Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) 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.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: 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.

It’s a privilege to stand here and speak to this bill tonight. Many MPs hearing this speech tonight may have been present the last time I spoke to this exact same bill while in Opposition. It was a member’s bill that I had put in the biscuit tin in the hope of starting a conversation around the decision making on where our most vulnerable go when they are not safe and when they need the State to step in. When I became the Minister for Children, I made it clear that my intention was to refocus the children’s system on the wellbeing and individual needs of children. I want our system to ensure that every child in this country is raised in a loving and stable home that sets them up to succeed for life, regardless of race or culture.

As a child growing up and dealing with Child, Youth and Family Service myself, I can tell you that all I wanted was a stable home where I could feel loved, safe, and wanted. During my time in Opposition, and before coming to Parliament, I heard devastating stories about how some Oranga Tamariki staff prioritised cultural considerations and the desires of the child’s family over the individual needs of the child. This sometimes led to unsafe care decisions and disruption for both the children and the caregivers. I saw firsthand the devastation on caregivers’ faces and the pain in their voices after being told a “for ever home” did not necessarily mean just that. I saw the damage caused to a family that by the grace of God managed to find a Māori relative a few generations back after receiving the threat of having a child removed from them because they were not Māori. That was enough to save them from a reverse uplift. It’s the same house, the same people. Nothing had changed; just the fact that they could trace a small piece of Māori in their bloodline.

I had caregivers tell me of being forced to send children to visit previous abusers just to keep the family connections, with the attitude that the child needs to know where they came from. There was no regard for the trauma this was causing the child or the caregivers, who were too terrified to speak up, knowing they would be perceived as racist and that the child may be uplifted if they spoke up. Then we had the very public case of a young girl referred to as Moana. Moana was traumatised and neglected for years before being removed and placed into a safe, loving home—what was meant to be a for ever home, until a social worker decided they needed to remove Moana from their care because a Pākehā family could not provide for her cultural needs. Then there was the latest Newsroom story that covered four children being uplifted in a similar way, all because they were the wrong ethnicity. This is the most heartbreaking thing to see, and it should not just be accepted. In all of these awful decisions, section 7AA was given as the justification.

Every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their needs, and their safety and wellbeing should always come first. This bill is the first step in this direction. While its original aim was well intentioned, I believe that section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act has been able to be used to influence care decisions that have put vulnerable children in harm’s way by prioritising cultural considerations over safety and wellbeing. While I applaud the incredible work our front-line staff do to protect and care for children in need, section 7AA puts pressure on social workers to prioritise cultural considerations over the needs and safety of individual children while making care decisions.

It’s important that I make it very clear that this bill does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from retaining its current strategic partnership or from entering into new partnerships with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. I have personally made my expectations clear to officials at Oranga Tamariki that they should continue the good work that has been done in this space if the agreement is working in a positive way and to the betterment of our children. I have never said that whānau, hapū, and iwi should not play a part or a role in the care of our young people. I support empowering all communities, and the Act already required this prior to the inclusion of section 7AA.

I welcome the robust discussion during the select committee process and would like to take this opportunity to encourage all those affected to make a submission. I know there are many caregivers out there who’ve felt they could not speak up in the past, and this is an opportunity to do so—to have a voice in the debate—because, after all, you are the ones who open your hearts and homes to the many children I have spoken about tonight, and I have to say how grateful I am to all those who do so. Quite frankly, anyone who argues that the safety and wellbeing of a child should not be the most important consideration needs to take a good hard look at themselves. A child does not choose to live in fear or be harmed and hurt. The Government cannot control what happens to young person before they come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, but they sure as hell can control what happens after. Abuse and neglect does not discriminate, and when a child cries out for help and we have a system that sees them as an identity first and a child second, we have a real problem.

This bill is about making sure that all our children are in the best environment that will provide them with the best start in life. It’s about ensuring the kids’ need for love, safety, and freedom from neglect are placed first, as they should be. 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 a piece of furniture that gets passed around from place to place until they’re broken beyond repair, with no care for their rights or needs, and this needs to stop. It is a disgrace that my role even needs to exist in New Zealand. But I will tell you why I stand here today—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Because you’re a sell-out.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: —willing to take the abuse and the mud that’s been thrown my way. It’s names like Baby Nga Reo, or Baby Ru to many; Malachi, Maya, Carla, Leanne, and, most recently, to add to our list of shame, Falute Vaila. I think of the Kāhui twins, Nia Glassie and many more. Those are just some of the names—many names—that will never be spoken again, as they are the invisible shame of our nation. Then there are those who survive and are often denied a better life, their voices being silenced and unheard.

