Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

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

I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the journey that this bill has taken to get to its third reading here today, with a particular focus on the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions. The journey began in 2019 when the former Minister for Children, the Hon Tracey Martin, initiated a first principles review of the subsequent child provisions. That review found they were not promoting the best interests of the children; rather, the provisions were actually causing harm. In particular, the provisions were causing harm to both the child and their older sibling who had already been removed from the parent’s care, because they would be pulled into additional and potentially traumatic court proceedings to confirm that the older child had no realistic probability of being returned to the care of their parents.

The provisions also impacted on Māori. Of the 19 declarations made under the provisions, 11 related to tamariki Māori, two related to children with both Māori and Pacific descent, and one to a child of Pacific descent. It’s not surprising, then, that the provisions are viewed with distrust by Māori, or that the Waitangi Tribunal found that the provisions caused prejudice to Māori and that until the Crown had completed the partial repeal, it was “in continuing breach of the duty to act in good faith, central to the partnership principle, and to actively promote Māori rangatiratanga over their kāinga.”

The partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions is therefore necessary to rebuild the faith, trust, and confidence that families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities need to have when dealing with Oranga Tamariki. Rebuilding that trust is also an important step in enabling the future direction of Oranga Tamariki. How can whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities trust Oranga Tamariki to work with them in partnership while such provisions are still in the legislation?

Also, importantly, the subsequent child provisions impacted on social workers and their ability to use their skills and expertise. The provisions also created conditions for hostility with parents, family, and whānau and undermined the ability of social workers to work in relational ways with whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. Our social workers do their best to support our vulnerable children and families every day. To do that, they need to be able to use their skills, experience, and professional knowledge, particularly in areas of work that require significant sensitivity and skill.

This bill is not just about the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions. It also makes a number of other changes to the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. This includes the repeal of a data set provision that is no longer required given that alternative safeguards and protections now exist. These alternative mechanisms are less administratively burdensome while still allowing for safe sharing of information.

Finally, the bill makes a number of other minor and technical changes to the Act, all of which are aimed at tidying up an Act that is over 30 years old and has been subject to a number of significant legislative amendments. This includes the change introduced at the committee of the whole House stage to amend section 198 to address the unintended consequences of a prior legislative change.

This bill is an important step in improving outcomes for children and young people. It is important to continue the journey of change of Oranga Tamariki. I would like once again to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin for her work on subsequent children and for starting the process to review the subsequent child provisions during her time as Minister for Children. I also want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the bill and their recommendations, which have improved the clarity of some of the technical amendments of the bill.

I also want to thank members of the public who helped the committee to consider the bill, through written and oral submissions. I know that many, like me, are ready and eager for change at Oranga Tamariki. Small steps, such as the partial repeal, are important to support that change to occur. I commend the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the National Party in opposition to this bill, the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, in its third and final reading tonight. This bill did not attract a huge amount of submissions during the select committee process. The Minister has just said that he thanks those submitters, but, unfortunately, many of them were distracted by the change to the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Bill. So having two bills happening at very similar times meant that we probably didn’t get the number of submissions that we would have liked. But that has not meant that the select committee did not scrutinise this bill in its entirety.

But there are a couple of main provisions in this amendment bill, and I’ll start with probably the smaller impact, which was the section 66D dataset provision, which is repealing that provision out of the existing Act. This provision only really came into effect in July 2019, so it really hasn’t had a lot of time to become embedded. But, as we found out, there were—so just as a matter of explanation, this is about information-sharing provisions and creating datasets and publicising where those datasets came from so that the public was made aware of them. But it turns out that this hadn’t been enacted or implemented, so we now find ourselves changing the law because it hasn’t been implemented. The excuse is that there have been no reports of these data sets, when, in actual fact, if we looked at implementation rather than the inaction that we’ve seen with this provision, it would seem logical to ensure that OT—Oranga Tamariki—was actually using that provision, rather than changing the law to cover up the inaction. So it just seems a little bit odd that we are even considering that, rather than using it for the purpose it was intended.

But the main part of this bill that has seen the Opposition oppose this bill is as it relates to the subsequent child provision. So I just note that the purpose of this is to enable women and families who have had a child who has been previously removed and there is no likelihood—not “possible likelihood” but “no likelihood”—realistically possible that that child or young person will be returned to that person’s care. That seems, on the face of it, quite innocuous, but what we find is that by virtue of the fact that this bill is removing the provision for an automatic response to the family to remove that child until there is clear proof that that child is going to be safe and will not be subject to the types of harm that the previous child had been exposed to.

