier for those that interact with it, but it has lost its focus for the safety of children. We have to wonder whether it is actually with the practice that there is an issue or with the law. I would argue that the issues we have are with the practices that are employed, not with the law. So I think we have found a separation in terms of where our focus lies. Our focus on this side of the House lies with the safety of children, ensuring that the systems are in place. This bill does nothing to build the resources of our social workers who work tirelessly to support these families. It doesn’t create one new social worker. It just makes the system easier. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I commence my speech, I would like to just acknowledge—this is the first opportunity I have to acknowledge you in the chair as the Deputy Speaker. Congratulations, sir.

I’m here to speak quite briefly on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, and I’d just like to acknowledge the previous speaker, Maureen Pugh, who spoke quite sensitively about this matter. I think it is one that is serious and important.

I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister Kelvin Davis first and foremost, for bringing this bill to the House, and for the Minister Nanaia Mahuta who took his place and presented his speech and statement. We did only have 24 submissions, and we heard from 12 submitters via video conference during a time where most work was online. I want to also acknowledge how much more complex that made the work process for the officials—parliamentary counsel, the Office of the Clerk, but also for the Social Services and Community Committee, who, by and large, do work very collaboratively together.

I’m quite pleased, today, to be speaking to this bill, because I do recall a time in 2016 when this piece of legislation came in, and the House may recall that at that time I was the manager of a women’s refuge, and we recall having the conversation about the work that we did with the mothers who had often had warnings or had children uplifted from them about what hope this piece of legislation gave them. I can tell you, it was quite a harsh piece of legislation for those families. Those mothers always wanted their children back. They always, always wanted to do the right thing. They had lost their children and they were working very hard, and this piece of legislation, brought in by the National Party in 2016, changed the onus or burden of proof to actually make these under-resourced, these very complex presenting families, prove that they were worthy parents, and it was a difficult thing for us to work with them about.

I want to be really clear that the submissions that we heard were, by and large, positive, and the subsequent child aspect was probably the most complex part of the bill, or the most controversial. I do acknowledge that there were differing views at the table.

I would just like to go through the wording of the legislation that we changed in regards to the subsequent child. So first and foremost, “a subsequent child is any child, born or unborn”—keep that in mind; unborn also—“who has a parent who has been convicted of the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or young person in their care or custody”. So that’s the first part. That’s the part we are not repealing. That is the part that is staying in place.

The second part—this is the part that we are repealing: “who has had a previous child or young person removed from their care and there is no realistic prospect that the child or young person will be returned to the person’s care.” Now, the previous speaker said those words, but I want this House to sit for a moment in actually what that means. The children or child who has previously been placed with another family has to go to court, and that child has to be part of the process that says that their parent—their birth parent—will never, ever, realistically, be their parent again.

I would like to ask the House whether that is harmful or not, and I believe it is. I certainly understand the concept around why this was put in place. The mechanism and the use and how this occurs to those families, and even if it was 19 children or 19 families that this has happened to—this a redundant but it is also a repugnant part of the legislation that we have, and I’m very delighted to be removing it.

I would like to finally just say, there was another large of pile of things that we changed in this bill, and so I’m just going to very quickly a read a list and then I’ll take my seat. So we changed parts of the Evidence Act, the payment of fees and expenses for youth advocates. We clarified and made clear the function for family group conferences and youth justice family group conferences. We clarified restraining orders and when and where they are appropriately applied. We amended transitional provisions and amended the ultimate right of the chief executive or their representative to attend a family group conference at the deliberation point, which is not necessarily the best point for that person to be at.

So with that, I am delighted to stand in this House and to see this piece of repugnant legislation be partially repealed. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. The National Party opposes this bill.

The National Party brought in legislation that brought in the subsequent child removal policy, which took effect in 2006. The then Minister, the Hon Paula Bennett, said at the third reading, “This legislation will also switch the onus on parents who have killed or severely abused or neglected a child, and they’ll now have to prove they are safe to parent subsequent children.” So to be clear, the law that is being partially repealed today is that currently a subsequent child is “any child, born or unborn, who has a parent who has been convicted of the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or young person in their care or custody; or who has had a previous child or young person removed from their care and there is no realistic prospect that the child or young person will be returned to [the person’s] care.” So it’s quite a high threshold.

