Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill

Now, back to the second reading of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This bill is a missed opportunity. Submitters described this bill as piecemeal tinkering and a squandered opportunity. The hundreds of thousands of people who survived abuse in care have a right to feel disappointment and hurt due to the Government’s lack of action in response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care was New Zealand’s largest and most complex public inquiry. Across five years, commissioners heard nearly 3,000 survivor accounts of abuse, neglect, and trauma and conducted wide-ranging, wide-reaching research and analysis. It can’t be said too often that the findings are horrifying. We were together here in this House last November at the first reading of the bill to apologise to survivors for the harm, neglect, and trauma that they experienced at the hands of people who were supposed to provide them with love and care.

As I said that day: “E kore e taea te hoki ki te whakatika i ngā hē kua oti, engari ka taea e mātou, e tātou te whakatika ngā mahi o nāianei kia kaua rawa anō ēnei ngārara e ngau kino anō i tētahi ā haere ake nei.”

[“We will never be able to go back and correct the wrongs that have been committed, but we, all of us, can correct the actions of today so that this horror may never again assault anyone else from now on.”]

That translation was provided by our wonderful interpreters here.

The recommendations from Whanaketia provide a plan of action to correct actions of today so that we can make our country’s care system safer and to stop abuse, neglect, and trauma from ever happening again. Yet this Government has done so little to take up this call to action. Their redress announcement in May this year ignored the fundamental request of survivors and recommendations from the royal commission—that is, that survivors weren’t required to go back to their abuser to seek redress. An independent system was what was called for, not simply funnelling more money into systems that have wronged survivors and continue to do so.

Their announcement also completely excluded survivors of abuse, neglect, and trauma in faith-based institutions, again totally ignoring a royal commission recommendation that faith-based institutions were included in the redress system and ignoring the terrible harm that survivors experienced in these institutions. Their response plan kicks the majority of recommendations down the road. The Government has declined to accept, or not even started to consider, 84 of the recommendations, and survivors continue to wait while 38 recommendations are considered further. The Government have only fully accepted 19 of the 207 recommendations in Whanaketia and the He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu report.

In this light, the bill before us offers some small progress, and that’s why Labour supports it, because it is at least some legislative action this Government is taking to address the findings in the royal commission into abuse in State care. We support the removal of strip-searches and the clarification about the use of “secure”. We also support providing the Chief Archivist with greater powers to enforce record-keeping standards and steps to improve the people working with children. We support those aspects that are in this legislation, yet we have reservations about other aspects of the bill. So we are in a difficult position here tonight.

I want to start with the fact that there was no proper consultation for this bill. The Minister kept saying that the royal commission itself was good enough consultation, but survivors were not consulted on the royal commission’s recommendations. That is not a criticism of the royal commission; that was not their duty. They were very clear in their recommendations that the development of any redress and the response to recommendations should be done working together with survivors, and that did not occur with this bill. That came through in submissions before our select committee.

This bill demonstrates why consultation is so important. The select committee process highlighted that the bill will introduce a flawed definition of “vulnerable adult”. The bill, as it stands, will put a definition in legislation that the disabled community has significant concerns with. The Minister said that the select committee supported these recommendations, but I do note that it was the majority; therefore, the Government members. There were those of us from other parties who had issues with some of the recommendations, including this particular definition. We asked the Minister to pause, to remove that particular provision from the legislation, and to work further on it with the community, and that did not happen.

There’s another provision in there that we have a huge issue with, and that’s regarding the use of force in care settings, even if it is limited. The basic fact of the matter is that there should be no need for force, and it shouldn’t be used at all. So putting it into legislation and limiting it to—oh, I think it’s like something “absolutely necessary” or words to that effect. That created concern for some of us in the committee. There is a wealth of evidence about de-escalation practices that are effective in managing this type of behaviour. This bill is a missed opportunity to mandate the use of modern approaches to behaviour management that are rehabilitative and not potentially harmful.

I will be bringing amendments to the committee stage to address some of the issues that I have spoken to today and others that have been raised by submitters, and we invite the Minister to consider them clearly. One of the issues with putting things through in an omnibus fashion is that of course there are things in here which we support and have no issue with, like the ones that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. But there are others, due to a lack of consultation or outright concern with and not aligning with the recommendations of the royal commission, that we have issue with.