So this is where we part our ways in terms of our view of this bill, because if we look at the main provision of new section 18B in the bill, it’s that Oranga Tamariki can continue to inquire into the safety of any subsequent children and provide supports for that child and their whānau and hold a family group conference. But we have heard throughout other readings on this bill that it is streamlining the process. We know that mums and dads, in some cases, do require absolute intense wraparound support to enable them to provide a home and security for subsequent children, but, in the meantime, there is still a risk that some children face. And that is why we think, on this side of the House, that the main purpose is to protect our children.

Now, the bill talks about the safety and wellbeing of these children, but, sadly, there is no definition of “safety” or “wellbeing” in this bill. So we also have a lot of concern from the people that did find concerns with this bill that there is no oversight then from Oranga Tamariki around safety and wellbeing and then support. So without confined definitions, Oranga Tamariki and the social workers become very subjective—and we don’t want subjectivity when it comes to the protection of our children.

So, unfortunately, if this provision goes through and this bill will be enacted tonight, it means that if Oranga Tamariki receives a report of concern about a child or young person and that child or young person’s care and protection needs to be assessed, sadly this is already after the fact, which means that we already have a report of concern which is, as we’ve seen with some of the children that have been subject to abuse in their family, already too late. And the reason the subsequent child provision was put in place in the first place was because of the potential risk—and it may not be real, but it may be potential risk. When we put children at the heart of legislation, it means that we are making sure that there is no risk to these children.

Now, the reason it’s called a partial repeal is because there is one part of that clause that is staying in there, and that is if there has been a murder, infanticide, or manslaughter—which is quite realistic and we support that. But, unfortunately, it does not extend into other forms of abuse that children can be subject to, which are serious physical abuses that leaves a child with permanent injuries or disabilities. We know how vulnerable they are to beating, broken bones, even the psychological damage, and that is now not taken into consideration. So, unfortunately, the partial repeal only applies to those who have killed children; not to those who have permanently disabled or harmed children in a psychological or physical way.

So I think before the Government passes this legislation they need to give some thought to those children that we are talking about. Look, there is less than 20 times this provision has been used—this subsequent child provision—in this country since it came in. That tells you that it is not commonplace to have used it, but in those cases where there is extreme concern for the safety of subsequent children, it has been used.

So I’d like to end my contribution by reminding the Government members of the children that we have heard about that have been publicly on display for the harm that has come to them and to pay tribute and remember them: James Whakaruru, the Kahui twins, Nia Glassie, Tahani Mahomed, Duwayne Pailegutu, and most recently Malachi Subecz. These children needed the support of the State to protect them. We have now exposed some very vulnerable children to some serious consequences, and I’m really disappointed that we’ve come to this, because if the Government was serious about putting children at the heart of their legislation, thinking of them first without thinking about streamlining a process, maybe using another Family Court hearing to assess the suitability of parents to continue to—

Order! The member’s time is up.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to rise for the partial repeal of some of this legislation, the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. The reason I’m delighted to be standing today is because the onus or burden of proof was reversed for parents who had lost a child to the State. That onus or burden of proof became once a subsequent child was born they had to prove that they would be a good and fit parent. It could be 20, 30 years later that they were that parent. They had to prove it. Without the resources that the State has, without the supports that the State can put in place, they had to prove this. And those children who were first removed, the first child that came before the subsequent child, those children had to attend court and they had to talk about why they were unable to ever be returned to their parents. I think that this was a repugnant piece of legislation that sat and was used in a way that took away the hope for families.

I hear what the member across the aisle said. The potential risk is what the member was talking about. But we’re not talking about potential risk in a small matter; we’re talking about the removal of a child from their family without any proven evidence that that child would be harmed. There is no subsequent evidence that that child would be harmed. And that is what I’m delighted about us having changed tonight. The removal of children from their families is harmful and should only occur in very exceptional circumstances—not automatically, not immediately when a further child is born to a family that has had an uplift.

