Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a real honour to be standing here today to speak to an issue that is really important to me. This bill comes from a place of my own lived experience of being boxed into a system that treated me as an identity group first and a person second, and since coming here, I’ve been seeing and hearing the stories of people who have been on the receiving end of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Before coming to Parliament, I thought it was bad. Once in Parliament, I came to understand that it was a lot worse than I could ever have imagined.

When it comes to the safety and the wellbeing of our children, that should be front and centre before every other factor. When I look at legislation like section 7AA, I can see that it was well intentioned, but the unintended consequences have been dire for many children and caregivers around the country. Many caregivers have just given up out of sheer frustration.

One case that did make the media comes to mind, and it was around the care of a young girl referred to as Moana. Moana was traumatised and neglected by her own whānau for years before she was placed in a safe, loving home. It was heartbreaking when bureaucrats then got involved and tried to remove Moana from their care because the Pākehā family could not provide for her cultural needs. The High Court ruled in favour of her caregivers, and that should have been the happy ending to this story. Instead, there was appeal after appeal by Oranga Tamariki (OT) and the family that had let her down in the first place. Tragically, the caregivers had to give up their beloved little daughter because they could no longer afford the battle. Section 7AA meant that OT did not put Moana’s wellbeing and best interests ahead of all other matters. It failed the caregivers, who had done nothing but love and care for her, and it failed a young Māori girl by depriving her of the loving and supporting environment that she needed. It should never have ever gone this far, and section 7AA was the justification for these awful decisions.

During the appeal hearing, noteworthy apprehensions were raised by a respected scholar regarding the risks associated with ideologically motivated advancements. Dr Nicola Atwool expressed her thoughts on this matter: “Māori children placed with non-Māori caregivers are being uplifted and placed with whānau that they do not know and in some instances live a long way from where the child has been living, making any sort of … transition impossible. In these instances, section 7AA, … that requires decision-makers to consider the importance of a child’s mana, culture and whakapapa, is cited as justifying this action. Again, the practice is ideologically driven and is neither child-centred nor trauma-informed. Uplift is traumatic for children. It involves the forced removal of a child or group of children from all that is familiar to them at an age when they cannot comprehend what is going on. Forced removal should only occur in the most dangerous situations where the risk is imminent.”

Section 7AA has led to devastating uplifts in cases of low to zero risk. There are tragic stories that come across my desk each week where caregivers are at their wits’ end when it comes to dealing with OT. I hear from European grandparents fighting for the right to care for their Māori grandchildren and being sidelined in the decision making because their opinion is considered to be of less value than the hapū, iwi, and whānau of these kids, who have often have failed these children. I hear from Māori—a family who have said to me they had been encouraged not to include the non-Māori part of their family in the care of the kids, and they felt this was unfair and wrong but were too scared to speak out. How is denying a person’s whānau and whakapapa, Māori or non-Māori, consistent with tikanga?

I hear from caregivers openly being told that they’re not the right race. I hear from caregivers supervising children who are being made to visit family members who have abused them, because cultural connection is more important than the child’s mental health and welfare. I myself have personally witnessed the trauma these visits have caused. I’ve heard stories from foster parents of kids soiling themselves before the visits and having nightmares for days after. Surely, we just want these kids to get the care and the support that they need—how far are we willing to let this go?

ACT says that race-based decision making in care needs to stop. We asked the public to sign a petition if they think State care should be colour-blind. So far, 13,408 people have signed this to send a message to this Government that the divisive, race-based approach they have brought to State care is not OK and that the child’s wellbeing and safety should be ahead of all other considerations.

I wrote a column a little while ago about a family I knew before coming to Parliament that had taken on a foster child. I named her Mary. They saw that Mary needed a loving home where she would feel loved and safe. Mary had suffered abuse and neglect, and then had been passed around from family member to family member. Before the age of seven, she’d been in eight homes. She did not know what a stable home was until she was placed with her foster parents. After a while, they were led to believe they would be providing this young girl with a home for life, a home where she would have the stability she so desperately needed.

After two years of caring for and loving her, they were suddenly told that they had to prove they had Māori heritage, or she would once again be placed with her whānau. OT claimed that the most important thing for this girl was to be raised in a culturally appropriate environment. OT was happy to take Mary from this loving home and place her with a family that had been known to abuse her in the past. This story shows how bizarre and how brainless this law really is. These caregivers are the exact same people. They would be raising Mary in the exact same house. Whether OT would have allowed them to continue lovingly raising her depended on whether they could point to an ancestor from hundreds of years ago.

Fortunately for Mary, they could, and she still lives with them. She is doing well at school and she has a home for life, where she is safe and thriving. Thank goodness for that branch they found on their family tree, or Mary’s story might have been very different.

Can Labour really look vulnerable kids in the eye and tell them that they’re fighting for this kind of system? This is only one of many cases where I’ve seen children and caregivers being treated in this manner, and not all of them have had a happy ending.