I have heard a lot about Treaty obligations, rights of iwi, Māori rights, and racism. But where is this same level of outrage when a Māori child takes their last breath in this world because the people who are supposed to love them and care for them do not? Surely, love, safety, and treating our children with basic human decency is a priority instead of the easy way out of blaming racism and the Government for our shameful child abuse problems.

This may be hard and uncomfortable to hear, but I will never make excuses for those who choose to harm our most precious gifts. I’m not here to use lazy arguments of racism being to blame for the loss of our precious children. I never want to see another child torn from a loving home for life because the caregivers are the wrong race, and I never want to see another traumatised child sent back to their abusers because they are the right race. That is what section 7AA has contributed to and I am proud to repeal it. If the other side of the House will try to paint this as racist or try to paint me as some kind of traitor to my race, I know New Zealanders will hear the empty, hollow words for what they really are. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. You may not have heard but during Karen Chhour’s speech, I certainly heard Willow-Jean Prime say, “You’re a sell-out.” Now, that kind of personal reflection is explicitly prohibited in the Standing Orders, specifically Standing Order 121, and it’s my view that for this House and for this debate, it would be best if she stood, withdrew, and apologised.

I have looked at the Standing Order, 121, and certainly if the Hon Willow-Jean Prime did use those words—I didn’t hear them—then I’ll invite her to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Jack Gibbons, who endured the suffering that section 7AA was helping to stop, says “My extended Māori whānau spent 11 years searching for me. I faced extreme hardship and disconnection, and Oranga Tamariki never revealed my existence to my whānau.” Tupua Urlich, a former ward of the State who was the first survivor to speak at the Māori public hearing for the abuse in care royal commission of inquiry said, about repealing section 7AA, that “It’s going to take generations to undo that harm. So when the Government turns around and fails to acknowledge our rights, it’s just another stab in the back.” State care survivor Paora Moyle told 1 News, “It is cruel to take children away from whom they belong to, their standing place, whom they know themselves to be.”

The reasons the Minister has given for the need to repeal section 7AA are that the Minister believes that it creates a conflict between the best interests of the child and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. On 13 December, I asked the Minister to explain what that conflict was, and I asked her how she can claim that there is a conflict in upholding the best interests of the child, when section 4 of the same legislation says that in all decisions of Oranga Tamariki, the best interests of the child is the primary consideration.

The Minister this evening has talked about high-profile cases, prominent individuals—caregivers, I would add, not the children who she spoke to—as the reason for the need to repeal section 7AA. Now, I want this House to take on board what the regulatory impact statement says and what the Waitangi Tribunal’s final report on the repeal of section 7AA says about those reasons that the Minister has given. What they have said to those claims that we heard tonight is that there is a lack of robust evidence to support the view that section 7AA causes harmful changes to long-term care arrangements. In fact, on page 9 of the regulatory impact statement, it says that “A range of stakeholders”—and caregivers and concerned whānau members, as the Minister has referred to. In response to that, they say “There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that section 7AA has driven practice decisions that have led to changing care arrangements. We have heard anecdotal concerns from a small number of caregivers”. They go on to say, “There is, however, no evidence to suggest that these concerns are related to the duties outlined in 7AA. Some concerned stakeholders and advocates have expressed their view that section 7AA was responsible for previous high-profile changes to care arrangements.” They say, “Again, we do not have evidence as to whether section 7AA explicitly influenced these care decisions, but internal evaluations suggest that it did not.”

So I only have five minutes in this first contribution, but what I say to this House is the reasons that the Minister is giving to repeal section 7AA, there is no empirical evidence to support it; said by your own officials, said by the Waitangi Tribunal—it is only anecdotal, it is only hearsay. What is actually driving this is political ideology. They are anti-Māori, they are anti - Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that is what is driving this. Because for all the things the Minister has claimed, there is no evidence.

I will finish on the fact that she was not prepared to present to the Waitangi Tribunal and answer these very questions so that we could all understand what the problem is and what the possible solutions could be to this issue. She says she’s proud. Well, I don’t think she should be proud of condemning future generations to having issues with their whakapapa, their connections, and their whanaungatanga.

The member’s time has come to an end.

Thank you. I am sitting here listening, trying to make sense of why this Government is repealing a law that protects vulnerable children, a law which has proven itself through positive outcomes for those vulnerable children, a law which the Government should be praising because it helps right the wrongs of the State, which has systematically failed children and whānau. This is the Minister’s trauma-informed decision-making, not evidence-based policy.