Unfortunately, New Zealand has a real problem with violence towards children in this country, and unfortunately I have seen this in courts around the country where I have practised previously. I’ve seen it in Auckland, I’ve seen it in the Bay of Plenty, and I’ve seen it in the South Island, in Christchurch, and across the bottom of the South Island. There is a high rate, unfortunately, of abuse towards children. We need to put the best interests of children first to make sure that those children are cared for.

There is also—and I’ve seen this numerous times in cases—a reluctance by those involved around the children, whether it’s family members or other agencies, to raise the issues of children being abused. So it’s actually quite difficult and it takes quite a few steps usually before something comes to the attention of the relevant agencies. And so we need to recognise that reality and we need to take steps to ensure that the children, and their best interests, are always taken into account first and we do what we can to ensure that they are looked after.

New Zealand’s a great country, but we need to also face facts. It ranks 35th out of 41 developed countries in the wellbeing outcomes for children. Every eighth homicide victim in New Zealand from 2004 to 31 March 2019 was a child. New Zealand has the seventh highest rate of child homicide in the OECD. New Zealand also has the highest rate of teen suicide in the OECD. I make those points, because this is a sober issue and one we have to really consider very, very carefully. We all want to try to do the best thing. We want parents to be the best that they can and provide the best environment for their children, and anyone else who has children in their vicinity. But we also have to recognise that we have a problem, and that’s what this subsequent child policy aimed to address: to provide a clear criteria. A high threshold needed to be set before a child could remain in their care. And just to repeat that, again, the part of it that will remain is that a subsequent child is one who has a parent who has been convicted of the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or young person in their care or custody.

The second part, which this bill is looking at removing or changing, is where they had a previous child or young person removed from their care and there is no realistic prospect that the child or young person will be returned to the person’s care. So we need to take into account, when we consider this, that if it has been determined that there’s no realistic prospect that a child will be returned to a person’s care, can that person realistically be suitable to have another child in their care? It’s something that we need to really take into account. The National Party isn’t confident that the right approach has been taken here.

There is also another issue around the dataset provisions, in which there have been changes. This bill repeals section 66D. The dataset provision, 66D of the Act, came into effect on 1 July 2019, part of a suite of information-sharing provisions named in Part 2. Under that section, any agency that creates a dataset from more than one source of information is required to publicly notify details of that dataset. The notification must include the types of information used in the combined datasets, the source of those types of information, the purpose or purposes served by creating or analysing the combined datasets, and the privacy safeguards relating to the use of the combined datasets. Oranga Tamariki has found that the dataset provision could place an unnecessary administrative burden on child welfare and protection agencies without achieving the level of public accountability originally envisaged. In addition, since 2016, when the original dataset provisions were proposed, a number of initiatives across Government, they say, have, effectively, rendered the data redundant.

However, an alternative view is that this provision hasn’t been adequately utilised and that it is a good provision to enable that information to be captured, which can inform decision makers, who have responsibilities to ensure the protection of children, so they have the information that they need, from a variety of different datasets, to identify children who could or have been abused. There’s an argument to be made that there needs to be more upskilling of those who would supply the information. Unfortunately—I won’t say the name of the particular victim—there was a case not that long ago where a centre was aware of injuries to the child and didn’t report them. There needs to be some consideration of how we address that situation, rather than pulling back on the dataset provisions, I would suggest.

I certainly have seen, unfortunately, in my time practising, that there are often a lot of little indicators that lead up to a serious crime of violence committed against a child. Those little indicators can build over time, people can excuse them and say, “Well, it’s not that bad”, but then it just builds and builds, then something really bad, unfortunately, happens. So we need to be able to pick up on those small indicators and those little warning signs, those little warning flags, before it gets to a serious stage. I would suggest that we need to actually look at how to improve this provision, improve the ability of organisations to utilise that provision effectively to ensure we can pick up on those flags before it becomes a serious issue and children suffer.

