Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

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

The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the independent monitoring of the children’s system and make it crystal clear to children who their advocate is. These changes intend to build public trust in monitoring and advocacy and improve governance of the oversight of the children’s systems. This bill fulfils the Government’s commitment to create a truly independent monitoring and oversight agency for Oranga Tamariki.

I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its careful consideration of the bill, and I’d also like to put on record my gratitude to the members of the public and the organisations who provided both written and oral submissions to support the select committee process. This bill was informed not only by the recent submissions but by extensive consultation from the recent changes to the oversight of the children’s system that was made in 2022.

Feedback on the 2021 Oversight of the Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill raised concern about the monitor’s independence, suggesting that a departmental agency may not be seen as fully independent of political considerations. To respond to these concerns, this bill will change the institutional arrangements of the monitor to be an independent Crown entity to further strengthen its independence. Feedback on the 2021 bill also emphasised the idea of having a single individual acting in the role of advocate: in other words, having a clear Children’s Commissioner. So this bill addresses that concern by disestablishing the current five-member board model of the commission and, in its place, establishes a single Children’s Commissioner.

The recent submissions on this bill were broadly supportive of the intent to strengthen monitoring and oversight of the children’s system. The most widely supported change was the decision to make the monitor an independent Crown entity, which submitters viewed as vital for the monitor to effectively fulfil its monitoring function of the children’s system. This has been called for time and time again, including in previous feedback, and also in the final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. The report called for robust independent oversight and monitoring of care as a critical way of ensuring that care providers fulfil their duties to people in care.

Some submissions expressed concern that reducing the board of the commission would result in less diverse perspectives in the governance of the entity. Having a sole Children’s Commissioner, however, does not preclude diversity and there are measures to ensure that wide-ranging perspectives are considered, including collaboration with Māori, which is set out in the bill. There are also clear functions that require the commission to promote the interests and wellbeing of children and young people, and encourage their participation on decisions that affect their wellbeing.

These changes to the commission and monitor must be viewed within the context of the entire monitoring and oversight of the children’s system. By creating more independent entities, the commission and monitor, along with the Ombudsman, will be better positioned to ensure diverse views are considered and address any gaps that may arise. Some of the submissions expressed concern about the timing for these changes given the current system came into effect in 2022. I do want to say, though, that these changes are structural changes rather than fundamentally changing the functions of the entities, which desperately needed simplification and clarification, which the previous legislation did. This was supported by the latest independent review of the legislation, which found that the functions and changes introduced in 2022 are working as intended and didn’t recommend making any significant changes at this point, given it will take time for the oversight system to mature.

To minimise any disruption to the two entities’ work, which are so important, the bill provides that the chief executive of the monitor will continue as chief executive of the new independent Crown entity for one year from the commencement of the bill, and the current Chief Children’s Commissioner will also become the first Children’s Commissioner for one year from the commencement of the bill. These continuations will balance the need for stability during a period of change as they go through these transitions over the next year.

Finally, some of the submissions asked to see clear consideration of Māori perspectives by the oversight entities. This is provided for in the current legislation by requiring the monitor to collaborate with a Māori advisory group and to make reasonable efforts to develop arrangements with hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations for their monitoring. A similar provision also exists for the Children’s Commission by maintaining and building relationships with hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations as part of their advocacy role. In addition, the responsible Minister must consider expertise in Te Tiriti o Waitangi when appointing someone as Children’s Commissioner, and these provisions will be retained under the new legislation.

During the committee of the whole House, an important addition to this bill will be made to strengthen accountability for agencies that are the subject of specific reports by the monitor. I want to also put on record my appreciation for the time and consideration that all members of this House have taken to strengthen this particular step.

This bill will amend the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act to require agencies and contracted non-Government organisations who provide care for children to complete additional reporting on their progress to improve their compliance with the Oranga Tamariki National Care Standards (NCS) regulations. These progress reports will be required four months after agencies provide their initial response to the monitor’s annual report on the NCS regulations. So, as I say, I appreciate parties in the House for their support on bringing this amendment at this time.

The bill also covers consequential and transition arrangements for the monitor and the commission to ensure smooth transition of these functions.