It’s important that New Zealanders understand what we are really talking about here. We’re talking about a Government who is making decisions based on their own anti-Tiriti vibes, not evidence. We know the Prime Minister doesn’t understand section 7AA, because today he said, “We are united in the coalition Government that we are prioritising the wellbeing of the child ahead of their cultural needs.” They’re the same thing—they are the same thing. This is a dangerous game the Government is playing, essentially saying honouring Te Tiriti is harmful to tamariki. Let me be clear: there has been no empirical evidence that 7AA puts cultural needs above the wellbeing of the child.

If this Government was serious about evidence-based policy making, it would wake up to the hard evidence presented to it by officials time and time again that the ratio of Māori to non-Māori in State care has reduced because of 7AA, that Māori children in State care have reduced because of 7AA, that children and young people in care are telling us 7AA is working. All of the names the Minister for Children has just mentioned, those tragic cases were all before 7AA came out. Evidence—let’s use the evidence. When we make decisions based on the best knowledge and evidence, we all win. This Government is gatekeeping knowledge by not using evidence, and our tamariki are the ones who lose out.

We are all here because we want the best for our children. That is what unites us, and we have to hold on to that and embrace it. Isn’t that what our kids deserve? It’s our duty to take the best knowledge from the mainstream system and from te ao Māori. We can take the best of both worlds so that our tamariki grow up safe and protected. Instead of repealing a bill which is protecting children from a State that was harming them, we need to be looking at more solutions, because there is so much more that we need to do. We cannot throw the baby away with the bath water.

There is no denying that this Government has failed as a guardian, especially to Māori children, who are continuously overrepresented in statistics of abuse in State care, outcomes in health, education, housing—a shameful fact for all New Zealanders. Section 7AA is how we keep Oranga Tamariki and the State accountable to protecting children; 7AA enables restoration into generations of systematic neglect.

Let’s not forget why 7AA was brought in: to manaaki children to be their best selves, connected to their community and their whānau, because the State was failing our tamariki. Seven out of 10 children in care were Māori. Oranga Tamariki staff were failing to adequately find homes within a child’s whānau, ripping them from their whānau and whakapapa without due cause. Section 7AA is about accountability and protecting tamariki Māori.

Te ao Māori has so much to offer. In te ao Māori, we look to nature for guidance. Tamariki are like seeds in the forest, filled with so much promise and potential. When their root systems grow strong, they can weather many storms. Our tamariki need strong roots connected to their whānau, just like the trees in our forest. Systems in nature teach us how to care for our tamariki. Like that very seed, the child is part of a whānau, a community, and it is their birthright to be connected.

Sitting in the gallery today is Whānau Ora and Kōkiri Marae, who support children and whānau to stay connected. They put the safety and protection of children first always—something this Government should learn from. By repealing 7AA, their incredible success stories and mahi with whānau and tamariki are in jeopardy.

Members, this is a very emotionally charged debate. I’ll invite you on both sides just to observe the tikanga of this House and just keep your comments away from anything personal, please. I’ll allow debate to take the course it has, but please just observe that in these quite emotionally charged times, things can get out of control quite quickly. So I’ll invite all speakers and all interjectors just to take that into account, please. Thank you.

I’m pleased to rise to take a call in this debate. As you said, it is an emotionally charged issue, as it should be, because what is at the heart of this legislation is the protection of our most vulnerable children. That’s what this change is about. I want to be clear about what it’s not about. This is not about a Government being anti-Māori; it is not about a Government being anti-Treaty.

When the legislation was originally introduced, the intention always was that the child’s interests come first. I wouldn’t have thought there would be anyone in this House who doesn’t want to see the reduction of harm against our most vulnerable children, right? So we want to see more children protected from harm. Unfortunately, we have seen examples—as a constituent MP of 16 years, I have heard constituents who have come to me with exactly this issue—exactly this issue. So I’m not going to stand here and say that Governments of either side have got it right in terms of protecting children from abuse. The list that the Minister read before was a blot on all of us.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Before 7AA existed.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, no, it’s still happening today. It is still happening today. And anyone in this House who denies that we are not still harming children is in La-La Land, absolute La-La Land. Get real in terms of what the focus of this legislation is about. And although we would like to see that we have not had decisions where children have been removed from homes—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You haven’t. That’s what your regulatory impact statement said when you made your Cabinet decision.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. You are completely distorting what this debate is about. It’s really unfortunate that the members opposite aren’t listening to what the heart of this debate is about.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Evidence.