I would say that the National Party absolutely values children, as I’m sure every single member of this House does. We deeply value the wellbeing and welfare of all New Zealand children, and of all New Zealand children who have to, unfortunately, I would say, end up in State care. I say unfortunately because, ultimately, we want children to be in a safe and caring environment among those who are their family and whānau—that is the ideal situation. We want everyone to be able to get there. The reality is, unfortunately, that we are not in that position and we do have parents who are, unfortunately, unable to properly take care of their children in this country. Those earlier statistics I quoted, it’s not things I’m happy to say, because it’s a sad moment, it’s a sad statistic for the country, but it is one that we need to really have at the top of our mind, I would suggest. It’s not acceptable that New Zealand has the seventh highest rate of child homicide in the OECD. Underlying that is the serious damage being done to children before it gets to the point of homicide. There’s, unfortunately, a very high rate of child abuse in this country.

So that is the reality that we have to grapple with. We have to work out the best way to address that, to improve the strength of families and the ability of parents to take proper care of their children. And we have to have the relevant law in place so we can ensure that the relevant agencies that are charged with taking care of children in cases where those who should be their caretakers are not able to—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, sorry, speaker, my apologies. There’s been a leak of the clock, and it’s to your credit that you’ve been able to speak so nobly and with such good vocabulary for that time, but, actually, I have to say to the speaker, the time is up.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: But well done carrying on.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s always an honour and a privilege to make a contribution in this House. Today, it’s the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and I’ll make a short contribution.

I want to acknowledge all the submitters. I want to acknowledge the Minister and his leadership in shepherding this important bill—which is part of what he intends to deliver in his portfolio as the Minister for Children. I want to acknowledge the officials and the select committee.

We’ve heard the Minister clarify what the bill does, but I will focus on two matters that the bill does. So the bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 and it partially repeals the child provisions so that subsequent provisions will only apply in respect to parents relating to murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child in their care.

What happens now is that if a mother is pregnant, it has to be reported to the State, and the Family Court has mandatory oversight if the children in the care of the parent have been permanently removed by the State. So what this bill does is that it only will apply for parents who have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child in their care. A Family Court conference is held to make decisions about the care of the unborn child before the child is born if it’s reported in the subsequent provisions.

What happens? Currently, the Family Court conference allows for family deliberations to be private, but it doesn’t actually clarify that Oranga Tamariki must not be present. What clause 6A does is it actually says that the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, or its representatives, must not be party to private family deliberations at Family Court conferences unless it’s invited.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge the Oranga Tamariki Māori rōpū, Te Awateatea, Tāmakimakaurau [the Māori Rōpū Equal Employment Opportunities Site Management Teams within Oranga Tamariki, Te Awateatea, Auckland] especially the leadership of Danny Thompson, Maureen Rapata-Kemp, and Foulis Foster, because for years they have been championing the fact that the Māori engagement and decision making for mokopuna who are reported to Child, Youth and Family—Oranga Tamariki now—must involve family deliberations without the State.

That’s what this bill will do; it will enable family deliberations at Family Court conferences not to have Oranga Tamariki or its representatives present during those deliberations. And with those words, I commend the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been standing a few times in this House, recently, to speak to Oranga Tamariki - related legislation. The conversations have not been comfortable recently, so it’s a bit of a relief to be able to stand in the House in support of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill today.

I didn’t have the luck or the time, unfortunately, to be on the select committee to hear all of the submissions. There were 24 written submissions and I have gone through those, and I think there were 11 oral submissions. So I am really interested in the committee stages that are due to come to hear more of that nuance, because I know so much of that detail comes in the conversations, and I’m picking it up, primarily, from the written materials.

In this contribution, I do want to primarily focus on the subsequent child policy, noting that most submissions also focused on that part of the bill. That part was introduced, I think, and came into law in 2016, under the then National Minister Paula Bennett. What it did was introduce a provision or a policy into the law that if somebody had had a child removed from their care because of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide, or a child had been removed that Oranga Tamariki—then Child, Youth and Family—did not believe would be returned, then if they were to have a subsequent child, then the social workers would have no discretion but to conduct an assessment of that child’s safety and then must apply for one of two orders from the Family Court.

So if they were satisfied that the child would be safe, then then social worker would have to go to court for a confirmation of the decision not to apply for care and protection. So they’d have to go to court to confirm that they would not take that child, because presumption was that they would take that child. Or, if they were not satisfied that the child would be safe, the social worker had to apply for a care and protection order.