Overall, this bill strengthens the independent monitoring and oversight of the children’s system and makes it crystal clear to children who their advocate is. I see this as the next step in how we better protect and support children in care. So I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I, first and foremost, want to acknowledge all of the submitters who submitted to the Social Services and Community Committee on this bill. I also acknowledge that, Madam Speaker, you were a member of the select committee that heard the submissions on this bill. Our tamariki are our greatest taonga. Each and every one of them deserves to feel loved, connected to their family and communities, and proud of who they are. Unfortunately, our systems are falling short for our children, which is why this bill is so important. We need strong oversight mechanisms that advocate for children and keep track of where there is work to be done and where there is progress, or, as we just heard, where there may not be sufficient progress. I will come to the tabled amendment later on in my speech.

Can I say here that Labour supports this bill but, in supporting it, we do so with some reservations, and I’ll just outline what those reservations are. First, we are concerned about the return to a single Children’s Commissioner. When Labour established the Children’s Commission board, it was to provide greater diversity and advocacy and representation for our children. In the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s statement, we heard her address those issues and concerns, but I want to make it clear for the record that collaboration with Māori is not the same as having direct representation of Māori on that board. So we still hold the position that we would have preferred for the Children’s Commission—that it be made up of a board which has that diversity for advocacy and representation at that level.

We did this because we know that our tamariki and rangatahi would benefit from having people with a broad range of backgrounds and experiences advocating for them. And we know from the time that we have had this in place—and acknowledging that it is only a short time that it has been in place—there has never been any doubt or confusion, or lack of clarity or certainty, that when the Children’s Commissioner has presented those views, who that is and where that is coming from. So I believe that it is an unnecessary change to go back to a single Children’s Commissioner and that we are, unfortunately, after such a short amount of time, getting rid of something that could have enhanced the system even more. We know Māori children and children with disabilities disproportionately end up in State care, so strengthening the Children’s Commission with up to five commissioners was a way to bring wider representation to children’s diverse experiences in this country. On that note, can I encourage our current Children’s Commissioner, who I am pleased will be continuing for another year after this legislation has passed: kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui [be strong, be bold, and be stout of heart].

The second issue that I want to talk to is that we believe that the Independent Children’s Monitor, within the Education Review Office, had the independence required for such a crucial monitoring entity. When we asked these questions in the select committee process, it was clear to us that there wasn’t an issue of the Independent Children’s Monitor being able to do their work without being influenced or interfered with by anybody else—they have diligently carried out their work. So I hear what the Minister is saying: that through the consultation process and submission process in 2021, there were significant concerns about it not being fully independent, and therefore that perception does impact on the trust that people have on the organisation in its important role. What I hear from the Minister’s speech this afternoon is that these changes are more about its structure, not its substance; more about its form, not its function—because in terms of substance and function, it was able to do that and has produced useful reports about the children’s system. But in order to address those concerns raised in 2021 regarding pure independence, these changes are being proposed and being made and we support them.

Thirdly, I would like to point out, though, that there were a number of submissions which made reference to the royal commission’s report on abuse in State care and the recommendations that that report made, and the disappointment of many that the Government did not take this opportunity to address those recommendations and respond to those recommendations. So, as we heard, from the 2021-2022 time, there was information available then, but we’ve also had information since, and this legislation is perhaps a missed opportunity to have responded to the royal commission’s report into abuse in State care. In particular, recommendations 85, 86, and 87 of Whanaketia talk about these monitoring and oversight entities and what should happen in terms of those. One I’ve got highlighted here is “consolidate the existing care and protection and youth justice independent monitoring and oversight entities into a single entity.”

So, as it is, we currently have the independent Children’s Commissioner, the Independent Children’s Monitor, and the ombudsman all performing different functions, all in their separate spaces. I think that what we heard from submitters, and what I am sharing with the House this afternoon, is, unfortunately, this bill was a missed opportunity to address those recommendations. One of the things that the royal commission found was that there was a disjointed nature of our systems and that contributed to harm in care, and children and perpetrators fell through the oversight gaps. So the recommendations in Whanaketia were designed to join up the system and to close those gaps. So while I appreciate that the bill has a five-year review provision, five years is a long way off, and the timing of this bill was close enough to the tabling of Whanaketia for the royal commission’s recommendations to be given greater consideration as this bill progressed. The Government’s refusal to do this is indicative of their general approach to the royal commission: to do as little as they can get away with.

The conditions that the royal commission highlighted in their report still exist today. Last year, 519 children were harmed in State care. The children’s monitor and commissioner and ombudsman have played a crucial role in alerting us all to this fact and seek accountability, but this Government must also properly consider and implement the recommendations in Whanaketia if we have any hope of changing the system so that this harm stops.