So we are supporting this bill this evening but with those concerns, and we will be bringing forward amendments that we hope the Minister will give proper consideration to in the next stage. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I start by quoting a survivor of abuse in care, Keith Wiffan: “We are called survivors, but firstly I would like to acknowledge and honour the very many who have not survived—their families and whānau—many taking their own lives, many having their lives shortened by the serious health issues related to being abused in care, many not surviving the ill treatment. Their spirits are with us today.” Abuse in care “has ripped families and communities apart, trapping many into a life of prison incarceration, leaving many uneducated and ill-equipped to cope in the outside world … The public of this country have invested heavily in this inquiry and like us they expect outcomes.”

I want to thank Keith for that quote. I want to start by acknowledging survivors and centring their voices. They are survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care. You’ve waited for decades for justice, for even the most basic assurance that the harm done to you will never be repeated. I want to honour and thank you for your courage. Your stories, which we read in Whanaketea - Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light—survivor experiences for the survivors, by the survivors. Your stories, your advocacy, and your persistence are why we are here today. The Green Party supports the intent of this bill, which will, hopefully, start a raft of legislative changes required to multiple systems and Government agencies to ensure the abuse suffered at the hands of the State is never repeated or felt again. We support efforts to strengthen protections of those who have suffered abuse in care. However, while this bill is a slight—very slight—step forward, it falls short of what is required to truly honour the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. It fails to centre survivors, it fails to deliver the systemic change that is being called for, and it fails to uphold the Government’s duty of care to those it harmed.

I want to be clear that the Greens support this bill progressing so that it can be improved. Again, though, let me be very clear: we will be seeking significant amendments, particularly around the use of force in care settings, the definition of “vulnerable adult”, and the need for truly independent survivor-led review of this legislation at the committee of the whole House stage.

The Greens have participated, in good faith, at the first reading, through select committee, and second reading stages ,and will continue to fight for this legislation to be better and more survivor-centred than how it is currently drafted. The Greens remain deeply, deeply concerned by the inclusion of the section 384KB, which permits the use of force in certain care settings, even under so-called limited circumstances. Let me say this in the most plain terms: there should be no place for the use of force against children and young people in care; not now, not ever.

The royal commission was unequivocal in its findings: force, restraint, and punitive practices are a continuation of the very abuse we are trying to reckon with. Yet here we are considering a bill that, as currently drafted, potentially leaves the door open to some of those same practices. We know from decades of research, from lived experience of survivors, and from the international best practice that young people in care, particularly those in youth justice settings, often have significant trauma histories, complex needs, and mental distress. Meeting those needs with force only causes more harm. We should be embedding trauma-informed de-escalation practices in legislation, not legitimising physical restraint.

We have raised this in our differing view at the select committee stage but what remains troubling is the way that the currently drafted legislation leaves the door open to a third party—private providers—to use force. That is a serious red flag; a red flag we should all be concerned about. It raises enormous accountability and safety concerns, and it directly contradicts the recommendations 70 to 75 of the royal commission of inquiry, which called for a fundamental shift away from punitive models of care. Whakarongo mai.

We will be seeking a raft of Amendment Papers at the committee of the whole House stage to remove this provision entirely from the bill. We also remain concerned that this bill reinforces institutionalised models of youth justice, particularly through the expanded search powers and imaging provisions. Section 384KA may improve oversight in some cases, but at what cost? It risks contributing to a culture of surveillance and control, solidifying institutionalism in these rangatahi and young people rather than supporting healing.

Retaining images generated by imaging technology for up to 24 hours is unnecessary and potentially unsafe. The bill does not justify why this retention period is even necessary. Every day that an image is stored increases the risk of misuse, breach of privacy, and re-traumatisation—something we should all be focused on eliminating. We urge the Government to reconsider this approach and shift focus towards its community-based, whānau-centred, and culturally grounded alternatives to youth justice institutions. We want to move away from institutionalising children, and care for them instead.

Clause 12 of this bill introduces a problematic definition of “vulnerable adult” under the Crimes Act. This definition raised significant concerns with many in the disabled community, as we heard at the select committee stage. We heard from submitters that the current wording defines disabled people through a deficit lens rather than recognising them as full, equal participants in society. This language is not just outdated, it is actively harmful and undermines the intent of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. At the select committee stage, we asked the chair to formally request that this clause be paused until proper co-designed consultation with the disability and deaf communities has occurred.