My bill seeks to ensure that OT is colour-blind and that they always act in the best interests of the child. This is a crucial step towards creating a more just and equitable society where every child can thrive and succeed, regardless of their ethnicity, culture, or background.

I feel OT needs to be colour-blind in its operations, and this means that the agency must treat every child and family fairly, regardless of their ethnicity, culture, or background. Every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their individual needs, and their safety and wellbeing comes first.

Abuse and neglect does not discriminate, and when we have a system that boxes us into different categories based on ethnicity, this can be harmful. I’m not saying we don’t acknowledge a child’s culture—this is an important aspect of their identity—but the notion that non-Māori cannot raise a Māori child in a culturally appropriate manner is harmful. It perpetuates the idea that these kids are their ethnicity first and a human second. It suggests that only Māori people can understand and appreciate culture and that all Māori share the same values, which is simply not true. It implies non-Māori are incapable of learning and embracing other cultures, which is also a dangerous stereotype.

As a child, all I wanted was a home where I felt loved and safe. I did not care what ethnicity the people caring for me were. Children and young people need to know they are loved, and as far as I’m concerned, love means love in any language. This has got to the point where caregivers are thinking twice about whether they want to put themselves through the hassle of trying to raise a child, and OT seems to be doing everything in its power to keep children in or to return children back to homes that may not be safe or in the best interests of the child.

If we truly see our children as taonga, let’s start treating them like they’re precious, because right now, many children in this country are being treated like property that gets passed around from place to place until they’re broken beyond repair and with no care for their rights or needs, and this needs to stop. I urge members around this House tonight to think long and hard about the way they vote. This is about making sure all our children are in environments that will provide them with the best start in life. It’s about making sure that no child will suffer in the name of being raised by the same race as them. It’s about making sure that kids’ need for love and for safety and for freedom from neglect are placed first—as it should be. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill, and I want to firstly acknowledge the member Karen Chhour for bringing this to the House. I refreshed my memory on your maiden speech, Karen, and you spoke about wanting to do this in your maiden speech, so I want to acknowledge you for bringing this bill here and I acknowledge your lived experience.

However, Labour will not be supporting this bill. We will not be supporting this bill for many, many reasons. The reality is, quite simply, that section 7AA of the Act creates a policy that supports and enables Māori children and all children to be cared for. Your general policy statement states that the “duties of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki … are at odds with the agency’s primary purpose to support the wellbeing, and act in the best interests,” of the child. I cannot reconcile that purpose with the reality of what section 7AA actually does, and I understand your sense of frustration around some of the awful stories that we do hear—I understand that. But section 7AA is in place for a reason, and it binds the Crown to a practical commitment under the Treaty to ensure that policies and practices have the objective of improving the outcomes for tamariki, rangatahi, and whānau Māori. This amendment was inserted specifically to create a fundamental obligation to ensure that Māori are supported to have improved outcomes.

Now, I’m going to quote a reason for this—and my apologies, because it is a quote and so I will be reading. The Waitangi Tribunal report Wai 2915, which is He Pāharakeke, he Rito Whakakīkinga Whāruarua—apologies for my pronunciation—says that “The disparities that we examine are both enduring and stark … It is sufficient to note the following from the evidence we have heard. Between 2000 and 2018, the incidence of tamariki Māori aged 16 and under in State care rose from one in every 125 Māori children, to one in every 64. By 2012, tamariki Māori were five times more likely than their non-Māori counterparts to enter State care. Māori were 54.7 per cent of children in care in June 2013, climbing to 61.2 per cent of children … in 2017. The proportion of Pākehā children in care over the same period reduced from 33.2 per cent to 26 per cent.”

The duty of the chief executive is put in place because the primary users of this service are Māori, and to take a child from a Māori family and not take into account their cultural needs is actually harmful—it’s harmful to those children. However, I heard the member talk quite clearly about children being taken from families that they’re happy with. Reverse uplifts no longer occur, and we cannot and do not support that kind of behaviour. The Minister has put a stop to that, and it is really important to note that.

The evidence across the plethora of information I looked at is starkly clear that Māori children thrive when their needs are attended to, including their cultural needs. It is better for Māori children. Now, I don’t say that in the sense that—I struggled with how I would talk about that, but as the mother of Māori children who has carried whakapapa in my own whenua, I feel like I can say that. So, as a consequence, I do want to say that I do know that our children will absolutely be better off this way.

I just want to quote another item in regards to—the research is just so overwhelming. It is difficult with the member’s heartfelt desire to make a change to literally just stand here and speak with the overwhelming evidence that says section 7AA needs to be in place and that we are now building a system that is much more robust and which is much more approachable and appropriate for all children but also to try and stem the uplifts that happen within this country. “Nicola Atwool, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Otago and expert on child attachment, explained that even in cases where the child is experiencing neglect or harm at home … uprooting children from their family and culture can have traumatic consequences. ‘There seems to be, I think, still some really naive assumptions that, if parenting has not been adequate or, in some cases, quite severely damaging, their children will automatically connect to someone else. They don’t and the research tells us that. We know that the birth family remained significant,’ Atwool said.”