I am absolutely pleased that this piece of legislation is changing, and I’m pleased about that because the oversight will still occur. Our communities will still be vigilant. Oranga Tamariki will still be vigilant. But the onus and burden of proof will be shifted back to the State to prove the child will be harmed. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill in this, its third reading. As we’ve heard, the bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 by partially repealing the subsequent child provisions. It has other matters of repealing the information-sharing provision and amending the technical errors and ambiguities, but I speak mainly to the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions.

They were introduced back in 2014 by the National Party and came into effect in 2016. The subsequent child provisions only apply when Oranga Tamariki receives a report of concern about a child, and the parent has previously had a child permanently removed from their care or has a conviction for the death of a child in their care. The provisions are intended to introduce an automatic mandatory response to ensure greater oversight over the safety of the subsequent child.

National continues to oppose this bill. We stand by our policy of the legislation that we bought in back in 2014. We stand by the policy because we believe that it does provide that automatic, that mandatory response to ensure greater oversight of the safety of subsequent children. We are concerned that the partial repeal of the provisions will increase subsequent children’s likelihood of being exposed to neglect and abuse by a parent. Sometimes people do change; there is absolutely no doubt about that. People turn their lives around. The previous speaker, Angie Warren-Clark, talked about the onus being on the parent to have to prove that they are a good parent. Well, they should have to. If they have seriously harmed a child, they should have to prove that they are a good and fit parent for their subsequent child. I don’t think we should be making excuses or saying that’s a bad thing. So sometimes people do turn themselves around, their lives around, but the benefit of doubt must always be with the child. It may disadvantage a parent; that’s quite right. It may, but we must always balance the risk to the child rather than the disadvantage to the parent.

Let’s be really clear: the subsequent child provision applies when Oranga Tamariki receives a report of concern and when the parent has already previously had a child permanently removed from their care and that child has no likelihood at all of returning to that parent. It’s entirely possible that the 19 times that this has been used since it was introduced has saved 19 children from serious harm, or, worse, from being killed.

I regularly have a young boy coming to visit us with his caregiver. He was shaken as a baby and was taken from his mother. He now lives his life in a wheelchair, non-verbal, and unable to eat by mouth. I wish that young child had been taken from his mother earlier. I wish the intervention had been earlier, because that dear little boy doesn’t get a second chance to prove himself. So our feeling is that the benefit of doubt must always, always, always be with the child, because there are no second chances for them. There is no opportunity for them to prove themselves. They have been the victims. The National Party prioritises, and I hope that all New Zealanders would prioritise, protecting children.

We have a shameful record of not protecting children from serious harm and being killed. It is a national shame to us all. We must concentrate on protecting children, their welfare and wellbeing, and enhancing families, whānau, and communities to care for and protect our children. Of course that is what we want to happen, but we must, first and foremost, protect those children. We must do everything possible to make our young children and our babies safer. If we don’t protect them, if we are constantly looking for ways to make it easier for the parent to retain the care of those children, then we put them at risk. I don’t know how anyone in this Parliament could live with putting children at greater risk.

For some reason, we have strayed into the thinking that the parent has to always be given the benefit of doubt. We have strayed into thinking we’ve got to be constantly looking for second chances. But so often we have let babies and young children down. As I keep saying, they don’t get a second chance. Every time I look at that young boy who visits us in a wheelchair, non-verbal, not able to eat—he didn’t get a second chance. So I’m not sure that this legislation giving the benefit of the doubt back to the parent, taking away the onus on the parent to prove that they are a fit and responsible person to have the care of that young child, I don’t consider it is the right direction for us to be moving to. We are not talking about insignificant matters. We are talking about serious harm to our babies and young children. Because of that, we certainly oppose this legislation.

I have spent most of my adult life in and out of the Family Court as a lawyer and a researcher. So when I hear the member opposite speak about the need to keep children out of the hands of parents who are truly terrible, yeah, I understand, absolutely, what she’s saying.

But the reality is really, really complicated. And we’re not talking about that very top tier of parents; we’re talking about the tier down. One of the things that I do just want to briefly say about this bill is that because it puts that judgment role so strongly on social workers, what it also did was completely destroy the social workers’ ability to work with the whānau. It destroyed trust and it destroyed the ability of parents who had slipped but had the opportunity and the ability to come back from that, from doing so.