I want to use the last minute or so to talk to the tabled amendment. We also just had a session with the Minister on the Independent Children’s Monitor in select committee where we asked questions about how we can monitor the progress that entities within the children’s system—many agencies, eight or nine agencies—make on the issues that are identified in these reports. I think that the message I want to leave here is that these reports do their work—their important work—they identify the issues for us, but once that’s happened, action is needed. So that accountability mechanism, I think, is an important addition, because what is the point of having a report if we can’t see and hold those agencies accountable to progress in terms of addressing the issues raised within it? We commend this bill to the House.

I rise today in support of this bill, the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. But I also remind the House that while this is a step forward, it is only a step and it cannot be the last. It cannot be the only action we take, because if we are serious about the safety, wellbeing, and mana of our tamariki, then we must be serious about the systems that fail them, the structures that oppress them, and the history that brought us to this point.

This bill makes necessary changes to enhance the oversight and monitoring system of our care system by establishing the monitor as an independent Crown entity. It responds to issues that should never have existed in the first place—issues that have harmed generations of our most vulnerable. While it is right that we act to strengthen protections for tamariki, of course, we must not pretend that this bill alone will fix the deep systemic failures within Oranga Tamariki.

For the Greens, the existence of Oranga Tamariki itself is an admission of failure. It is an admission that our systems do not adequately support whānau to stay together; that we have built structures that intervene rather than structures that prevent harm in the first place. The tamariki of New Zealand deserve for us to do everything we can to prevent harm from happening—harm that is happening through no fault of their own.

Our country has allowed a State agency to take children, disproportionately Māori children, from their families rather than supporting those families with the resources, the care, and the wraparound support they need to thrive. The monitor’s work is a critical part of exposing these failures. Its latest report, Outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau in the oranga tamariki system is yet another stark and scathing reminder that—and I quote from the report—“tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau are over-represented in the oranga tamariki system and the system is letting them down.”

Further to the monitor’s report, Experiences of Care in Aotearoa 2023/2024 is yet another stark reminder that our care system does not even meet the bare minimum of care required by law. The National Care Standards were meant to set a baseline, a promise to tamariki in State care that they would be safe, supported, and cared for, but the monitor has found that tamariki and rangatahi are still not even receiving that. My colleague previously reminded us that, in the previous year, over 500 tamariki and rangatahi were abused in State care. That is a system that remains broken. That is the State failing the very children it claims to protect. That should be unacceptable to every single person in this House.

The monitor is not just an oversight body; it is a mirror held up to the Government, to Oranga Tamariki, and to every agency responsible for the care and protection of our tamariki. It tells us year after year what tamariki in care are experiencing and what we are still failing to do. But a mirror is only useful if those looking into it are willing to change. Strengthening the monitor’s independence is a necessary step, but it cannot be the end goal because oversight alone does not protect children. Transparency alone does not create safe and thriving whānau. We must act on what we see in that mirror. We must ensure that the monitor has the power and resourcing needed to go even further to investigate, to make binding recommendations, and to drive systemic change. The work does not stop simply at documenting failures. It must lead to real reform.

My colleagues in Te Pāti Māori and Labour have rightly raised concerns about this bill, and the Greens stand alongside them in recognising that we must go further. The failures of Oranga Tamariki are not just failures of policy; they are failures of colonisation, of racism, and of an entire system built on the idea that the State knows what’s best when it comes to tamariki Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal has told us this. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care has told us this. Māori communities have told us this for decades. The independent monitor told us this just last week, and yet we are still here today debating incremental reforms rather than transformational change.

We cannot talk about protecting children without talking about the material conditions that drive families into crisis, without talking about poverty, housing, food insecurity, and underfunding of kaupapa Māori solutions. If we were truly serious about ensuring the safety and wellbeing of tamariki, we would be investing in a future where Oranga Tamariki is no longer needed, where no child is taken from their whānau because of poverty, when no family is left without support, where Māori solutions designed by and for Māori are fully resourced and embedded at every level. We must remove poverty from the home, not children.