This bill is a divisive part of ACT policy that talks quite significantly to a separatism which we do not believe in. Being able to have culturally appropriate services and culturally appropriate delivery of those services, and being understanding of other cultures or differing cultures actually isn’t a bad thing. It isn’t a frightening thing and it isn’t an evil thing. It is something that we, as a country, need to be mature enough to understand that there are differences in this country, and some people need to be supported to understand that.

Penny Simmonds: In 10 weeks’ time, you’ll look back on this and you will regret it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I’ll look back on this and regret saying that we need to work in harmony together and support and value each other—is that what I will look back on? As the mother of Māori children, I can tell you that I will never once in this House apologise for saying that we should work together in harmony, and separatism is not for us. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker, I think that I should probably—now that I can’t hear myself speak, I shall take my seat and say that the Labour Party absolutely, categorically, does not support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a brief call this evening of five minutes, and I’ll maximise the utilisation of that time. It’s important that this debate is focused on the welfare and best interests and the paramountcy principle of the children and that New Zealanders and members in this House understand what the law is about.

The debate in the House is of course one that is with passion. My colleague Karen Chhour, who is the member proposing this member’s bill, has spoken from lived experience, and I acknowledge that, Karen. I also acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, the previous member who has spoken, in terms of her position as chair for the Government on the Social Services and Community Committee and your lived experience as a mother of Māori children.

I stand and address the House as the spokesperson and lead for the National Party for children and Oranga Tamariki, and I too speak from lived experience. That experience is as a child advocate for a period of 30 years. I specialised in the law around child welfare, care, and protection.

I have a plethora of notes before me and I will speak in terms of the member’s bill, which is to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Now, it is so important—this is a very complex area of law—for people to understand that I come from that premised experience of 30 years. I acknowledge the lived experience, not only of the member but of all of those children, young people, and family members that I’ve represented and advocated for over the period of time.

In 2017, the National Government made several amendments to the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, and one of those amendments was the introduction of section 7AA by a former member of the National Party, the Hon Anne Tolley, who was at the time the Minister for Social Development. Ms Tolley promoted the amendment, saying that “when a child [must] be removed from their family, first … you have to [ensure] that they are safe. If you listen to the young people, … the next thing they want is to be with their brothers and sisters. … The next part … is that they want to know who they are and where they belong. So if they are Māori, they want to know their iwi, their hapū, their marae, their whakapapa … because it is part of who they are,”. That is what section 7AA is about.

I’ve heard the member talk about the best interests and welfare of the children, and that’s what section 4A of the Oranga Tamariki Act is about. I’ve heard the member and others address in this House the policy and, frankly, the bad practice, the poor practice, of Oranga Tamariki social workers and the implementation of the reverse uplifts of children. The reason that was done was because of that bad practice and poor policy—which the Minister has since reversed—because there were social workers who were focused on section 7AA and that a Māori child should not be with a non-Māori family. That was wrong, because that is not what the law says. Section 4A is very clear and is very precise, and that is the paramountcy provision, which is the basis for every other section under the law. It says, “In all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act”—which includes section 7AA—“the well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration,”.

Members know well in this House that I’ve spoken on any legislation that deals with our children, whom I have advocated for and always will continue to do so. Our children’s interests are first and foremost, before any policy setting or any poor bad practice social work in practice that’s gone on. We have case law in the Moana case, a Family Court decision that went to the High Court on appeal. We also have Supreme Court decisions that recognise the importance of Māori values and concepts within the placement of our legislation. Regrettably, social work practice has not adhered to the implementation of section 4A. The paramountcy provision of our child’s welfare and best interests, safety, and protection has been foremost to section 7AA.

In the short time I’ve got left, I’ll say that the National Party’s position is we recognise the importance of New Zealanders having a voice. We are a Parliament, and we advocate and represent that voice of New Zealand. However, it is so important that we also have the process of due diligence and due process of a select committee for New Zealanders to submit, and it is at that forum that the National Party stands in support of this bill, not for the total repeal—to make that clear—but for this to come to the select committee and for New Zealanders to have their say. If the National Party gets into Government, we would not be repealing it, but we would look at amending this and making it more precise and tight. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. Can I also just start by acknowledging the member Karen Chhour and say congratulations on getting your member’s bill pulled from the biscuit tin. But not only that, I also remember—as Angie Warren-Clark talked about—your maiden speech, your lived experience, and the passion you have in this. So I want to acknowledge that.

But, like Angie Warren-Clark said, I personally cannot support this bill and neither can Labour, and I will tell you why. If I start right from the start, I wish that we didn’t have to have Oranga Tamariki, because that would mean that every tamariki and every rangatahi in Aotearoa New Zealand was safe and loved and that would be a great reality. Unfortunately, that is currently not our reality. Our current reality is that we do have to have something to be able to make sure that our children—all children; all tamariki and all rangatahi from Aotearoa New Zealand—are safe and well, and this is what we have in Oranga Tamariki.