For example, I remember a woman we worked with for many years, had a baby very young and the danger to that child was not her—it was her violent partner and the dad. The child was taken from her. She split with dad; she stayed away from dad. But every time she had a baby, that baby was at risk of being removed and she had to fight that same system. It wasn’t fair, it wasn’t appropriate, it destroyed the relationships she could have had with the social workers. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with pleasure I rise to offer the Green Party’s support for this bill, though we would have gone further.

But I want to start my contribution with picking up from a submission from Morgan Tupaea to the Social Services and Community Committee from Morgan’s Master’s thesis around the lived experience of removals, because I want to ground this in experience of people in our country. The quote that comes later is from a mother who’s had her first baby removed from her care due to her experiences as a family-violence victim.

The point that the previous speaker, Emily Henderson, made is that an experience that is very common to anybody who has worked in domestic violence in this country is where survivors of abuse are punished twice for the abuse of their partner, and their children lose the attachment to the protective parent because our system does not recognise adequately the dynamics of family violence.

And in the case of this quote I’m about to read, the victim’s victimisation was seen as a reason to sever the relationship between her and her baby. Despite removing herself from that context of domestic violence and working with kaumātua and community groups to make positive changes in her life, her history of victimisation—this is from the submission—was weaponised against her by the State a second time. In this instance, she was subjected to the uplift of her second child within 24 hours of her birth. This is the quote in the submission: “She got to the door of the hospital room. She screamed, and she was running, and I got up, because I’ve got my walking stick, and I’m running and we get outside and … as soon as I got to the door, all I saw was police cars. They had a police van across the hospital gate. They had five police cars and were carrying [a] baby out. And we ran, and she was screaming, and I was trying to catch up to her, a cop ran past me. [And] I don’t know if he tackled her or what, but anyway, I’m hoping not, I couldn’t see ‘cause I was down on the ground, and they brought her back.” And this was from a kaumātua watching the removal of a child from a victim of family violence because of a policy like this, which we are about to remove, and it’s long overdue for it to be removed.

There’s discussion of harm—and I completely get that we want to care for our kids. If we hold our children centre, as I’ve heard coming from National Party members tonight, we have to think about this holistically. Removing the ability to attach to a safe parent has lifelong consequences. This is not removing the requirement for there to be an assessment of safety, but it just means that it’s up to the State to prove that there is not safety in that family. That is important when the State has such a fundamentally problematic history where the State has, again and again and again, got this wrong, where children and families have been destroyed because of our lack of understanding of this. This is something that I—you might be able to tell—feel kind of passionately about. I think that our whānau and our kids deserve for us to think about this in all of its complexity, and not in the simplicity.

I also do just want to note that this legislation and the review that was initiated by Minister Martin last term was in the wake of the Hastings uplift, where, as a country—I suspect for the first time—we got to witness the uplift of a tamaiti Māori, and it shook us, as a country, that this myth of a benign State caring for children, was exposed as a myth. The absolute violence of the State, and the intrusion into whānau—and the right, as recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal, of tino rangatiratanga over kāinga was just destroyed. We all got to see something that had, up until that point, been experienced by whānau again and again and again, but hidden—because these are secretive processes out of consideration of privacy. But, in that instance, they were exposed.

I believe we need to come back to that in this debate. Remember, for those members who saw that video—and I hope everybody did—what their reaction was to that, because it should have been shock. This is important to put in the context of colonisation and the fact that Māori children make up 25 percent of children in this country and yet they make up 68 percent of children in care. As the Waitangi Tribunal has recognised, and I will quote from the tribunal ruling around Oranga Tamariki: “The urgent issue before us concerns the long-term and significant disparity between the number of Tamariki Māori and non-Māori children being taken into State care. The disparity has arisen and persists in part due to the effects of alienation and dispossession, but also because of a failure by the Crown to honour the guarantee to Māori of the right of cultural continuity embodied in the guarantee of Tino Rangatiratanga over their kāinga. It is more than just a failure to honour or uphold, it is also a breach born of hostility to the promise itself.”

Now, anybody hearing that, reading that judgment, who is going to quibble and oppose the first piece of legislation that makes any step towards addressing that has a problem, to my mind. This is the first piece of legislation, and it is a tiny step. I do want to bring in the calls from submitters, including the Children’s Commissioner, and I will, because we’ve heard a lot from this side of the House, including myself, about the importance of the voice of the Children’s Commissioner and how we should be strengthening that voice and not undermining it. Then, in the next opportunity, when we hear from the commissioner and they are saying, “Actually, this bill should go further, this needs to happen.” They never said vote against this. They said, “Do it. But, actually, you should repeal the entire provision.” It’s a real shame to hear that that is not being listened to on this side of the House.