Hon Peeni Henare: Evidence.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely. And the evidence is, when a child is removed against their best interests—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: There is no empirical evidence—

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m sorry, but I’ve dealt with cases as an electorate MP of constituents when exactly this has happened. So you might want to deny it. I know it would be really nice to deny it doesn’t happen, but it does. It is happening. So I’m just so disappointed that the Opposition don’t want to listen to the reality of the primacy of what this bill is doing. So when the accusation came before about ideology—and, unfortunately, I think what we’re hearing from the other side because of their lack of willingness to engage is about ideology—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You haven’t read the evidence.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course I have—of course I have. I’ve worked with this legislation for years. I’m the Minister that’s changing the oversight to Orangi Tamariki to make sure it delivers better than it is today. How do we do that? How do we do that? We do that by ensuring the best support is available and the decisions are made in the best interests of the child. [Interruption] That should and must always come first. We have to use every tool available to us, and unfortunately—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ah, look, members, I’ve just stopped the clock at the moment. I just wonder whether the Minister engaging across some very loud interjections—this is a very important debate with people who want to hear the arguments, so interjections: short, sharp, and relevant, not a continual barrage. So please, members.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s actually quite embarrassing because I think those people who want to listen to this debate would be embarrassed about what’s happening in terms of the barracking across the House. Because what members opposite aren’t thinking about is it might be a small number of children that are affected by this, but, actually, for them, it has had significant impacts on their life, their future, and their opportunities. Those are the children we should be thinking about in this particular legislation. So, look, in many cases it works well. We need more Māori organisations to partner with the Government to do fantastic work on the ground. But, actually, in some cases, the application of the law has shown that this change is required to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable children in this country. Unfortunately, the Opposition wants to turn it into a debate that it’s not.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First is steadfast in its belief that there should be a focus on actionable outcomes for those who are in need. We believe in securing the immediate safety and wellbeing of our most vulnerable, especially our children. There has been a concern around section 7AA addressing a child’s cultural needs ahead of their immediate safety, stability, and wellbeing. We believe that cultural considerations, whilst important, should not impede a process and possibly put a child’s safety and security at jeopardy. There is a genuine concern that section 7AA, when executed, is simply too traumatic for the young child; hence, removing this provision from the Oranga Tamariki Act, which puts an obligation on the chief executive around abiding by the Treaty of Waitangi in decision making when it comes to caring for our young people.

It is hard to imagine the possible trauma for a child when uplifted. The child may have been told that this is their for ever home. They are settled and have developed a connection, a bond with their new carers, some over several years, only then to be removed. Genuine need must transcend race, religion, or other similar factors. The obligation under section 7AA does not put the overall welfare of the child first. The child and wellbeing of the child, the care and wellbeing of the child, must come first. The child must be safe at all costs, period. I look forward to the select committee in hearing submissions and going through this process. Hence, on behalf of New Zealand First, I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora. Meinga hoki! [Is that so!] The parties of the Government have doubled down on the extermination agenda for Māori—[Interruption] Just hold tight. My use of that word made a lot of you uncomfortable, and I’m glad to hear it. The repeal of section 7AA is a targeted extermination of our babies—hold tight: don’t have feelings yet—exterminating any ounce of culture, identity, and any sense of their Māori selves.

What many don’t have the cultural intellect—despite any other intellect—to understand is that a Māori person is different to a Pākehā. Moana Jackson and He Whaipaanga Hou said: “A Māori person is shaped by cultural forces which are unique to their being Māori, and is subject to influences which are consequent upon that sense of Māori-ness.” So I speak to all the Māoris in this room: let that sink in—let that sink in. And if you don’t, you’ve declared to the whole House who you actually are.

The consequence here is cultural extermination—killing the wairua of Māori babies, so they just fall—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Mariameno.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Sorry, I’m just trying to speak over—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We’re debating a bill here, and debating the bill is not attacking the opposition. Can we speak to the bill, please?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I’m—yes, of course. Yes, so I’ll carry on. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The consequence here is cultural extermination—killing the wairua of Māori babies so they just fall in line and go into Pākehā, making things easier for makers of law.

Let’s not pretend section 7AA is about race or segregation. It’s about power: a power which can only be maintained where Māori believe from the day that they are born that we are less than. It matters not the exact deals the shameful Government have conjured up using our kids as chess pieces. What matters is that those in power think that they can mess with our mokopuna and get away with it. The very fact we are discussing this repeal at its first reading today exposes the mass injustice by this and all Kāwana.