However, our other reality is that, unfortunately, we know and we’ve heard, and Angie Warren-Clark talked about the Wai 2915 inquiry—we know and there’s so much evidence and research that tells us that, unfortunately, tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori have higher proportions going into State care, and we can’t ignore the fact of that. Unfortunately, while I know that the member’s intention is to make sure all children are safe, this bill will not do that. This bill, in fact, will make it worse for tamariki and rangatahi Māori.

At the moment we make sure that the chief executive (CE) has the responsibility to make sure that the policies and support are there, and making sure that there is a partnership and that we are doing the right thing in terms of our responsibility under Te Tiritiri o Waitangi. Part of that is to make sure that when we are seeing those spikes, we don’t just ignore them. It is about looking at and addressing what that looks like. Currently, we have the powers—or the CE has the powers—to do that.

This bill, which repeals section 7AA, will take away those responsibilities or those powers for the CE to specifically focus on tamariki and rangatahi Māori. The difference is that we know that for some of these cultural practices in terms of the tikanga in some of Te Ao Māori, we have to make sure that we find measures that are going to be able to support them in the culturally appropriate way. I know that the Opposition might not agree to that, but it’s a reality and it’s a fact.

I also have lived experience in terms of working in that space. As you can see, I have my Pākehā side and I have my Samoan side, and I know that it’s about making sure both of those are upheld. It’s not a thing where you can separate it out. I can’t separate out my Pākehā side, or my Scottish side, from my Pacific side, and neither can these kids—neither can our rangatahi and tamariki Māori.

At the end of the day, the Government is already putting in initiatives to make sure that we have more Māori organisations to be able to work with not just the tamariki and not just the rangatahi but the whole whānau, because, at the end of the day, that is what we want. We want to make sure, where we can, that the tamariki and the rangatahi that are going into care can, if possible, return back and make sure that they are returning back to a safe and a loving household, and that’s what it should be about.

I am also unapologetic in terms of making sure that where we do have cultural differences, we need to make sure that we are putting in the right support for those cultures, and that is one of the reasons. It’s in Wai 2915—it’s in that inquiry—and it shows that because we haven’t, we’ve seen this spike in tamariki and rangatahi Māori going into State care. If we truly care about all Aotearoa New Zealand kids, then we need to care about—

Karen Chhour: Some kids need to go into care—their parents don’t take care of them.

TERISA NGOBI: —the Māori kids too, Karen Chhour. We need to make sure that all kids matter, and so that is what it currently does.

This bill is divisive. It’s separatism—that’s what it is. That’s what your party is about—sorry, Mr Speaker; not you. That is what the ACT Party is about.

We don’t believe that on this side of the House. We make sure that everybody is heard—every single person’s voice is heard—including our Māori tamariki’s voice, and that is what this is about. We’re making sure that we do the right thing, and making sure that—unlike this bill does—we don’t—

Angie Warren-Clark: Race-baiting.

TERISA NGOBI: —yeah—cause more trauma to those children. I absolutely do not commend this bill to the House.

I’m rising on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill, and I’d like to acknowledge the ACT Party member Karen Chhour for sharing her lived experience with us. We acknowledge that she has made genuinely positive contributions to our political debates regarding the state of the so-called care in this country. The Greens are saddened to actually see that being undermined by this bill, because while I want to uphold the lived experience that each of us—including her—bring to Parliament, it’s important to recognise that as legislators, there is a limit to each of our lived experiences and that we actually lean on a collective range of lived experiences to inform the pieces of legislation that we debate.

There are many reasons why the Greens cannot be supporting this bill. These include things like this bill running counter to Puao-te-ata-tu, it runs counter to the Waitangi Tribunal rulings, and it runs counter to the calls from VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the interim report of the royal commission into abuse in care. Why it is particularly disappointing is because over the course of this term, the ACT Party and the Greens, despite all of our differences, actually had found common ground in holding and challenging the Labour Government to account for ignoring these same voices on the Oranga Tamariki Oversight Bill. But we do want to acknowledge that now, when it suits their political narratives, they do the exact same things: ignoring the voices that have said that we do not need a repeal of section 7AA and that, actually, having a Tiriti framework in these systems is clearly important. So “disappointment” is honestly an understatement.

I acknowledge that many of us are leaning into our lived experience, but I would like to lean on the lived experiences of others who have contributed, actually, for several decades to this debate, and let me take us back to the late 1980s, around when I was born. Puao-te-ata-tu, in the report, noted that “At the heart of the issue”—and I’m quoting—“is a profound misunderstanding or ignorance of the place of the child in Maori society and its relationship with whanau, hapu, iwi structures.” It continues, saying that “We have been disturbed at the extent to which Social Welfare institutions and indeed the courts, have a clientele which is predominantly Maori. We think that as a society we cannot survive much longer if we continue to ignore these facts and the situation which gave rise to them.”