The reason they were calling for that is an acknowledgment that while this provision has not often been used in that specificity, it has had a profound impact, as already acknowledged by the Minister for Children, on the trust of whānau in social workers. It has completely undermined the ability for them to build relationships and to be able to work through any issues that the whānau may have. It has undermined good social work practice and meant that social workers have increasingly been making poor decisions in a broader sense. And it has undermined, specifically, tino rangatiratanga over kāinga. So they are three very significant points that, I believe, are incredibly important to listen to.

So the Greens would have repealed this entire provision and we would have wanted to see legislation that went much further. We’ve had so many reports telling us that the system is failing. I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to transformation, and that’s being done through internal work. My concern is that without legislation to bolster that, it’s very easy for initiatives to go into place and for changes to start happening, but when attention goes off, things go back to the default of how they were. Our children deserve and need better than that. But this is still a step forward because this provision is harmful. If we have a choice of acting to prevent harm, then we need to do that in this House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. This has been a weird process from the very beginning, starting from the select committee process in the way of we did not get many submissions when it came to this bill, because it ran alongside another bill that was quite contentious and it kind of was hidden in the shadows behind that contentious bill, which was the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill. So there was not much feedback on this amendment bill and thoughts on what kinds of unintended consequences may come about by what this bill is intending to do.

So what this bill is proposing to do is to partially repeal the subsequent child provisions which came into effect on 30 June 2016. By repealing that, it will mean that only children who have died at the hands of an adult whose care they were in—whether it be through manslaughter, murder, or infanticide—will come under the provision of an automatic mandatory report being made and making sure that an assessment is done to make sure that any other children that are born to that person is in a safe home.

Whilst I kind of feel for the Government and understand where they were coming from, I think we’ve raised the bar a bit too high when it comes to what a parent or a caregiver can actually do before we think “Wow, maybe we should make sure that the next child isn’t put at any risk of this happening to them.” Personally, I have seen the damage of children who have come after children who have been abused and neglected in their home, and then another child has come along and suffered sometimes a worse fate than what the first child suffered. I feel that a safety net is needed.

So that’s why in the committee of the whole House I did put forward an alternative and a Supplementary Order Paper in my name, requesting that we add in another provision—apart from murder, manslaughter, or infanticide—that would also include a person who was convicted under sections 188 to 204 of the Crimes Act 1961 of an offence involving the assault or injury of a child or a young person who is in the person’s care or custody at the time of the offence.

Now, these aren’t small, minor issues. These are issues that could be—I’ll list a few: wounding with intent, injuring with intent, strangulation or suffocation, aggravated wounding or injury, aggravated assault, assault with intent to injure, assault on a child, ill treatment or neglect of a child, disabling, discharging a firearm in their presence, poisoning, infecting with a disease, or assault with a weapon. So I’m not talking about small minor issues within a home. I’m talking about major issues where someone would be convicted with at least three months of prison time.

I feel it’s up to us to be the protection for the young people who cannot protect themselves. And we have seen this Government, previous Governments, and Governments before—for a long time—who have, with best of intentions, tried to have our children living in safe environments, but have failed. Just recently, over the last few years, we’ve seen report after report after report into Oranga Tamariki, and whatever it was called before it was called Oranga Tamariki, stating that they are not doing their job. They are not actually protecting our children and children are slipping through the cracks.

I mentioned the Oranga Tamariki Oversight Bill at the very beginning, because the select committee process ran side by side. Part of me is concerned that by changing this and getting rid of the safety net here for subsequent children, my concern is around the oversight process when things go wrong. So now we’ve got two bills that I feel are going to let our children down. It’s a scary thought. I have every belief that those within the select committee process that were sitting across the table from me are trying to do the right thing, but the unintended consequences are just far too damaging to ignore.