Something that survivors said over and over and over in the royal commission of inquiry: “nothing about us without us” must mean something in law. Perhaps the most frustrating failure of this bill is the lack of meaningful consultation with the very people it affects. Survivors, disabled communities, the deaf community, tangata whaikaha Māori, takatāpui, and others have been vocal about their concerns. The select committee process is not meaningful—not meaningfully listening to these survivors and listening to their experiences and learning from them—because, over and over, they tell us the reason that they are going back over these awful childhood memories is so that no child ever experiences what they did when they were children. Unfortunately, we know, right now in New Zealand, that children are still being abused in care every day, and that is not good enough.

So, to conclude, the Greens will support this bill at second reading, but we do so with serious concerns and clear expectations around the amendments being sought to uphold the royal commission of inquiry recommendation. This must not be the final shape of the legislation. The use of force must be prohibited; survival leadership must be embedded; definitions must be empowering, not stigmatising; and consultation must be meaningful, not tokenistic.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to stand here on behalf of ACT in support of the second reading of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill.

Let me start with why this bill was presented in the first place. It was in response to recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. It was also done in a time frame around the apology to survivors of abuse in State-based care and faith-based care. That day still sits in my mind now very, very clearly.

I kind of have two feet in this camp—one with the experience of growing up knowing what it is like when the system fails you, when the system doesn’t step up and do what they should do to make sure that a young person is safe. I never really had an understanding of how important an apology is. I would just like to take a moment to thank Minister Stanford in the efforts around making sure that that apology was done in a genuine manner, a respectful manner, and in a way that may not be able to take away what happened to survivors in care, but at least it’s an acknowledgment of what had happened to them. So I just wanted to take a moment. I never really had a real understanding of how much that apology would mean to me myself. So I just wanted to speak to that.

In response to that, this is just a small part of a work programme that the Government is currently working on in response to the recommendations of that bill. Nobody has ever said that this is the magic bullet that’s going to fix absolutely everything; it’s just one part of the puzzle, and there is a lot of work to do. I’m really proud of the work that Ministers have done around this space, of actually working together and getting agencies to work together with the ultimate benefit of making sure that young people and anybody in State institutions are safe. My responsibility is not only to the young people that are in Oranga Tamariki care or residences but also to the safety of the staff within those residences. That was taken on board when we were looking at ways that we could make residences safe, not just for the young people but for the staff who are working with these young people.

I’ve heard some commentary around the use of force and the concerns around use of force. I’d just like to give an example of what that could look like and an understanding that it will be the last resort. But there are circumstances where young people are getting hurt and harmed within residences, not necessarily by the staff but by other young people. If two young people are in a circumstance where they are physically fighting, one is harming another, are we to say that a staff member cannot physically restrain that young person for the safety of the young person they are attacking? We have to have the ability, under exceptional circumstances, to allow staff to intervene for the safety of a young person. So I will not apologise for putting something in place that will give staff a tool to enable the safety of a young person when they are in danger of hurting or harming themselves or hurting or harming another young person or a staff member.

I’ve also heard concerns around third-party provider use of force. I would just like to clarify why that was even considered. I would also like to give another scenario of what that would look like. In the same sentence, the member that expressed concern about third-party use also mentioned that they would like to see the Government going back to community-led approaches and community, holistic approaches to dealing with our young people, rather than a residential care setting. This provision will allow that. Under current legislation, a third-party provider would not be able to take on these young people and would not have the ability to, like I said, keep their staff safe and keep the young people safe when they are in the care of a third-party provider, which could be an iwi provider or any community provider. This will allow us more options at looking at community-based care. I just think these are very small, simple changes around Oranga Tamariki - specific changes within this legislation that just makes sense.

In no circumstance whatsoever should strip-searches be allowed on young people. So it just made sense that there was something sitting in legislation that, obviously, has not been used in a long time but should not sit within legislation. So we will be repealing that and not allowing a young person to even consider that being a possibility. Survivors shared experiences of horrific, violating searches happening to them within care, and we do not have to have a piece of legislation that even reminds us that that could be a possibility. Submitters also talked about never feeling safe when they were in a residential setting and that we needed to make sure that young people are safe and cared for. So a lot of these decisions were made with that in mind, and search powers will enable that.