I was in Parliament at the time that that law passed. The Green Party raised concerns, along with others in this House, about the outcomes of that law. We understand, as we’ve heard from other speakers tonight, the sense of real-heart concern that we all have for the wellbeing and the safety of our children in this country and our duty to do what we can and have laws that will protect them. But there was a problem at the time around the practices within Child, Youth and Family—and part of it links to that sense of wanting to protect and the images that we have in our head of who we need to protect children from and also a failure to acknowledge the prevalence and the intersection between intimate partner violence and child abuse, as I think has been quite eloquently mentioned previously by Angie Warren-Clark.

So in the first reading of that bill, in 2013, it had just been the previous week where the former Police Commissioner Howard Broad had released a review into the complaints system of Child, Youth and Family. At that time, he raised concern that their practice—of the organisation—was failing to adequately meet their legal obligations of checking on the wellbeing of children and that court decisions relying on social work evidence suffered from pre-determinable bias because of the reliance on that information and a lack of consistency from social workers across the board. We have not resolved those problems, and that policy exacerbated the harm from that pre-determined bias.

And what we hear—I know that sounds like a complex way of putting it for some people. But to put it simply, in some levels, 48 percent of pregnant women—if I’m remembering correctly—whose pēpē Māori were taken into State care before birth had been in State care themselves. So if we’re thinking about the biases that are built into our system as well as the harm that our system has created and that we compound through interventions, this policy had a really significant role in causing harm.

And we are still hearing—a social service provider up in Auckland was just telling me a few weeks ago about how every single day they are working with whānau who have had their children taken or have been threatened to be taken, not because of abuse, but because of poverty and struggle to get housing.

So you think about this policy and where there’s been a history of a child being removed and you’re doing the assessment on whether that person is going to be safe, and they’re struggling to find permanent housing or space for their new baby or they’re struggling to pay their bills, it’s an understandable leap for the social worker to go, “Oh, actually, no. They’re not going to be safe.”

It puts the onus on that parent to do all the work of proving, “Hey look, I’ve done all of these programmes, I’ve got off the drugs, I’ve got my family support, my abusive partner is now being dealt with by these people.”—to make all of the cases to overcome that inherent bias is, what we’ve heard in too many reviews, just bloody impossible. And kids have been taken from loving parents.

What we’ve also heard is that the problem with that policy is, particularly when it’s the babies that have been removed, how long it takes after they’ve been removed to make your case to prove that, actually, now you’re safe. This came up in the Waitangi Tribunal—and it might be six months, it might be eight months, or it might be a year. And when I say those numbers in the House, that may not sound like a long time, but you think about that, the first period of life, the absolute initial bonding time, where that baby is attaching to somebody else, to another family that you have disrupted—the Crown has disrupted that attachment to them and their mum and their whānau, and the harm of that cannot be undone. So I am incredibly pleased to be seeing this policy amended.

I want to note, too, to some of the points that were made previously, that Judge Becroft’s submission to the Waitangi Tribunal about the impact of this policy—and I will try and quote it here if I can find it—described the provisions as “pernicious” and “totally unnecessary piece of legislation” that “should be repealed tomorrow.”

He considered the introduction of the legislation had led to a culture shift within Oranga Tamariki that exceeded actual application of that statute, noting that more broadly, the onus of proof shifted to parents to prove their ability to safely care for subsequent children, rather than the earlier onus on Oranga Tamariki to prove a parent could not safely care for subsequent children. And go back to that conversation and think about what it would take to prove to probably a Pākehā social worker for—

💬 Hon Todd McClay: That’s so racist.

—a Māori woman struggling against poverty—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What a racist comment to say.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: What a racist comment. Disgusting.

—to prove to a Pākehā social worker in a system that’s made pre-determinations that she is going to be safe. And to try and pretend that it’s inappropriate to say that when all of the data tells us—ha, ha!—the Waitangi Tribunal has ruled, our children’s commission has come to conclusive conclusions that the system has inbuilt structural racism; I’m not even going to deal with a pretence that that is not real. We need to get rid of this policy, and today is not a day too soon.

This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 September 2022. Thank you for your work this week, members.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5 p.m.