This bill is an improvement, and that is why we support it. I acknowledge that the Green Party welcomes and supports the Minister’s amendment to this bill set out in Amendment Paper 292. These changes introduce new clause 6A, which requires chief executives to prepare progress reports on how they are responding to the monitor’s findings—reports that explain what’s changed, what’s to be actioned, and what remains outstanding. This is a necessary strengthening of accountability. It closes a loop that has too often remained open, and we thank the Minister for listening to advocates during the select committee. Hopefully, this will mean that the monitor will no longer issue report after report with little to no action being taken. Agencies must not only respond to the criticism but report back on the progress clearly, publicly, and on time.

These amendments would also require the monitor to publish these progress reports by the chief executive within 10 working days, which ensures transparency and timely scrutiny. This bill is an improvement, and we do support it, but let us not mistake legislative change for true transformation.

The work does not end here—it cannot end here, because if we truly want to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi, if we truly want to build a future where all tamariki are safe, we must be willing to make bigger, bolder, and more radical steps.

The Greens will continue to fight for that future, a future where tamariki are safe not because the State intervenes but because we have built a society where they never needed intervention in the first place. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—I see you’ve got a bit of a cold there still; hope you’re doing well. I rise in support of this bill. Currently, we know that the monitor is part of a departmental agency, and this piece of legislation aims to make it an independent Crown agency—to really give the agency some teeth. Why is this important? Because we do know that the State is a terrible parent. We know this. Report after report after report highlights the failings of the Government, and it’s really important that we do have an independent monitor that is able to come out and say where these failings are, and I do actually think it’s really important that we have some mechanisms in place to see how the Government is tracking and how the agencies are tracking to remedy these things, and that’s something that I fully support.

What I don’t support is other members of the House saying that this is all the State’s fault.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Complete rubbish!

It’s completely and utterly rubbish. It’s not the State’s fault. If a child has ended up in the care of the State, society has failed. We have all failed; society has failed. New Zealand’s got a horrible track record. Those things are not going to change by this House. These radical changes are going to change out there in the real world, and with people taking accountability for what happens in their communities and in their homes.

I support this bill, and I commend it to the House, and I urge those members to look around them in their communities and take action, as well.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill, in this second reading. I want to acknowledge all of my fellow committee members, most of who are in the House, and also the many who have submitted on this bill. One of the things about our committee is that we do get many bills—and I’ve mentioned this before—where there is a lot of passion in the discussion, because we are speaking about our most vulnerable in society. That is, our children, who we must care for. That is why I always stand in the House and speak in favour of the family and nurturing the family, because when we nurture the family, then the children are nurtured, as well.

So this bill—a lot of technical things here: it provides a structural change which will provide more accountability, hopefully a bit more effectiveness. It will ensure, also, that expectations are highlighted so we know what to expect, and that there are adequate processes to ensure that outcomes are received. That’s actually all I want to say on the bill; I will speak a little bit more in the third reading. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō te pire e kīia nei ko te Oversight of Oranga Tamariki Systems Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to express the opinions of the Māori Party regarding this bill called the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki Systems Amendment Bill.]

This bill is only a slight improvement to a dangerous system of care that filters in and flicks out our tamariki Māori and mokopuna Māori. The bill shall not be taken nor understood in isolation of the current Government’s dystopian policy agenda. It will realistically do little to improve outcomes for the lives of mokopuna Māori in State care. I’m sure you’re all aware that the percentage of mokopuna Māori in State care is beyond 70 percent—might be clue number one. So this shapes the position we take today in opposing this bill.

One of our deepest concerns rests in the fact that the Aroturuki Tamaraki do not, under this bill, maintain the right to effectively enact the true intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We know when entities are granted any form of power whereby they are not obligated to act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our mokopuna and our people suffer. This is a historic fact. It’s a reoccurring reality for Māori communities and this was a very clear finding within Whanaketia. Therefore, without meaningful engagement in the embedding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi into this bill, our mokopuna and tamariki Māori are at risk of continued unmonitored abuse, something that has gone on unchecked for far too long.

This leads me into another area of concern. The recommendations in Whanaketia highlighted the need for significant structural changes in the child protection system. Yet the bill will not recognise this or its recommendations that would review independent monitoring and oversight entities and combine existing care and protection and youth justice monitoring entities into a singular body. This would simplify and streamline a process that, let’s face it, needs a severe revamp.

Our tamariki deserve clear and direct pathways for help. This bill will not make any significant headway in achieving this for our tamariki. In fact, the bill directly contradicts the voices of Te Whare Mōrehu, the findings within Whanaketia. To combat these concerns, the bill should mandate for collaboration between Māori and Te Whare Mōrehu in the development of the oversight system, while the bill should also indicate a clear commitment to the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations for monitoring and oversight.