This repeal reflects the lie fed to us that we are not good enough to look after our own and we are better off handing our flesh and blood to Pākehā. The painful irony is that our babies have been physically harmed in State care, and thereby turn to crime as salvation. E te Kāwana [To the Government], you are criminalising our babies. Meinga hoki rā. [Is that so?]

To say that culture and identity are being valued more than tamariki welfare is a bold-faced lie. This repeal does not point to a single shred of evidence. There might be feelings and stories—that’s not evidence—that prove section 7AA has led to decisions which have unduly favoured whakapapa and placed tamariki Māori in harm’s way. Even the title of the bill is tactically sterile and underplays the seriousness of the matter. More accurately, it should say “removal of Māori” and perhaps then more of us would oppose this repeal. I’ve committed over half my life to social work with whānau, hapu, and iwi.

Hon David Seymour: Probably better you’re in here.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: When Puao-te-ata-tu was released, I was on the front lines. I am doubtful, however, the Minister or any of the Government have taken the time to read that seminal report, otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing this repeal. [Interruption] I’m just to ignore the nonsense on the left—they can’t help themselves.

Section 7AA moves us towards direct Māori involvement in social welfare policy practices—the key priority of Puao-te-ata-tu. But this Government is not interested in analysis, logic, or facts. The Minister’s own officials advised against the repeal, in sync with the Waitangi Tribunal.

When section 7AA was introduced, the Human Rights Commission applauded the provision. It recommended the duty be strengthened to a direct obligation to form strategic partnerships with iwi. An indigenous model of care is, and will always be, the answer for our tamariki Māori. While this idea is not revolutionary, I know this new generation of Māori are—and they will see our mokopuna Māori returned into our care in their lifetimes.

Although this Government strives to further alienate our children from themselves, Te Pāti Māori will not stand by and watch—we have never and we never will. I say again—

The member’s time has come to an end.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill. We’ve heard some passionate speeches tonight, and we’ve certainly heard some passionate words said around the country, but I think one thing should be clear to all of us in the House: we all care about our children in this country. We all care about the future of our children in this country. Unfortunately, there have been some words that I think have been said in the heat of emotion and passion that aren’t actually connected to the reality of what we’re doing here and what this Government is doing, which is aiming to focus Oranga Tamariki on the wellbeing of children.

It’s absolutely important—it’s vital—that children are connected to their whakapapa, that they’re connected to their whānau, that they’re connected to te ao Māori, that they understand and are deeply connected to them, but the reality is that’s not always possible. So the reality of that is that absolutely, we must focus on the wellbeing of the children of this country—that’s absolutely important. I don’t think there’s one person in this House who would disagree that we need to focus on the wellbeing of our tamariki. That’s what we’re aiming to do with this. We’re aiming to focus on this.

So, look, let me just go through a few short things. So every child deserves the same level of care and protection—every child. The focus on their individual needs and their safety and wellbeing, needs to be put first. Culture, whakapapa, whānau, te ao Māori connection—critical. Absolutely critical—I don’t disagree with that.

While this bill repeals references to cultural consideration in section 7AA, it does not remove existing provisions in other parts of the Act which require decision makers to consider cultural factors in care decisions. So they will still be required to consider cultural factors in care decisions—so just be really clear about that. It’s absolutely important.

This does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from retaining current strategic partnerships—it does not take that away—or from entering into new partnerships with iwi, with hapū, and Māori organisations. It does not take that away from Oranga Tamariki. So that is absolutely important for Oranga Tamariki, and I have total confidence that Oranga Tamariki will be doing that. They will be doing that—I’m absolutely confident they will be doing that, and I’m making it very clear in this speech that it is an expectation that they will be doing that. So this will not be taking that away—that is absolutely clear.

The Independent Children’s Monitor will still report on the strategic partnerships that Oranga Tamariki has with iwi and Māori organisations as part of their broader reporting on outcomes for Māori children, young people, and their whānau, so that will still be happening.

Now, look, if we just go back a little bit into the history of this, there was a Newsroom article back in 2019 which highlighted uplifts of Māori children, and that set a big part of this conversation, and absolutely without due cause. But I don’t know whether everyone in this House has seen a more recent article from Newsroom as well: “Restored: the Newsroom story the Crown and court didn’t want you to see—‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’ ” about a reverse uplift.