Now, I’ve heard that social workers will still have the ability to act if a report of concern is made. I think I heard it mentioned on this side of the House previously that that’s after the fact. It’s after the fact that somebody has seen something that they feel they need to report. And from experience, it takes a lot for somebody to report. It’s not just somebody thinking, “Oh, maybe something’s wrong.” It takes a lot for somebody to put in a report of concern. Then once you put in the report of concern, what is the process after that? Recent reports have shown us that even if someone has put in a report of concern, there’s no guarantee that that report of concern is going to be followed up. There’s no guarantee that that report of concern is going to be taken seriously. Whereas if we have an automatic mandatory check, it’s there, it’s in place, and it has to be done and we know it will be done. And we’re not relying on an after the fact report of concern when we may be too late.

Can we afford not to have this safety net? Whether or not it’s an inconvenience to parents, hapū, iwi, and children that have come before, is that inconvenience worth saving a life for? In my mind, it is. Because a child can never get their life back if they pass away. We can say sorry as much as we like, but that’s not going to bring back a child that loses their life or ends up with a lifetime of disability because a safety net that may be a bit inconvenient for our system is taken away.

I have huge concerns about the potential risk we are putting these children in. Through best of intentions, I hear that we’ve got to rebuild the faith and trust of families, iwi, and hapū. Surely, it’s the other way round. Surely they should rebuild their trust in the State to show that they are capable of looking after these children. There should be some kind of accountability for bad behaviour and terrible behaviour when it comes to our children. We are losing too many children and we’re making too many excuses for the bad behaviour of these parents.

I hear that a lot of parents that have ended up in these situations have been victims of abuse themselves. I’m sorry about that; that should never have happened. But it is also not an excuse to let people get away with creating more victims. Because when does this cycle break? When do we break the cycle of abuse and harm to our children? When do we say it’s not OK and we’re going to make sure that this doesn’t happen to another child?

This bill does not do that. It actually puts our children at more risk. So we oppose this bill and hope that the Government can come forward with some better legislation in the future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill, because what this bill does by repealing the subsequent child provisions—partially repealing them—is it basically means that social workers can get on and do what they do best, and that is use their skills and expertise to walk alongside families and children, and also to support those parents who’ve decided that they’re going to turn the situation around and do the best by their subsequent child.

I think we’ve heard in the House tonight about the really negative impacts that these provisions have had on parents’ ability to bond with their subsequent children, but also social workers to be able to work with whānau to ensure the best outcomes for children. But this bill also has safeguards, and I think it’s basic social work practice—walking alongside families is one aspect, but, also, making sure that we retain the subsequent child provision for parents or caregivers who’ve been convicted of the death of a child in their care. So making sure that we get that balance right.

I think it’s an important bill, and it’ll make a difference to a small number of children, but a very important group of children, in our country. I commend this bill to the House.

Every child’s life matters. That’s where my focus and attention is for this debate, and has been right throughout the series of debates on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.

I have no pleasure or delight in taking this call, because what I’ve heard consistently coming from the other side, the Government who is charged responsibility, the Minister for Children, charged responsibility, for the welfare, the best interests, the wellbeing, the paramountcy of our New Zealand children’s lives has not been the priority in this debate. What I’m hearing, what New Zealanders are hearing, is that the subsequent child provision is being amended to satisfy and suit social work practice and parental rights. The whole point and focus of this debate has been charged and focused wrongly.

Prior to coming into public service here in this House since 2017, like one of my colleagues across the House I’ve dedicated my professional life in service to child welfare—a child specialist lawyer. The subsequent child provision partial repeal of this law, which is the controversial and contentious point of the amendments, some 40 amendments, now 41 with the Supplementary Order Paper supported by the Minister for Children going through, not one of those focuses primarily on protecting the child. The subsequent children’s provision was specifically about that.

I have heard—this is highly charged, and there has been emotional debate and contribution. I’m speaking with clarity and experience of the law. I know that the subsequent child provision has been controversial, but the whole point of it is to be proactive, not react to a child who has been seriously harmed or abused. And I have repeatedly reiterated in this House the number of reviews, the number of reports, the number of recommendations, most recently from Dame Karen Poutasi stating, as a result of review and findings of Malachi Subecz’s life—death. That child is dead because there was not the blanket of protection provided by the State. There were notifications of his abuse and there was no reaction.

