Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill. We first come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 10, “Amendments to Children’s Act 2014” and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill marks a very important process in the Crown’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. This bill was introduced to Parliament on 12 November 2024, the same day the Crown made its historic public apology to survivors of abuse in care. The changes in this bill are another step forward in the Crown’s response to the royal commission, making an important start on changes to improve the safety and wellbeing of children, young people, and adults in care.

I just want to start by thanking the survivors who made submissions on this bill for your bravery in coming forward and helping to make the care system better for others. Thank you to the Social Services and Community Committee for your significant improvements to the bill.

This is an omnibus bill that makes improvements to four Acts. Under the Standing Orders, where a bill is drafted in parts, we will consider it part by part. Each Minister responsible will talk to their relevant part. I will lead Part 1 on the amendments to the Children’s Act 2014, which falls into my portfolio responsibilities as Minister of Education, before handing over to my colleagues: the Minister of Justice for Part 2, the Minister for Children will lead Part 3 and associated Schedules, and I believe that the Minister for Children will also be looking after Part 4, as well, today.

The two changes in the Children’s Act will help keep children safe by strengthening provisions relating to core children’s workers with certain types of criminal convictions. The changes are extending the workforce restriction for core children’s workers to include overseas convictions for offences that are equivalent to specified offences and adding offences involving minors in the Prostitution Reform Act to the list of specified offences that trigger the workforce restriction.

The first change to the Children’s Act addresses a gap relating to children’s core workers with convictions for serious offences overseas: it’s unlawful to employ someone as a core children’s worker if they’ve been convicted of a specified offence and do not have an exemption. The specified offences are listed in the Children’s Act. They are offences under the New Zealand law involving serious harm, including harm to children, but they currently do not cover overseas convictions. This change will make it unlawful to employ a person with an overseas conviction for an offence equivalent to a specified offence in New Zealand as a core children’s worker unless they have an exemption. Exemptions enable a person to still be employed if they would not pose undue risk to the safety of children. Individuals with overseas convictions will be able to access, review, and appeal rights when a decision is made about the equivalency of convictions.

The second change adds offences involving minors under the Prostitution Reform Act to the list of specified offences. These are offences under the New Zealand law involving serious harm, including harm to children. This will make it unlawful to employ a person with a conviction for one of these offences as a core children’s worker without an exemption.

These changes will help to close known gaps in the protections in place to reduce the risk of harm to children by people employed to look after them. Guidance will be made available to support employers of core children’s workers to understand and comply with the changes. This work is well aligned with the royal commission’s findings and recommendations in relation to screening and vetting of workers.

The feedback on the changes during the select committee phases were largely supportive. A common theme throughout the select committee process was that the changes were positive, but that we could do more to improve child safety—for example, through further amendments to the Children’s Act, which we will consider.

The amendments are a first step. Cabinet has directed further work on options for improved children’s worker safety checking requirements, and the Ministry of Education is leading that work. In addition, through Budget 2025, the Government invested up to $71.5 million to build a capable and safe care workforce for children and adults across the care system, and agencies are working on a joint approach which will include consideration of any changes needed to strengthen the workforce safety further.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to acknowledge the people who have suffered under a law that has not protected them for many years. It is something that we can never really say enough about.

Labour is supporting these changes, because they’re a first step, but we are absolutely committed to a much more comprehensive response to what has been an appalling practice in New Zealand. The apologies that came out of the Government were very much an acknowledgment of that, but my own personal concern is that we still have many children who are not being protected sufficiently in New Zealand, and we have a continuing issue. I acknowledge that this piece of legislation is a start in that direction and while there have been many concerns raised by the community and concerns raised by other parties, as well, in support of a community that is worried that it has not been consulted sufficiently, we will be supporting the changes, so far as they go, today.

I just wanted to talk about the nature of the changes in an overarching way. We have changes to the Children’s Act, the Crimes Act, the Oranga Tamariki Act, and also to the Public Records Act here. One that’s maybe the most controversial is the issue over search plans, and that will be looked at today and, no doubt, there’ll be questions asked of the Minister about that.

I think we’re all in agreement in terms of the movement to look at convictions overseas and that gap. That’s a really important gap. I was recently in Australia at the women’s shelters conference, and Australia’s doing a lot of work in its children’s safety plan to really make sure that in every state information is being passed and people are not able to move from state to state. It made me reflect that we’re very lucky here. We have a small country and it’s quite possible for us to close that gap, and that overseas convictions gap was, really, that one. We don’t have the same complexity as people who can move from state to state, so we’re in a pretty lucky position in that way—but we have had an issue in this area, so that is something that I think we can all support in this House.