So if I just read a little bit from this: “In June 2019, the practice of uplifting babies was exposed in a Newsroom Investigates video. The documentary, which showed … behind the scenes when a young Māori mother from Hastings refused to hand over her newborn, would force a huge shift in Oranga Tamariki’s policies and operations.”—that’s a good thing—“The five official inquiries that followed our investigation slammed the agency’s approach to removing babies from their mothers and the systemic racism behind it: it was revealed tamariki Māori accounted for 70 percent of children in state care, and that Māori babies were being taken into custody at a rate five times that of non-Māori.”—something none of us want to see—“Then on July 1, 2019, section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act came into force. The new legislation laid out the ways in which the state needs to uphold the right of tamariki Māori to be connected to their culture and whakapapa.”—something we all agree on—“The combined effect was immediate. With the Hastings uplift backlash building, Newsroom understands Oranga Tamariki requested an audit to find out where uplifted Māori children had been sent, looking specifically at non-kin carers. Essentially they were finding out exactly where the Māori kids were, and we were asked to find out the ethnicity of their carers and the status of their placements. That’s why they’re on spreadsheets in OT offices up and down the country,” an OT social worker told Newsroom. Oranga Tamariki, it seems, were in a scramble to self-correct.”

Then the article goes into a very sad story of where children have been put into what they were told was their for ever home and then they were taken away from that home. So let’s be clear: we want to protect our children, we want them to be connected to their whakapapa and their whānau, and we support this bill.

I stand in opposition to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I want to take some members on a little history journey. First, I acknowledge my whaea Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. I’ve heard many members in this House, in particular on the other side of the House, do the “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” They’re quoting my and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tupuna Meri Ngaruto. Actually, if you dig a little bit deeper, beyond the facade that members in this House often use, you will find what she’s speaking to is whakapapa, connection: the ability to know where you are from, to understand where you are going. I want that to sink in to members in this House, because I’ve heard it on the political stumps during election, I’ve heard it at all of the whānau events that I’ve seen members at. But that’s what it means, and that’s why it is important that we oppose this bill.

This evening, we’ve heard from the Minister for Social Development and Employment; who we haven’t heard from is the Minister for Whānau Ora. Whānau Ora is important to the wellbeing of families across this country. That’s why it’s called Minister for Whānau Ora: whānau, family; ora, wellbeing. I want to know whether or not the Minister will front up to the people who oppose this bill, who have made their position clear as day to that Minister and, indeed, to this Government, that section 7AA should not be repealed. The Minister for Whānau Ora—and I was the Minister for Whānau Ora, in my time—acknowledged that we could do things better. Ngā Tini Whetū was born through a partnership, to ensure that we can continue to support our tamariki Māori to stop them from going into the systems we don’t want them to go into, like Oranga Tamariki, like the legal system. It was a kaupapa designed to make sure we can support our people our way: connected to their culture, connected to their whakapapa. What this repeal bill does is it doesn’t compel the Government, nor does it hold the Government to account, when it comes to the care of tamariki Māori.

We keep hearing that “Oh, well, it’s the need for all tamariki”, simple maths for that side of the House. Most of those tamariki are tamariki Māori, and every single one of them have a whānau. They have a whakapapa, they have a marae, a maunga, an awa. Tonight, what’s happening is an absolute travesty. We’ve heard from the other side of the House, who continue to say, “We will use the evidence and we make evidence-based decisions.” Well, the evidence is quite clear that repealing section 7AA, in the Oranga Tamariki amendment bill this evening, isn’t evidence-based. It needs to consider the years and years of evidence, the many reviews that have been undertaken under the previous National Government and under the time when Labour was Government, to make the system better.

This is definitely a step in the wrong direction. I expect it from the ACT Party. I do. I’m not surprised by that. That’s their ideology. That’s their dogma. But I want to call out the National Party, the Minister for Whānau Ora, and make sure that they are held accountable too. This isn’t just an ACT Party thing; this is a National-led coalition Government taking our people backwards. We want to see that Minister, and the many Ministers, front up to our people and explain to them why they’re taking them backwards. There are a number of other avenues where these could have been discussed, and, perhaps, even the Opposition clearly debated through, and one of those is in Cabinet. I wonder—and our people are asking the question—did the Minister for Whānau Ora stick up for our whānau? Did other Māori Ministers in that Cabinet discussion stick up for our whānau? Quite clearly, they did not.

Very soon—very soon, the National-led coalition Government, supported by the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party, are going to have to front up to our people. There are a number of hui coming up. They were happy to come to all the other hui—they’d better start coming to the hui coming up, so that they can front up to the people, answer the questions. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, in the seconds that I have left: that side will be held to account.