If this is the feedback that we’ve been receiving back then, and it actually reflects the feedback that we continue to get, it shows that rather than dismantling Tiriti provisions, we do need to strengthen it. Yes, our Oranga Tamariki system is in dire need of overhaul, but that won’t come by removing Tiriti provisions. If we move a bit closer to today, to some of the commentary from the Children’s Commissioner—which, like I said, the ACT Party was in support of kind of having a stronger Children’s Commissioner and having it being independent, and they know that—it is that “To keep pēpi in the care of their whānau, Māori must be recognised as best placed to care for their own: this involves by Māori, for Māori approaches that are enabled by the transfer of power and the resources from government to Māori.” If we want to recognise that the Children’s Commissioner has played a historical and important role in that monitoring and holding those entities to account, I think we should be taking these statements very, very seriously.

Even more recently, if we go to 2021, the Waitangi Tribunal also found that “The disparities we examine are both enduring and stark. … Between 2000 and 2018, the incidence of tamariki Māori aged 16 and under in State care rose from one in every 125 children, to one in every 64. By 2012, tamariki Māori were five times more likely than their non-Māori counterparts to enter State care.” They continue, talking about how the Crown and Tribunal recognised that it was “unacceptable and that … the Treaty of Waitangi would require that”—actually, that this is a sign that we have failed our Tiriti obligations and that we actually, as a Government, should take “active and positive steps … to address the disparity.” At no point did they actually suggest that removing Tiriti provisions would go some ways towards that, because, as tauiwi, the Tiriti provisions—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

I’ve taken this call to express my concern and opposition to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill, and I believe the member who has brought this bill before the House has the best of intentions—I really do. But I stand strongly against this piece of legislation because it threatens to undo the progress that we have made to give better care to Māori children separated from their families.

This bill runs counter to the wellbeing of children in Aotearoa. This bill aims to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, and this section creates the duty for Oranga Tamariki to respect the Treaty of Waitangi and to report publicly on the measures it has taken to fulfil that obligation.

This section was introduced to make sure that Oranga Tamariki takes into account the significance of whakapapa, culture, and identity in decisions concerning the welfare of Māori children. There is a significant disparity between the number of Māori and non-Māori children being taken into State care, and this creates the need to provide better care for Māori children and to address the systemic issues that have led to this situation. This section provides the legal push to make sure that Oranga Tamariki does its most to engage with Māori communities and to provide children with a familiar and appropriate cultural environment. Increasing engagement with Māori communities and ensuring that children are placed in a culturally appropriate environment only when it’s safe to do so will absolutely create better outcomes for the children, and that should always be the priority for Oranga Tamariki.

When I think of the care of our children, I also think of the Te Whare Tapa Whā model that was developed by leading Māori health advocate Sir Mason Durie in 1984. This model describes health and wellbeing as a wharenui, or a meeting house, with four walls, and those walls represent taha wairua, which is our spiritual wellbeing; taha hinengaro, our mental and emotional wellbeing; taha tinana, which is our physical wellbeing; and taha whānau, our family and social wellbeing. Our connection with the whenua and the land forms the foundation, and when all these things are in balance, we thrive. When one or more of these walls is out of balance, our wellbeing is impacted.

In my view, section 7AA represents three of those four pillars within Oranga Tamariki: taha wairua, which is our spiritual wellbeing; taha hinengaro, the mental wellbeing; and then also our social wellbeing. Repealing this section would be like pulling these three pillars out from our whare, and it cannot stand any more and it cannot complete its purpose. In this case, it would threaten and weaken the link between whakapapa, culture, and identity in decisions concerning the welfare of Māori children.

While most Crown agencies are bound to consider the principles of the Treaty, section 7AA goes one step further. It obliges Oranga Tamariki to give practical effect to those principles in reporting back publicly on what measures have been taken to achieve that obligation. This section also gives Oranga Tamariki the responsibility to consider structural issues that have historically disadvantaged and negatively affected Māori children in care. So it’s quite a holistic approach: helping the children in need and trying to help solve issues that have led to this situation in the first place with care. The amendment bill under consideration today ignores the unique needs and experiences of Māori children and families, and it fails to acknowledge the ongoing impact of the historical social injustices and systemic discrimination on Māori communities.

Section 7AA has had a tangible result on the performance of Oranga Tamariki. Since it took effect in 2019, there’s been a lot of improvement in the wellbeing of tamariki Māori, and trying to go back on this now would be a significant step backwards. So, unfortunately, I cannot support this bill, the Labour Party cannot support the bill, and we do not commend it to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I join others to comment on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I start by giving credit to our colleague and friend Karen Chhour, a woman of not only lived experience in this space but considerable passion, advocacy, and skills in speaking up for the most vulnerable, and I congratulate and I thank her for doing so.

There’s been a lot of passion in the House tonight, discussing and debating the proposal that is before us. I think that is a good thing. It would be sad if we were not concerned enough about the issue that is at hand, such that we were indifferent and passionless regarding the situation of some of the most vulnerable members of our society. So if I may take a moment to congratulate those who have spoken with such passion, albeit approaching the subject perhaps from different angles at times, then I do wish to place that on record.