This subsequent child provision is about being proactive, not having to react to harm already caused. I’ve heard that it’s repugnant, it is repugnant that the onus of proof is on the parent or is reversed. Actually, look and read the law. The assessment requirement is on the State welfare agency to do its job properly. I have heard repeatedly in this House, and I acknowledge social workers have a very difficult job and they know it going into it, but they have a high burden of responsibility, and that burden of responsibility under the subsequent child provision, section 18A through to C—and this is a partial repeal about who satisfies and is a parent that meets the subsequent provision of their child taken into care and what should happen. What hasn’t happened, and it’s been mentioned that only 19 cases have been activated under this provision. Part of that is because of social work policy and practice.

The provision under the law quite clearly states the onus—we talk about the reverse onus, and it’s been reiterated and repeated and stated that that burden is on the parent, actually, in part, but it’s on the social worker. Section 18A(2): “If the chief executive believes on reasonable grounds that a person is a person to whom this section applies,” that is, the person described as a parent of a child who has been previously taken into care and permanent placement—the subsequent child, the burden, the onus, is on Oranga Tamariki to do the checks and the assessments. Not on the parent. There has been so much misinformation. I do not commend the bill to the House.

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and want to acknowledge Minister Davis for his leadership in this space, but also colleagues who have had direct experience as practitioners in this space as well.

This bill will effectively lead to a partial repeal of what other colleagues have referred to in what is colloquially known as the “subsequent child provisions”. And when one reflects on the potential removal of trauma, of distress, for children within a court setting, then that means that this is a good move.

Much has been said in this House this evening about the role of social workers, and I want to commend the work that social workers do in this Family Court jurisdiction space, alongside lawyers as well. Where the status quo effectively places those practitioners in a difficult position, that is not a good move. So this change is a positive move. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Having worked at Oranga Tamariki, having worked in the social services sector for over a decade, having worked in the volunteer and community sector for over a decade, and being a member of the Social Services and Community Committee who heard the submitters on this bill, one thing that is really clear and one thing I think everyone can agree to is that the Oranga Tamariki system needs change. They need change to make sure that we are protecting our most vulnerable, our tamariki, our whānau, and also making sure that our social workers can do the job they need to do. That is what this bill does.

On this side of the House, we are very clear: this is about making sure that we make real change for our people of New Zealand. It’s not about putting plasters on, not about filling holes; this is making sure that the real change is going to support children, support their family, and support social workers to do the job they want to do, and that is work meaningfully—meaningfully—without being restricted.

That is what the partial repeal of the subsequent child does. That repeal will make sure that social workers can do the job that they trained to do, that they want to do, and that is care for our children, help and support our families, make sure they do right by children. That is what this Labour Government is trying to do: make sure that we remove those barriers so social workers can do their job, less kids go into care, that families can stay together. That is what this bill does, and that is why we support it. I commend this bill to the House.

That member, Terisa Ngobi, just made the point; that is exactly what the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill is about. It should be about protecting children. But no, this is an ideological piece of legislation, because Labour has decided they want fewer children in State care. Well, no apologies from this side: I want fewer New Zealand children harmed. When we live in a country where one child is killed every five weeks, actually their interests should come first. And who is accountable? The Minister for Children. So, yep, social workers do incredible work, but the accountability sits with the Minister.

I want to draw your attention to the comment that talked about a first principles review of the provisions, in 2019, that found they were not operating in a way that promoted the best interests of children, nor as originally intended. That’s not a fault with the law; that’s a fault in how it’s being implemented. And, fundamentally, when this legislation was introduced, it was the vulnerable children’s legislation. It was aimed and targeted at vulnerable children, and it was all about the prevention of harm. So why on earth—why on earth—if it wasn’t for an ideological reason, would Labour change it? Because, on this side of the House, we do not want to sit back and watch yet another child be harmed or killed.

Let’s face facts. It’s not a pleasant reality, but the reality is that for a parent who has had a child removed, or a parent who has been responsible for the manslaughter or murder of a child of theirs or of a child in their care, unfortunately, that past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour. So we are very clear on this side: we are not willing to risk additional harm to that child, and we absolutely must ensure that they are protected, first and foremost. “Oh, no, no. We’ll give it a go.”, says Labour. “We’ll let the parents have the subsequent child, and we’ll keep an eye on them.” Really? No matter how hard a social worker works to support that family, there is a risk. And it is naive to suggest, to think, or to ideologically think it’s anything other than that. So the child should be the first, the second, the third, and every other priority in this legislation. But, unfortunately, they are not.