I’m going to say it one more time: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.”—speaks to whakapapa, speaks to connection. I’m ashamed when I think of all the times that I’ve heard members, in particular on that side of the House, use that quote and misquote it.

I stand wanting to say that if children were able to see us now with the passions that are being displayed, with all the good intentions on both sides being expressed, and the indignance behind the desire to strengthen a culture, they would probably look at us and say, “What about us, the children?” They are not as sophisticated in their language. They are not at the level that everyone in this House is able to speak and shout and judge and label. They will just be wanting to be provided the opportunity to live the best lives they can.

There are other children in the care of Oranga Tamariki. While it is true that the greater percentage is Māori—

Kahurangi Carter: Yes, seven out of 10.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes, yes. If I may, I think we can dial down the anger, because we can’t see—

Rawiri Waititi: It’s not anger; it’s righteous anger, and it’s passion.

PAULO GARCIA: OK, so I will just—[Interruption] So my point is that if children could see what is happening now, they would probably just want to clamour for what they need, as children do. They need to be cared for, they need to be in stable conditions, and they need to be loved. Love does not call out by race. Love is called out by the kind of values that the care environment provides to the children, or seeks to provide the children.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are you saying there are no loving Māori whānau that could take these children on?

PAULO GARCIA: No, no, no. I’m just saying what I’m saying. People can take whatever meaning they want to take out of what I’m saying, but what I’m saying is that children just want to be cared for and loved and put in stable environments.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: That’s what we want too.

PAULO GARCIA: We all want that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: With whānau.

PAULO GARCIA: It’s true that there is a deeper connection with cultural values behind the upbringing of children. True. There is no battle about that.

Hon Member: That’s why we’re here. That’s what we are debating on.

PAULO GARCIA: No, because not all children in care are Māori.

Hon Member: This is about 7AA Māori mokopuna.

PAULO GARCIA: I’m just pointing out there are children in care who are not Māori, and just like Māori kids, they will be looking for the love and support and environment that they need to grow in a stable environment. There is no—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Garcia, if you’d mind just sticking to the bill. It might just be a good idea at this stage.

PAULO GARCIA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The removing of section 7AA does not restrict the engagement and specialised relationship that iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations offer. It does not strip that. It also provides opportunities for existing relationships to carry on, as long as they are able to provide that environment. That’s the whole object, because it is possible that, in the way the law is there, it can be abused. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We’ve had a number of speeches from the National Party MPs tonight which have passionately defended the rights of children. They have talked about the need for stability, for love, for the kinds of conditions which let children flourish and acknowledge those important things like whakapapa and a sense of identity for children. So how frustrating it must be for these National Party MPs to be championing an amendment to a law that was written and passed by the National Government in 2017, which had support from ACT’s David Seymour, which the ACT Party have now made into a political football which has chased votes of exactly the type of people who have rarked up a divisive debate in Aotearoa New Zealand that we did not have before this election campaign that ACT have drawn on for votes.

How frustrating it must be for not only the National members sitting on the other side of the House tonight but also their Cabinet, who have to put up with ACT using our country’s legislative process to rark up a debate that is damaging for social cohesion. Even the official advice presented to this House points to Government documents which say that the kind of social cohesion and disruption that this bill and the Treaty principle causes will have long-lasting effects not only on our society but our democracy too. How frustrating that must be to be sitting in this debate tonight on the wrong side of history.

The changes to the original Act that we are talking about tonight were made at a time when the care and protection system was in crisis by National Minister Anne Tolley. She had the right idea here. She was working with New Zealand First Minister Tracey Martin, who called these changes that are being repealed tonight a “circuit-breaker”, because things weren’t going right for Māori children in care then, and we needed to try something different, and that trying something different resulted in a care and protection system which for the first time was responsive to the needs of Māori children and whānau Māori who were engaged in the care and protection system.

The Minister for Children now, Karen Chhour, has claimed that race-based factors set out in section 7AA create a conflict for the best interests of the child, but the official advice—as you’ve heard from my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime—says exactly the opposite. In fact, the New Zealand First speaker tonight repeated those claims and said that cultural considerations were getting in the way of proper care and protection. That is verging on misinformation, which is misleading to the public. The official advice says exactly the opposite of that. This House has a responsibility to pass law which is based on facts and evidence, not on political reckons which are then used by a political party to absolutely scrape the bottom of the barrel for votes that they could not garner otherwise. Shame on them.