I think that there is, notwithstanding the passion in the debate and the discussion, a need to understand in a very clear-headed way exactly how the law—the legal framework as a whole, including this particular piece of law, the Oranga Tamariki Act—would operate. So, as I understand it, the basis of the proposal from Ms Chhour is that we want to emphasise and clarify and confirm in the law the paramount consideration that is the welfare of the child.

Now, I don’t say that to suggest that members who are taking a different view on the bill don’t want what is best for the child, but the fact of the matter is our law is already structured in such a way as to make the welfare of the child and the wellbeing of the child the paramount consideration, and, of course, we can and should consider different factors that would lead to promoting such wellbeing, and an aspect of that would be cultural considerations. But in the hierarchy of how these things are considered at the top of the tree or at the centre of the circle, and hence the child-centred approach, or the primary purpose—to use another different expression of the same idea—the key to it all must be the welfare of the child. I think what we have ended up doing is discussing this from different angles and we’re in danger, I think, of losing sight of the fundamental point that there are different possible harms involved to the young person.

I believe—as I think colleagues across the House would also say they believe—that there is an element of harm in removing someone from their cultural context. That’s not an ideal situation. There are no good options when we are contemplating how best to place a child other than in their natural family situation in which they were once living. But the reality is that we are asked, as policy makers, and we ask those who execute policy to make difficult decisions to balance harm and to choose the least bad option. So if we allow our calculus to be quite simply that the best interests of the child must be paramount and take that as a starting point, and from underneath that flow all the other considerations, rather than regarding conceptually a series of pillars of all equal standing, then I think we will come closer to achieving the aim that I hope and expect we all share, which is to reduce the possibility of harm to a child in her or his family environment.

To this extent, I think we’re arguing over how best policy may be reflected in practice. Obviously, there’s been a good deal of publicity about the practice of uplifts and reverse uplifts, where, obviously, a child is removed in circumstances that are obviously distressing, not only to the child himself or herself and families—plural—sometimes involved in the movement but also those who care about such things, and, as I say, I hope and expect that that is all of us.

I do just want to note briefly from the perspective of being the shadow Attorney-General that it was distressing to see an element of judicial interference in relation to a matter that came in front of the courts along these lines, both between an agency and the courts and within the courts, in terms of a live proceeding in a manner that wasn’t consistent with the court process as it should be. So that was disappointing. It reflects the complexity and the importance of the matter.

As my colleague and friend Harete Hipango has said, we support the intent of Ms Chhour’s bill. We do support it at its first reading for all those reasons.

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to speak to this bill, and I want to first acknowledge the efforts of our colleague Ms Chhour. I sit on the Social Services and Community Committee with Ms Chhour, and I have seen her deep and heartfelt need to make a difference for children so that the harm that was done to her many years ago is not repeated.

I also rise as someone who has spent a lot of years—like Ms Hipango, a previous speaker—in the Family Court as a Family Court lawyer, and I have fought reverse uplift cases. I have fought Oranga Tamariki on behalf of caregivers and on behalf of whānau in the sorts of cases that Ms Chhour has been describing to us. So I have some understanding of the situation there, and what I would say first is that we all want all children to have that equal right to love, care, sustenance, and a proper, safe home. We all want that. The issue for me—and I refer to the reports that previous colleagues have talked about, going back into the 1980s. The issue is that the system wasn’t fair. It remains unfair, but it has been unfair for decades and decades, and it has specifically been unfair to tamariki Māori.

I think what has happened here is that there is a bit of confusion in this bill over two things that are being done. As my colleague Harete Hipango and other colleagues have said, it is not the case that whānau connection to tamariki is paramount—it is not. The best interests of the children remain absolutely paramount, and there is a complex set of figures, ideas, and concepts that get considered every time one of these decisions comes before the court. That is one thing, and if Ms Chhour really wanted to look at those issues, she maybe needs to look at section 4A, because that is the one that tries to set out what the legislature tried to enunciate as what are the factors that a judge should look at in considering a child’s best interests, and that includes the maintenance of their connection with whānau, hapū, iwi, and family. That is where there is that delicate-dancing balancing act going on.

This section is actually quite a different matter. Section 7AA is an attempt to address the structural inequities and the embedded racism in the way in which Oranga Tamariki works. While it has been tried—including by yours truly—to get Family Court judges to operate on the basis of section 7AA in the context of an individual custody case, what section 7AA is actually about is the professional conduct of the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki in designing structures, in trying to make relationships with hapū, whānau, and iwi in the community, and in reporting back on those changes.

It was the Hon Anne Tolley, from the other side of the House, who brought this in. I’m disappointed that those current members, with respect, haven’t got quite the courage of their convictions to stay the distance, because the fact is—

Simon Court: Well, it didn’t work.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: —this is something that is working. What shows that it is working is that when you get a Government into power with a Minister like Mr Davis, who is prepared to do what I personally feel, which is to condemn bad practice and hold Oranga Tamariki to account and to uphold the mana of all children—that’s what we’ve seen. We have seen the dramatic fall in uplifts of pēpi and of children generally. We have seen the dramatic change in that appalling process of reverse uplifts.