Engagement is needed with Māori and survivors of abuse in State care in order to develop comprehensive amendments that actually serve the communities that this bill will impact the most. As I’ve indicated, more than 70 percent of these tamariki are Māori. Such amendments must include recognition and obligation to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi before the bill progresses any further. It is our strongest recommendation that a halt to the progression of this legislation is put in place until the latter occurs and until the recommendations of Whanaketia are recognised.

I find it somewhat alarming, but not unusual, that there’s a persistent view amongst members of the Government that somehow this is all the families’ fault and that personal responsibility is the answer. If they had spent any time researching or engaging in the history of these take [matters] that have been on a revolving door, in and out, in and out, in and out—no change; Oranga Tamariki reviewed, failed reviews, review after review after review—there may be a different attitude amongst them and more of an appetite to deal with the actual history, the actual facts, and find an actual solution. Nō reira kia kaha rā ki a tātou.

[Therefore, let us be strong.]

Tēnā koutou. We do not support the bill.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Our mokopuna deserve to be embraced in the warmth of their whakapapa. They deserve to be seen, heard, and loved. But more importantly, they are entitled to safety and protection from the harsh cruelties of this world. Tamariki in care and in custody have been brought and born into circumstances outside of their control. Children with nothing in the cupboard to eat, with no shoes to put on their feet, forced to look after their own siblings as children, struggling to understand the world while being challenged by disabilities and learning challenges, struggling to understand why they have been dealt such a cruel hand, and struggling to be understood as a whole person and, indeed, as a child.

This bill sets out to tighten up the rules and oversight of Oranga Tamariki and was instigated by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, which brought into daylight the abuse of a quarter of a million tamariki from the years 1950 to 1999. There is no greater case for intentional and carefully considered guardianship of our future—our mokopuna—which is why we support this bill and welcome a cross-party approach. Children are truly the last human beings that deserve to be caught in the crossfire of politics.

This bill is about tamariki in care, of which seven out of 10 are Māori. When we look to tamariki in custody and youth justice residences, we can see that eight out of 10 tamariki are Māori. If we look at the proportion of under-19-year-olds in our youth justice system, we know that nine out of 10 of those tamariki suffer from serious learning disabilities. Tamariki in care and in custody are extremely vulnerable. They have not escaped the worst consequences of colonisation, cycles of abuse, discrimination, and poverty, and although many tamariki who entered into State care have gone on to become their ancestors’ wildest dreams—like Ihorangi Reweti-Peters or Karah Mackie or Eugene Ryder—it is also easy to become ensnared in the justice system in an endless cycle, from youth justice residences into being arrested, into being in prison, and the cycle continues.

That’s why it’s so important that this bill establishes an independent Crown entity, which is preferable to a departmental agency because they cannot be directed by Ministers and operate under statute that explicitly provides independence from ministerial direction. I have been actively critical of this Government’s policies around boot camps and around youth justice residences. We have called for boot camps to end and for youth justice residences to be closed down. Sadly, this is not a trend that we have only just seen this term. Moral panic around youth delinquency has existed since at least the 1950s, when the Mazengarb report was delivered to every single household in Aotearoa. Imagine if we sent a copy to every household of the report into abuse in State care and faith-based institutions. That’s why independence is critical for tamariki in care to be free from political point-scoring on all sides. In Ireland, there is a degree of consensus around youth detention: their sentence centres are not managed by Government, which allows far more flexibility. So I applaud the components of this bill that provide for that independence.

We also know the importance of the Independent Children’s Monitor and the reports that they put out around the state of Oranga Tamariki, around the state of our youth justice residences—because, unlike prisons, we can’t go in there and inspect the conditions that our tamariki are subject to. We rely on these reports to tell us what is going on; we rely on our Children’s Commissioner to give us an honest, and sometimes brutal, insight into the realities of the most vulnerable tamariki in our country. It is the only robust and fair way for us to know what’s going on. During submissions on this bill, there were recommendations by submitters around an independent Māori monitor to oversee services outsourced to iwi, and we couldn’t agree more.