There is a lack of evidence that section 7AA is leading to settled care arrangements being disrupted, but, again, we heard those claims repeated by the Minister in this debate, when the official advice has proved that wrong not once but twice. In fact, on page 9 of the official advice which the Hon Willow-Jean Prime quoted, it says “However, due to Ministerial commissioning, the identification and assessment of [other] options”—other than this option which we are being presented with now—“falls outside the scope of this analysis.” So not only is this Minister coming to the House and presenting this bill as if it is the only solution, she also commissioned the advice in a way that did not let her officials propose any other solutions to care for children.

So when that side of the House comes here and says that this is about caring for the most vulnerable children, we can see a paper trail of evidence where the officials are telling Cabinet that they were not afforded the ability to suggest changes that would actually have a lasting effect. This is about politicising our most vulnerable children, and shame on that party for drumming up that kind of debate in Aotearoa where it doesn’t belong.

The proposed repeal of section 7AA would also remove the requirement for the chief executive to report on the impact of Māori children who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. This change was absolutely a good one. It allowed the chief executive to spotlight the treatment of Māori children in care. Those children have been on the steps of Parliament every year asking legislators to highlight their needs and this Government has removed a legislative requirement without any consideration for what they’ve heard over and over again from these children.

This is a divisive piece of legislation, designed to drum up divisive, ugly politics. They’re ugly politics for political end and they have no place in this House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I’ve stayed to listen to this whole debate to see what different members have said. I heard Karen Chhour, the Minister responsible, say that this Government’s ambition is care for vulnerable children that sets them up to succeed for life, regardless of race or culture. She said that there are alternatives where the Government takes children out of a safe environment and puts them in a dangerous environment because the safe environment has parents of the wrong race.

She gave an example of one such set of parents, where they were going to lose the child that they had committed to care for for life. They were going to lose that child because they weren’t Māori, and then because they found a distant Māori ancestor, they were allowed to keep the child. That is how absurd and how racist our society has become—the way that Oranga Tamariki has been behaving—and I’m proud to stand on this side of the House where we are saying that each child should be alike in dignity and have the same basic rights and duties as they grow up in this country, regardless of their race.

You might wonder how people could start thinking about that. Well, actually, then we heard from Willow-Jean Prime, and if there was ever a failure of logic, it was this: Willow-Jean Prime repeatedly said that there was no evidence that section 7AA made any difference because section 4 actually says that the rights of the child always come first anyway. Now, if she’s right, then she wouldn’t care about section 7AA because it doesn’t make any difference. But then came the lady from the Green Party, who’s been here for five minutes—I don’t know who she is; I don’t much care, because she’ll probably be gone in a scandal next week anyway. But this Green Party person said, “Look, actually, the wellbeing of the child is the same as their cultural needs.” So, if we believe this lady, then all of a sudden, actually, 7AA is going to affect whether a child is taken out of a home or not.

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand it is the practice of this House to refer to members by their full name.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That’s fine—carry on.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry to the people at home for that gratuitous and out-of-order interruption.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, no, Mr Seymour, no—now you will withdraw and apologise. Do not comment on the Chair’s findings, so you will now apologise.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): And now continue.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The facts are that these two speakers contradicted each other. One of them says that section 7AA makes no difference, which raised the question of why she cares if we get rid of it. The other one said that, actually, your race and culture are the same as your wellbeing. Unfortunately, that is the problem at the core of the debate, that children have been taken out of houses where they are physically safe, where they’re nurtured, where they’re loved, and put back into dangerous environments as a result of race. That is absolutely reprehensible in any free society that respects the rights of each person to live in equal dignity.

Over here on this side of the House, we believe that there should be a place for everyone, and we believe that people are made up of many different strands. People have different hopes and different dreams. Yes, nearly every New Zealander has a blend of racial background, and that brings me to the real question of this debate, of why people are just so angry—why we heard the speaker from the Māori Party saying that the consequence is cultural extermination, killing the wairua of Māori babies, and making them Pākehā. That is really what betrays the motivation of people on this other side of the House who oppose this bill. They are race fanatics. They believe that a person’s race is more than all the other attributes that make up a person.

Well, I’m so proud to be standing next to Karen Chhour, one of the most courageous women and people in this Parliament, who is standing up for that simple, timeless, and essential idea that it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what your race is, you will be treated the same under the law of this country by the authorities of this country. There’ll be a place for you in this country, no matter what your background may be, and maybe one day these folks will understand it, too. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The question is, That the

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.