It’s not about children being automatically placed with Māori whānau—that is not what it’s about. It’s about bad social work on a number of fronts and poor social work practice that we are steadily addressing, and we are seeing in those dramatic figures the impact of what was put in place by the Hon Anne Tolley. I cannot commend this bill.

He aha te mea nui o e te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

[What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.]

Karen, mihi ana ki a koe. Respect, sterling mahi, and absolutely dedicated over this kaupapa.

Angie, ka rawe hoki ō kōrero—

[Angie, very eloquent what you have said]—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We use full names in the House, please.

TAMA POTAKA: Angie Warren-Clark, ngā mihi ki a koe, e hoa, ka pai ō kōrero.

The wellbeing and best interests of children are paramount for those in State care, as captured by section 4A of the Act, and this bill seeks to repeal section 7AA of the Act, which places duties on the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki to support the wellbeing and act in the best interests of the child or young person. We support this bill at the first reading for the purpose of all Kiwis having input, but would amend the relevant section rather than repeal it.

It appears that our colleagues in the ACT Party are concerned with a couple of items: number one, the health and wellbeing of children in State care is deteriorating—tautoko—number two, Oranga Tamariki prioritises the placement of children with whānau Māori over the best interests of the child and, effectively, interprets placing children with Māori families as being in the best interests, being in conflict with the paramountcy provision, or section 4A of the Act, which requires decisions to be in the child’s best interests—āe, kei te rongo; I’m hearing it—and, number three, the provision is race-based or race-preferenced law. Well, kāore i te taukoko—I don’t support that idea.

As my whanaunga colleague Harete Hipango mentioned, National introduced this provision many years ago, and some folks at Oranga Tamariki and elsewhere have misused the intent, the purpose, and the application of this provision, but the courts have concluded that the provision in and of itself is not race-based. I won’t go into the details of those decisions, except to observe that tikanga will have an increasing relevance for our judicial and legislative system, and I have been known to encourage conserve of curiosity in that matter.

The main problem—the main raruraru—to me, is not the section itself, but rather the misinterpretation and misapplication of the section, and this is exactly the reason why we are elected to be here in this Whare Mīere, this House: to draft and better curate legislation that carries with it certainty and clarity. We would not repeal the section, but, rather, would amend it to ensure greater certainty in social work and bureaucratic practice.

My view is based on a couple of items. The stats disparity is shocking: 91 of 1,000 Māori are reported to Oranga Tamariki, two-thirds of all children in State care are Māori, and tamariki Māori are six times more likely to be in State care. Those disparities are shocking, and that’s why we introduced this section: to better help Oranga Tamariki to work with Māori communities to come up with solutions to support, manaaki, and tautoko those tamariki. Sometimes it has worked; sometimes it has not.

While perfect is the enemy of the good for tamariki, good is not good enough. The State alone cannot provide solutions for Māori children in isolation of Māori communities. The provision was initially drafted with the intention to be specific needs and relationship - based, and our erstwhile colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson received advice that this provision did not contravene the rights set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

National also acknowledges that the Treaty of Waitangi is a founding document of New Zealand. It’s one of our values and it is set out in the constitution, and, where suitable, Te Tiriti or the Treaty—or both—can guide substantive policy and legislation.

Now, our colleagues from the yellow-pink side of the House have espoused the view at times to remove the Treaty from legislation altogether, or to subject it to referendum. This is not a waka that I, respectively, sit in.

The Greens would have the Treaty of Waitangi as the Rosetta Stone for all legislation and wealth distribution, or redistribution. Again, it’s not a waka I sit in; I take a more moderate view.

Repealing section 7AA cancels the bandwidth of the CEO—the tumu whakarae—of Oranga Tamariki to work with local communities to provide targets, measures, and solutions for Māori children in need of care and protection, but section 4A, the paramountcy provision, sets out the ultimate threshold for Oranga Tamariki behaviour. All sections, including the interpretation, use, and implementation of section 7AA, must be done in light of the paramountcy provision. It would be contradictory of us to dismiss this provision entirely, which is intended to be a genuine option to address and meet the best interests of the child in State care.

It is with these minor thoughts that I take this Puanga evening back to the backbench. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to make a contribution on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the member Karen Chhour for bringing this bill into the House and giving us an opportunity to contribute.

I just want to remind everybody that section 7AA is about the duties of the chief executive in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. For all of us in this House, our identity runs through our body—our DNA. It pumps every second. It is important. We name our children after our ancestors. Most of us, we talk about our food, and when we recall the memories of our ancestors, it strengthens us.

I have spoken many times before about my experiences in Child, Youth and Family. I entered Child, Youth and Family in 1987, working in the mailroom. It was called the Department of Social Welfare. That was the year Pūao-te-ata-tū: The Report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Māori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare was released by the Hon Ann Hercus. Why I say that is that 1925 was the year of the first Child Welfare Act. From 1925 until Pūao-te-ata-tū in 1986, the law was colour-blind—it was colour-blind. It only came from one perspective, which was to treat every child like a Pākehā child.