We have a Government that talks about social investment and removing reliance on the State, and perhaps that’s an opportunity for us to return tamariki Māori to their iwi and their hapū who want to bring them home, so they will know their identity and know that they are valued and loved. They are not just some random tamariki without a face or a name or a whakapapa. They’re not a number, they’re not a spreadsheet, they’re not a KPI; they are ours. They are not simply objects to be played with and discarded to the corrections system when they turn 18. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a relatively simple bill but an important one. It re-establishes the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity. It’s currently a departmental agency within the Education Review Office, but the Government is of the view it is important to strengthen the independence of this monitoring agency, to strengthen the independent monitoring of the Oranga Tamariki system, and strengthen advocacy for children and young people’s issues generally. It will also have the power to oversee about eight different agencies and also other entities that are providing services in this space. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to stand up and give my support to this kaupapa today. I think it’s a very, very important kaupapa, and I’m glad that the Government has recognised this, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment has actually worked in a bipartisan way, which is how we should work, obviously, sometimes.

I got a bit disappointed when I was listening to some of the speeches, and I thought that there was hope for the ACT Party there for a while as they condemned the Crown and the way that previous Governments have operated with regards to Māori. I had some hope there, but then, of course, they started blaming the families for the position that they’re in today, which is disheartening, given this kaupapa has been such a prevalent kaupapa and such a major kaupapa within te ao Māori. You’ve heard that from the speeches, and to blame our families—and don’t get me wrong: I do think that our families have to take some responsibility, and I think that all Māori MPs would say that we have to have whānau who take responsibilities. They can’t blame colonisation every time something goes wrong with the whānau. Sometimes, that’s an excuse, as we know—as we know. So I certainly don’t put up with that nonsense, and I didn’t at ground level when I was working at ground level.

But to dismiss what’s happened with Māori families in terms of urbanisation, in terms of the reo, and in terms of what’s happened to our culture is very, very sad. So I found that kōrero sad, and then I found when I was listening to Te Pāti Māori that they’re voting against the bill, and I find that sad, because it brings to the table the different views in terms of incremental change and transformative change. That’s a question that we have to ask ourselves: as Māori, do we accept incremental change when we’re in Parliament?

The reality is that that’s the reality of Parliament. That’s the way that Government works, which is that you don’t get the transformative change that Te Pāti Māori are talking about. They, quite rightly, say that the basis to this kaupapa—there was a call from te ao Māori to totally dismantle Oranga Tamariki. That was a strong call, and if people want to check back in history there, just in the last few years, when we were in Government we made some real effort in getting Oranga Tamariki to reflect a tikanga Māori perspective—and don’t get me wrong: there have been some good people in that agency. But it was going down the wrong track and there were some terrible stories coming out of there, so we certainly have made an attempt in terms of changing the structure. We put Wira Gardiner, who was probably our top Māori bureaucrat, in charge of the kaupapa—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just remind the member that this is the oversight of Oranga Tamariki bill?

It is the oversight; I’m just trying to give some background to this, and I understand what you’re saying. I’m just trying to reflect some of the angst within the community, but I have no problem in coming to a couple of the points, Madam Speaker, where we’re talking about some of our reservations with regards to it.

But one of the major reservations in terms of te ao Māori is the very structure of Oranga Tamariki. There is this view that it should be thrown out. I’m not of that view, and that’s why we, in Labour, will work to improve the situation.

So, in terms of the oversight, what the Minister is suggesting is pretty much what we were talking about when we were in Government. The establishment of the monitor is incredibly important because the monitor will have an independence that is just so needed within that structure. However, Labour acknowledges that the monitor will have so many pressures in terms of that position, and we wonder in terms of this position whether the previous set-up, where we had three people overseeing it, may have been a better position. We recognise there’s a perception that the Independent Children’s Monitor right now is not independent enough, but if the re-establishment of the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity—[Rima Nakhle gives the member a glass of water] Thank you very much. Gee, it’s good to have that service—thank you very much. We’re getting very by the by, so thank you very much.

💬 Hon Nicola Grigg: I’ve got some Strepsils.

Ha, ha! Let’s not get too friendly, eh—all right? But the establishment of the independent monitor will strengthen the perception of independence.

In terms of where we go in terms of this oversight, one of other differing views in terms of Labour was the era of survivors of abuse in care, and the ryal commission into the abuse in care’s final recommendations regarding the independent oversight and monitoring, recommendations 85 to 87. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime was very clear that we may have lost an opportunity there to advance the royal commission’s recommendations to ensure that oversight and monitoring of the care system is “coherent and well-resourced”.