I’m also really interested in the changes to care record access and transparency, and the interest in public records. Again, I have been concerned that, in places like Canada, while there have been these commissions that have looked at these very similar issues with indigenous populations—for example—being hurt, there is often a lack of transparency over what has happened and a lack of power kept by the people who’ve been hurt. I think these changes, while they don’t probably look, to the public, like they’re important, are important changes where we make sure that our public record system is acting on behalf of the people impacted, not protecting others in the system. I think those ones are underestimated in terms of their importance and the value of keeping going.

Sorry, I’ve just got a few questions. I would like to start with a question about the issue about survivors and their involvement in this process, because it’s been raised by several parties that there hasn’t been enough. It’s a concern that the Labour Party has had too, that there hasn’t been the consultation that had been expected, and when you have that kind of low trust of people who are deeply traumatised, that seems to be something where we could do better. Why has there not been the consultation and what plans are there to consult? Thank you.

I’ll basically just put that one question to you. I do have other questions, but could we start with that? There’ll be people watching today who have been impacted by this, and they have expressed a concern that they have not been consulted sufficiently. One example of that was the issue over disability and vulnerability, and its inclusion, that has come to light. Could we talk about why we made the choice to go the way we did—why did the Government make that choice, and what will happen from now on in terms of opening that consultation? Does the Minister concede that perhaps we can do better in the future iterations and changes to respond to this abuse inquiry? Can I know about that first? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mōrena ki a koutou, mauri ora ki te Whare. Tuatahi, ki ngā morehu o te motu, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koutou, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou mō ō koutou kaha, mō ō koutou whawhai tonu. Ki te Minita, mōrena.

[Good morning everyone; life and vitality to the House. Firstly, to the survivors of this land, I extend my warm greetings to you, my heartfelt acknowledgments for your strength and your continued struggle. To the Minister, good morning.]

We’re, obviously, supporting this bill because of all of the work that has gone into it from survivors, from people from all different parts of society, and from the community. Our contributions in this committee of the whole House are really an attempt to try and understand particular parts of the bill that survivors have brought up that need to be scrutinised. That scrutiny is deserving, because we know that one of the reasons why this scale of abuse of children, this scale of torture, this scale of violence that took place between the years of 1975 and 1999 is because of a lack of institutional safeguards, because of a lack of children’s safety and, indeed, children’s rights being put at the forefront of legislation and of all of the rules and conditions around that State care. We know that some of the other contributors to that horrendous abuse that took place in State care and in faith-based institutions was also a consequence of having untrained staff members, a lack of institutional safeguards, a lack of safe regulations, and also the location that some of these institutions were at—for example, Great Barrier Island or Aotea in the 1970s during the Whakapakari boot camp.

Our question, to start off, in terms of Part 1, is similar to Helen White’s questions to start off, and it’s really to understand how survivors have been involved in this process and how, since the first reading of this bill, has the Government listened to that feedback from survivors. We all would have received lots of emails from survivors, whether they’re part of an advocacy organisation who are doing that work on behalf of survivors, or you might have heard from individuals who have reached out to us.

I guess to summarise what our inquiries will be about today, we’re really interested in the use of force and how that has been safeguarded, and we are wanting to ensure that that is a last resort and that all other options have been exhausted before we get to use of force—

Suze Redmayne: Is this Part 1?

Hon Karen Chhour: That’s Part 3.

TAMATHA PAUL: Sure. There’s no problem in breaching what we’re going to be talking about today so that this is a productive session. So we’re in Part 1. Nothing’s changing in Part 1. I’m just letting the Minister know what our areas of inquiries will be.

So I’m interested in the use of force. I’m interested to know how survivors have been involved in this whole process. We’re interested to understand secure care and young people and how long they are allowed to be legally within that secure care. There are other areas in terms of youth justice residences and State care institutions that we’re keen to breach, but, firstly, I’m keen to start off with how have survivors been incorporated meaningfully into leading us to the bill we have in front of us today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to the similar questions asked around consultation in relation to my part of the bill, remembering that this bill was a bill we introduced a year ago in response to the royal commission, which undertook extensive consultation—we had a six-year process, which raised some of these issues. This also seems to be an issue that has been known for some time and not dealt with, and, when I became the Minister, it was not only something I realised we needed to deal with through the royal commission but something that seems to have been known and not dealt with for many years, as far as I can tell.

First thing: we had a royal commission for six years, and they were very clear in their recommendations. This bill responds to that. Secondly, it’s been a year that we’ve had a select committee process. People have been able to have their views heard. We’ve taken those into account. This part of the bill was relatively uncontroversial. We didn’t have many—hardly anyone, in fact, I believe—saying anything about this part of the bill that meant they were opposed to it. It’s a widely supported, relatively straightforward change that fills a known gap and responds to the royal commission report. Many people were involved in that, but, more broadly, I have set up a ministerial advisory group of representative survivors to help guide the Government in its work over the next few years.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Firstly, can we ask if that microphone can be just slightly tilted more towards you while you’re standing up, just to hear properly?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. I’ll watch that.

GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, and thank you, Minister, for being in the chair. As has been addressed by colleagues already this morning, this is around acknowledging our survivors—those who are still with us, and those who have passed—and we acknowledge them this morning and throughout this process. I also want to acknowledge that last night, in Parliament, we celebrated 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal, and, I guess, the significance that that holds in the space we stand in today and as we talk about abuse in State and faith-based care.

My simple question to the Minister this morning, following what you’ve just said, is: yeah, there has been a six-year process and survivors have been a part of it all the way through; we understand there’s a ministerial advisory group that survivors are part of—but, I guess, my question to the Minister is just around trust. In terms of where we’re sitting in this part of the legislation, trust has been broken. The State and faith-based organisations have breached that trust for many, many years, and so my question to the Minister is: are you confident that we have landed, in this part of legislation—that survivors can trust that you have leaned in, that you’ve listened, and that you’ve taken on board what they want?

As we continue to move through the morning, and as this proceeds through the committee stage and then into the third reading, the fact that that meant survivors and families can actually trust you as a Minister—and I mean that in a genuine way, in terms of that they are on board and that, in every word that’s in this legislation, they can trust that you have listened and will continue to listen, and if anything does need to change, then there is openness to that.

Thank you. I have quite a specific question, which is about the responsiveness of Part 1 to new offences. I know that we’re moving, hopefully, to a law where we change the rules around trafficking and that’s quite a significant change, and I really welcome the work done in that area where we move away from consent. For the public, that means that we’re looking at children—and, in fact, even adults in that situation—who might be enticed into exploitative behaviour, perhaps with offers of gifts, etc., so it’s sort of organised exploitation of people.

I can see that we talk about specified offences. I’d be really keen to know, from the Minister, with that kind of law change in the wind, which is really welcome, is that wide enough? Is it that there’s a regulation where, in fact, specified offences can be added to and that that would mean that somebody involved in those kinds of activities—which, in the past, have not come into offences—would be captured? That is a worldwide phenomenon; those law changes, hopefully, are happening as we recognise that kind of behaviour internationally, so while we’re doing it here, we’re also following a trend overseas.

I’d be really keen to know: what is the Minister’s plan with regard to offences here and offences overseas as our recognition of inappropriate behaviour, hopefully, changes for the better? How are we capturing that? Thank you.

We think it’s already clear in this bill that we are adding specified offences, as I mentioned in my opening speech. It’s very clear that as things come up, we will consider adding them to the specified offences list, as we’ve done in this bill today.

Kia ora, Minister. Thanks for your answers before, as well—really appreciate you illuminating some of these issues for us. I’m keen to ask another, more of an overarching, question, just because I understand that Minister Stanford is here with us for Part 1 and then we’re moving to a different Minister for Part 2. This question is about kind of the broad thrust of the bill, but there are parts that are relevant in Part 1. It’s the fact that in Whanaketia, the actual report that came out, there were a number of different recommendations made, and some of those span across this entire bill, including within Part 1.

I guess, some of the big feedback that we’ve gotten from mōrehu is that they want to understand why some recommendations have been implemented in this bill and why some have not been implemented into this bill. So I’m really keen to get an answer from the Minister in charge of the inquiry and the follow-through of those recommendations to maybe talk to the committee a little bit about why some provisions that were called for weren’t followed through with. One of the main ones that we hear about is the request for an independent, survivor-led redress system, but I understand that there were other recommendations that haven’t been followed through.

Yeah, my quick question to the Minister is: what was your decision-making process when you were going through those recommendations, and how did you choose which ones you would implement through this bill, and which ones you weren’t able to?

As I already said in my opening speech, this was a bill that we introduced a year ago—it was the very first piece of legislation. There is an enormous amount of work to do. There are hundreds of recommendations that need to be looked at, considered, and enacted, potentially, and we’re going through that work. Budget 2025 funded a safe and capable workforce, for example. There will be an enormous amount of work to do there, including lots of consultation to get that right—so a huge piece of work.

This was the piece of work that we knew we could do quickly: identify known gaps and move on with it and make meaningful change so we can say to survivors, “We are listening. We hear you. We want to get something under way as quickly as we can where there are known gaps in the system; this is this piece of legislation.” But since then, there has been an enormous amount of work, and a huge Budget injection to make sure that we will continue this work.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Helen White, but what I’m going ask for now is—we’ve had a good, respectful way of setting the scene this morning; I’d like people now to refer to clauses specific to Part 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair, although my wish when I stood up was to just look at this issue about the consultation, because I don’t think it’s been addressed yet, and to explain this is an issue about how we got to Part 1 and this priority list—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I actually have been listening to the Minister’s answers, and she did talk about the inquiry in the select committee and the consultation and the opportunity, so I feel like we’ve covered that. I’d like questions related to specific clauses now, please.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you. I think that we are in agreement, largely, with Part 1, and I don’t want to waste time on things that we actually agree with, and so I think that we probably could just leave it there on that—I don’t think that’s a problem. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Glen Bennett. Do you have a specific point to Part 1?