I want to put on record that National believes in the ability of families, no matter how broken, no matter how dysfunctional, no matter what has happened in the past, to get back up, to heal, to improve, and to learn and develop and grow. So we are not saying we are writing those parents off. We’re just saying: do not put a child at risk of harm. So, absolutely, work intensively with that family, get them to a place where they can have children in their care, but do not—do not—place that child in a place of harm or risk.

National has a very clear social investment approach, and Nicola Willis gave a fantastic speech recently about “doing good better”. One of the elements of social investment is early identification—actually making sure that we are targeting our investment in areas that get the best results. I firmly believe—I firmly believe—that many of the families that these children belong to can rebuild and can have children returned, but the first priority must be keeping those children safe, and then allowing, over time, a safe, managed return.

This is about reversing this onus of proof. I don’t think it’s too onerous for a parent who’s had a child permanently removed from their care, a child that has been murdered or has died through manslaughter or infanticide—that any subsequent children, their priority and their safety is put first. I don’t think that is too onerous. I would have thought that makes complete and utter sense. And, to this side, that’s what we believe—we firmly believe. And, actually, I’m still staggered as we debate this in the final reading that others in this House don’t think that the child’s rights and safety are paramount. I accept, like many in this debate, that Oranga Tamariki has a lot of work to do, but don’t just keep changing the law; help them with their practice, ensure they are complying with the law. And I don’t want to labour the point with Karen Poutasi’s report, but it was heartbreaking to read that.

You know, we have a law; they’re well designed for a reason. There is a risk to a child, based on their parent’s previous behaviour, that it’s likely to be repeated. If it’s not repeated, that’s great; that’s a bonus. But can we not put an innocent child as the kind of experiment: “Well, let’s just see, shall we? Shall we just see if those parents have reformed? We’ll just put the child in their care even though we know there have been some horrendous things that have happened in the past. Oh, no, no, no, we’ll just leave the next child there. We’re sure it’ll be all good.” Well, unfortunately, history tells us that it’s not. That’s why this provision was put into the bill in the first place, in 2014. That’s why it was put into what was then the vulnerable children’s legislation—“vulnerable”. They are vulnerable—that’s why they need protection—and this bill strips away fundamental protections and the ability to prevent harm.

I’m proud to be part of a party that focuses on children and reducing harm, not one that is just talking about the numbers of children in State care—as if that’s the measure that counts. No, because when I come to work, I want to know that the work we do in this House not only improves the lives of vulnerable New Zealanders but protects them. And who are the most vulnerable? These children. We’ve seen, with other pieces of legislation that we have been involved with, that Labour’s not listening. As Karen Chhour, the ACT member, quite rightly said, this bill didn’t get the attention it needed, because there was such a furore on the oversight of Oranga Tamariki legislation that I don’t think enough submitters paid attention to this. They know how important it is that we get this right—that a lot of the work still to occur is with Oranga Tamariki and their systems and processes and care practices; it’s not with the law. It is with the oversight to ensure that they are doing what they’re meant to be doing and that they’re doing it in the best way possible.

We want to see, through prevention and early intervention, through a social investment approach, that we can do good better, because our children—every single one of them—deserve it. So it is with no pleasure that I stand in this House to debate this piece of legislation, because I know it will go through. I find it disgusting. I find it disgusting that members in this House are willing to put vulnerable children in the firing line, in the line of harm. National vehemently opposes this legislation to put subsequent children of parents, adults who have killed their children—it’s just simply not right.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m humbled to rise and take a final call on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. As I’ve listened to all of the debates, I know that one thing is clear: that everybody stands in this House doing their best to protect our young people, our children, our most vulnerable—but that is where agreement ceases, I understand. I know we’ve had some really gnarly issues being bravely addressed by this bill. I’ve listened to the experts, to the voices that I trust, those people who have worked in the Family Court system, like Dr Henderson, but also from those who have lived through it and given us their advice, as brought to us by Jan Logie today—those voices of intergenerational trauma. We know the law hasn’t been working, and when we talk about damage being done to young people, we know that the way this legislation plays out increases trauma and distress.

I want to just take a moment to thank all of the officials and the Hon Kelvin Davis for doing this difficult mahi and making some real change that will allow everybody that needs to to step in to protect our children and our young people, wrap around them and make sure that their lives aren’t just a matter of survival but that they thrive into the future. I commend this bill to the House.