So we do have reservations, but we’re pleased that the Government has seen the need to strengthen this area of independence. However, there’s still some way to go when you consider the amount of angst within our communities and when you consider the different views that you’ll see from some of Government and that you see from Te Pāti Māori, who want just a total change—and that is a strong view out there that oversight and just a tweak in terms of structure is not enough. But I do think and I do hope that this change will lead to further changes in terms of the culture within Oranga Tamariki, which has been under pressure for at least the last five or six years.

So I’m hoping that the change in terms of the monitor, in terms of the independence, and in terms of the culture will continue, and I want to talk about more of those changes when we get into the third and final reading. But we’re happy today to say that we support what the Minister has advocated, and we hope that further changes will continue because this is an organisation that needs a lot of support. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora.

The overall policy objective of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill is to improve the situation of young people and children in State care in New Zealand. It’s truly a difficult, difficult task, and it is at a point when we who are in Government and who are forced to and who have to undertake the care of these young people and children just have to do our best at it. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s an interesting day to be standing here considering this piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, you and I were both on the Social Services and Community Committee last term when the changes were made. In fact, I was the deputy chair of the committee, and I do remember us agonising and being challenged and being asked to look at how we actually address the importance of this role. It’s interesting to come, three years later, and to be looking back at it again. I think that’s actually a good thing, though, that we can actually reflect and look and see how things are working, how things aren’t working, perceptions, and that type of thing.

I remember really distinctly, then looking at the select committee report from the changes this time around, they’re very much what was intended and very much, I guess, the challenge that we still speak of here as the Labour Party is how does the Children’s Commissioner—the board was established to ensure diversity. To ensure that it wasn’t just this one person—that binary one person. But you look back since 1989 with the introduction of the first Children’s Commissioner, and from memory there’ve been nine up until the changes last term. Of those nine, there were six that were male, three were female—and of those nine, two were Māori. I think that was a reason we looked at in terms of how to actually spread this out to work with people. I still stand by that, and I still think that’s something that’s really important.

I also know that there was a challenge about having the oversight sitting within ERO—within the Education Review Office. I felt OK and we had assurances that it would work. Looking at the evidence and looking at what’s been in the report, it actually has worked and it’s given fair independence. But perception has been the challenge—perception has been the challenge in terms of it sitting in ERO and is it independent enough of Government, of the agencies, to actually do its job properly.

We, hopefully, have engaged constructively in the process from this side, from the Labour Party, in the select committee process, and even in the second debate this afternoon that we want to see the best for our tamariki. We want to see the best for our children as they grow and we want to make sure there are checks, that there are balances, and that there are agencies like a Children’s Commissioner, a children’s commissioning board, whatever that looks like, that’s one that is independent, that is caring for the wellbeing, the advancement, but also the flourishing of our young people. There are a few things we’ll probably talk about in the committee of the whole House stage around this legislation around how we can make it better, but at this current point, I want to commend this bill to the House.

It is good to hear that this bill has the support from the Labour Party and the Green Party. I support this bill because it strengthens the independent oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system and improves advocacy for our tamariki. By establishing the monitor as an independent Crown entity and returning to a single, feasible children’s commissioner, we ensure clear rules, stronger accountability, and better outcomes for children and young people across New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to talk for a minute, particularly for the people at home, about the value of the role itself, that we are looking at today. We’ve got a woman called Claire Achmad in the role at the moment. She is doing that job fearlessly, so it’s relevant to the issue over independence. The Labour Party took a different view on independence because we believed that that kind of diversity that is possible when you have a group of people from different backgrounds adds something very special, and I think it does. I think I stand by that. It’s a way of leading which is very porous to experience, so it does mean that you will have a range of people who are bringing different experiences in and collaborating on views. But that does not mean that I am not impressed by the work of an independent commissioner.

I just wanted to look at the kinds of things the independent commissioner has talked about recently. I am looking first at a statement that the commissioner made in February of 2025. She said, “There is no evidence that military approaches to youth justice work in the long term, and the government can and must focus instead on investing in prevention and rehabilitation programmes”. She talked about really changing the emphasis, and she did that from her position as an independent monitor. So she really was holding to account the direction of the Government, on behalf and advocating strongly for a group of people who are most impacted—those are our children.