In 1955, the Adoption Act was changed. It was changed to enable non-Māori to adopt Māori children, so it has been 68 years since that has been colour-blind.

I want to talk about 1989, when I was a clerk. I was a clerk in 1989, when there were changing names for the Department of Social Welfare. Then came the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act. So the Act became the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act, and it provided family group conferences and it then started to acknowledge the Māori child in their whakapapa, in their place in the whanaungatanga, and acknowledged the responsibilities of their hapū and of their iwi to these tamariki.

In 1992, the Department of Social Welfare, where I was still a clerk, went into five different business units—five different business units. But in 1999, it came back and it was then called the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. That’s the first time the word “Child” was in the title of an organisation. Throughout those years, it wasn’t until 2014 that the section under—we’ve heard about it. We’ve heard about it in the House, about the Hon Anne Tolley. I was working as a senior adviser in Oranga Tamariki here in Wellington, on the service design team. When we’re talking about this, we started off with a white paper. We got all the children’s voices—all of the children, throughout the whole country—and they told us how important it is and that their whakapapa is so important to them. The whakapapa is so important—the children, their families, and everybody else spoke about it.

I talk about this because this is talking about Māori children. This is talking about the State’s responsibility to Māori children. If we had started on the right track and if section 7AA was in it back in 1925, we would not be here talking about this.

I talk about my past roles in Child, Youth and Family as a social worker, as a manager, and as a senior adviser because it’s about practice. I’ve seen bad practice. I’ve seen bad, bad practice where social workers—there was a neighbour that the child called “Auntie”, and the social worker treated that next-door neighbour as whānau and placed them there as a whānau placement. All that time, they had no connection. So I know what it is about bad practice.

Section 7AA acknowledges the Māori child as someone belonging to a collective, and the responsibility of the collective to this child and the responsibility of this country. Section 7AA is exactly what it is: it sets out the duties of the chief executive to responsibilities to Māori in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not support this bill.

Karen Chhour—five minutes in reply.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to thank everybody for the conversations we’ve had tonight. Some have been respectful, and some have actually been quite offensive—when I’ve had two Labour MPs accusing me of division, separation, and even one using the words “race-baiting.”

Now, the reason I brought this to Parliament is through personal experience as a Māori child in care. I know what it’s like to be a Māori child in care when things go wrong, and as far as going back into history, into the 1980s, I can tell you that I was part of that 1980s experiment and it didn’t work. It failed me and I survived in spite of the experiment, not because of it.

I was told as a young person that all I needed to do was embrace my whakapapa, embrace my culture, and it would make everything OK. I didn’t get treated for my trauma; I didn’t get treated for my needs. I just got told, “If you accept your culture and the people around you, this will make it all better.” I was sent back into an environment that petrified me, that was awful, and where I spent every day wondering whether I was going to wake up the next day. I spent two years in a home that I should not have been in, based on this kind of rhetoric, and there are many kids that I have seen this happen to in my community, too.

Now, culture is important. Culture is great, and I have embraced it as I’ve got older. But putting children back into environments based on “Family is the best place for them to be, no matter what” is actually dangerous, and I have seen the effect that it has had on children. Now, there are family members that can be worked with, and I think that this should happen so that they do have the skills and the ability to have these children back.

But young people need to be heard when they say that they don’t feel safe and they want to be put somewhere where they feel safe, and children are ending up in homes—temporary homes—because we cannot find whānau, hapū, or iwi for them to go to. We’re not giving them the stability they need because we’re waiting to find somebody that is willing to take them. Surely, our young people, at the end of the day, deserve stability, love, and care above everything, and that’s what I’m bringing to this House.

I’m not race-baiting. I’m not being separatist, and to be told that is actually very insulting. I think we need to get past those attacks, because they’re lazy and they don’t actually address what we were debating.

I really appreciate it that National has taken the time to say let’s have the people have their say at a select committee stage, because that’s where this needs to go, and there may be a compromise. There may be a way that we can make this bill work and have the people have their say.

Let young people have some self-determination over their lives too, because surely the Treaty does not just work for whānau, hapū, iwi, and parents. It’s also there for the children, because children deserve to have self-determination over their future and their lives too.

If they are living in a traumatic environment that’s not good for them and that isn’t in the best interests of them, surely it is the responsibility of the Government organisations that are meant to be protecting all our children to step in and make sure that they are safe, because too many children are falling through the cracks because we’re so busy worrying about all these idealistic issues rather than what’s in the best interest of our kids. Whilst it’s best intended—and I understand that and I have said that—there are so many unintended consequences from looking at children as an identity first and not a child.

We need to be looking after the child’s needs—what they need—and we’re not doing that well. Oranga Tamariki is failing badly for all our children, not just Māori children, and I’ll tell you what: Māori children are not that different to any other child. They want to feel loved, they want to feel safe, and they want to know that tomorrow is going to be a good day, and that is what I was intending with this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.