I do, Madam Chair, thank you. I think to do due diligence is to actually spend a bit more time, because people are listening and wanting to make sure that we are held accountable.

I’m looking at new section 28C, inserted by clause 5, in terms of the review process. It talks about going to the chief executive and the process of doing that, in terms of a survivor being able to ask questions, but I want to come through to new section 28D(2). If the applicant wants to appeal against a decision that has been made by the chief executive, new section 28D(2) says, “The applicant may appeal to the High Court against the decision to confirm the determination.”

Now, it’s really just a question about cost, and I haven’t actually been on the Social Services and Community Committee, so forgive me if it is answered somewhere else. In terms of a survivor going through the process, they will be able to apply, they will be able to go to the chief executive, but then, in terms of, again, the support for a survivor who has been through trauma, who has been harmed and hurt by the State, and the State then requiring them to potentially pay to have their appeal heard by the High Court—I’d appreciate for that to be illuminated to understand a bit more about, again, for a survivor, who is paying the cost when they’ve already paid the highest cost.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, this part already exists in the legislation for core workers who have a conviction in New Zealand. We’re just aligning the law so that people who have an overseas conviction and now fall under this piece of legislation also have an appeal right. This is not about survivors having appeal rights; this is about the core worker having an appeal right against not being able to work.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for her responses thus far on this piece of legislation. I do agree that it’s a missed opportunity. I have just a general comment, and then I’ll speak to a few of the specific clauses.

I attended a conference last week on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and met several of the lawyers working in this area. A comment on repeat was around the Limitations Act and whether consideration had been given in terms of that very key limitation on people being able to access their rights of complaint—which was six years, I understand. It’s just a general comment.

In terms of new section 28A, inserted by clause 5, I just had a question about the interaction between the determination under section 28 and name suppression provisions. What consideration is there when a determination is made under the new section 28 and there’s a clear indication that there will be an application for review? This may tie into separate legislation, but I’m just curious about whether there may be name suppression issues in that.

In new section 28B(2), inserted by clause 5, there is a reference to a chief executive receiving an application, and the ability to hand that application for review on to another chief executive. I just have a question about the rationale for that and when it would be used.

In new subsection (3), there is a reference to the chief executive confirming whether the applicant has previously applied for a review under the section before making a determination. This is, obviously, a separate ask and just a general question about the rationale for the chief executive to need that information before making a decision on the application in front of them. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. OK, to get specific, my questions are around the amended section 28, in clause 4, which talks about core workers—so “Core worker convicted of specified offence not to be employed or engaged”. I guess my questions are around the word “core”, because, obviously, if we’re looking at a youth justice residence or a care institution or if we’re even looking at third-party providers that might provide training or a course or something to the young people in either of these institutions, I want to understand what “core worker” means and why we’ve only focused in on core workers. Does that mean that other workers that are working in and around children are able to have convictions of these specified offences within the Act? Does this go far enough to provide the kind of institutional safeguards that are required of the adults who are meant to be caring for and looking after young people in these institutions?

I just think it’s interesting that there is that use of the words “core worker”. What does that mean for other people who are engaged? I’m thinking there might be, say, trained youth workers or social workers but they might have people who are supporting or volunteering in an organisation, like a third-party provider—whatever; there’s lots of people around. My assumption would be that, after the scale of abuse and torture that was experienced for decades and, in some ways, still endures today—how much of that abuse took place by people who are just simply around and had the ability to be around? Do we expect the same requirements of them to not have offences that make them a danger or a risk to be around children, particularly really vulnerable children?

Yeah, I’m seeking to understand why we’ve specified that only core workers must not be engaged or employed in this business, and what safeguards are in place to make sure that every person that interacts—guides, teaches—in any way, small or big, with vulnerable children are not going to pose any danger or risk to their wellbeing and safety.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to that member’s question, “core worker’ is an existing term defined in the Act. Specified offences only apply to core workers for restriction. The key is that when people are working with children and have unsupervised access to children, they are teachers, learning support people, and teacher-aides, and those types of people who generally have unrestricted access to children that we need to protect children from. That’s why we had this known gap and that’s why it’s being closed.

Just in relation to some of the other questions, the Limitation Act is outside the scope of the bill, I’ve been advised. The chief executive can hand over a review if the work or person is more relevant to the other child education sector, which makes sense. In terms of the no-repeat reviews, we don’t want the worker to keep applying for review for the same offence.

I move, That debate on this question now close.