On child poverty, she had some very interesting things to say. When the Budget is produced, they also produce the child poverty survey—they produce an audit of it. This year’s Budget had some pretty devastating impacts. Measures like food security and health access were right down for children—population groups with disabilities; Pacific children were in situations where they were in worse situations. One in two Pacific children—this alarmed me—ran out of food. That is what the prediction was. There was an increase in poverty in children—material hardship: that measure was 0.9 more under this Budget than it had been.

Those are really serious things, so the children’s monitor was able to say, “This report provides more hard evidence showing that the Government needs to make ending child poverty an ongoing project of national significance. Investment and commitment through Budget 2025 [is urgently needed]”—that’s what she had to say about those things, and she had the standing to say them. That’s an incredibly important role.

I’d like to comment on what my colleague Willow-Jean Prime said, however, about, perhaps, the opportunity that is missed here. In the abuse in State care report, there were recommendations that that kind of role that is being played is being played in pockets across our society. So we have an ombudsman who looks at one part, and we have another person looking at children who are in custody. Now, people will recall that there is a real issue around what happens when you haven’t got enough beds for your youth, and that’s been happening: when they’re in trouble and there aren’t beds to put them in, they have been put in cells. Now, that’s because there simply aren’t enough beds. So it’s really important that those kinds of monitoring happen and that people are coming in and monitoring it. But what the abuse in State care recommendation said is that there are gaps between our systems, and so there was an opportunity here to collaborate and look at those groups and try to join up the functions—so there was a full and joined-up focus on children, and we didn’t get children falling between those gaps. So that’s what my friend Willow-Jean Prime is talking when she talks about a missed opportunity. It’s a very real one.

I do note that this piece of legislation has a five-year review in it, and I see that as an opportunity, because I hope we’ll be in Government and we’ll be able to make good the promise to look at those things, like that extra part of abuse in State care recommendations being included. But that’s five years away. I take the point, again, from my friend Willow-Jean Prime—that she makes: that that’s a long way away and that’s a lot of children who will be impacted in the meantime.

So I would urge the Government to look at that again. Having said that, it is obviously a step forward to go through into this legislation and to do what we are doing here today. I disagree with some of my colleagues on this side of the House who have suggested that, perhaps, they should vote against this legislation. I think that’s a step too far. I take the point made by the Hon Willie Jackson that sometimes what we do in this House isn’t perfect, but we have to do it anyway; we have to do it because it’s a step forward, not a step back. So I think that this piece of legislation deserves our support because it is a step forward.

What I want to do is come back to the issue of what that commissioner does and how vital it is that we have people who are willing to say these things to all Governments—not just this one but all Governments—to say uncomfortable things to them. The independent Children’s Commissioner—that’s a person who is actually able to do that. And, actually, we always are going to have a problem with people not being able to necessarily do that because they are too connected; their career is connected to the Government—it is just difficult to do.

So I do take the point: I think that could be the case with the board. I think that has a strength in it that this lacks because you don’t have the depth that you would otherwise have; you have one person and you kind of basically put all those eggs in that basket and hope that you’ve got a person of great strength and integrity. But everybody has parts of their brain that are more impacted than others—three brains are better than one; five brains are better than one. That is basically the difference that we’re standing on in our review which we’ve put into the differing opinion and the report on this—that that is a stronger system of governance and a stronger system than one person. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t absolutely value the contribution that is made by the current person in this role, and the value—the bravery—that must come with this job.

So I just want to make sure that I put on the Hansard very strongly my support for people in positions like this to stand up to us sometimes—to say uncomfortable things, to tell us that the Budget isn’t focused enough on children and that, in fact, they’re going to suffer as a result, and that the Government needs to change its focus; to tell us those things and not be afraid of doing so. That’s an important part of a role when there’s only one of you, because it’s also a role that can be subject to power and subject to pressure.

So I would like to put on the record that I am very impressed by the comments that I’ve seen made by our Children’s Commissioner, and I would like to put on the record that I hope that what happens in this role from now on is that we continue to put people into that position—they will have a team around them: there’s a judge and other people around them who are involved in that process under this system. But I want to make sure they realise that they have the support of this House in doing their job fearlessly, because that’s an important part of our system, and we’re going to be relying upon them, and we do now. So I thank them for this and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real privilege to take the final call on the second reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a bill that will strengthen the independence of the Independent Children’s Monitor, which is a very important thing. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2