In the six months to February 2024, 390 unauthorised items were found in one secure youth justice residence alone, and that was without the ability of having a scanner in place, so we don’t actually know the true number. Of these, 21 were large-sized rocks, 14 were shanks that could be immediately used as a weapon, and there were also unauthorised items such as vapes and illegal drugs. Now, these vapes are also used to create shanks, which is incredibly dangerous for the young people and for the staff. So we have to have the ability to make sure that people that are visiting the residences—and this includes staff and contractors—are not bringing things into residences that would put these young people at risk. I have had feedback from young people and from people working with the young people that this will give them more sense of security and safety within what they call their home; and they should feel safe.

We’ve put provisions in place so that if an unauthorised item is found, it will be returned to the person who has brought it. They can take it back to their vehicle and choose to do so if they would like. We will be explaining this procedure thoroughly, and staff will be trained on how to implement it. They will be trained how to implement all the changes that are happening in this space.

As far as use of force comes, I do agree de-escalation is really important, which is why I was very concerned around there being no standard operating practices within youth justice. Professionalising the workforce has a massive budget boost for Oranga Tamariki for that very reason. We will be professionalising the workforce, making sure staff are trained, understand processes and de-escalation, and understand how to work in a trauma-informed way with young people that often have had a pretty poor start in life. So I commend this bill to the House, and I really look forward to the day that this gets Royal assent and that we can just get on with it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Any time I speak on a topic relating to abuse in care, I draw from personal experience of what my mother suffered. For me, tonight, to speak to this bill, I take heart that, as a Government and as a Parliament, we are taking action in a positive direction.

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care—I had the privilege to make a contribution to that, and I’d just like to draw a couple of notes from what I spoke about in that first reading. The inquiry reveals shocking details, stories that are incredibly harrowing, that have impacted large numbers of people, their families, and communities. Abuse in State care—that abuse became normalised and integrated in the culture of so-called care. It’s a gross inversion of the purpose of healing and restoration and is a shameful stain on our nation.

I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the second reading of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First, because this responds to decades of systemic abuse against children, young people, and vulnerable adults between 1950 and 1999. Its purpose is to begin implementing some of the commission’s recommendations while broader reforms are developed. It has been mentioned in the House tonight that this bill does not go far enough, but it is the beginning of a larger piece of work. This bill comes after the deeply traumatic findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. It does acknowledge the harm inflicted upon generations of New Zealanders in institutions that were designed to care for them, that were designed to protect them.

As I mentioned, this bill is a significant start. Further change is still needed, however. New Zealand First supports this bill. I commended it to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to this bill, and I just want to first begin by acknowledging my colleague in front of me, Kahurangi Carter, for her compelling, moving speech and commitment to tamariki in care and in custody, as this bill addresses.

This bill, as others have outlined—my other colleague Willow-Jean Prime had a really important and strong introduction about what this is all about—this is all about the at least quarter of a million tamariki who were abused and tortured in State care and religious institutions from the years 1950 to 1999. I think, although we’re supporting this bill because of all of the reasons that Kahu outlined, there are obviously still gaps in this bill. We need to talk about those, because until we talk about those, nothing will ever change, and we have to acknowledge that there are still remnants of that system in the system that we have in place today.

This bill makes a number of different tweaks. Some of those are bigger than others, but it is tweaks to a system that aided and abetted that abuse over decades. Abuse in care did not stop in 1999; it continued beyond that, and we know that because we are in community with people younger than myself who experienced abuse in State care. I want to use an example: a case study from the Whanaketia report about Te Whakapakari boot camp programme that was run on Aotea, Great Barrier Island. We all know what happened in those boot camps, because it is outlined in this report. But three of the reasons why this abuse happened were: (1) a lack of institutional safeguards, (2) the fact that these were run in isolated locations, and (3) the presence and power holding of untrained members of staff. I am afraid that these three elements are still present in our youth justice system, in State care, and that they are not being addressed by this bill, because we see that in the boot camps that are happening today, and that will be legislated under a different bill around responding to serious youth offending—but this bill, too, entrenches some of those stalwart features of an abusive system.

This bill talks about youth justice residences, and I want to continue building on those points around institutionalisation. I’m really scared that some of the things that are in this bill will mean that whānau do not go to visit their tamariki, because of fear of being searched, having to be scanned, all of these different elements. I understand—it’s a fine balance to strike, that you have to make sure that people aren’t bringing in contraband, that they’re not bringing in anything that can harm Tamariki; but, at the same time, sometimes, that uneasiness around institutional authority can be enough, if you have that trauma, to not go. It can already be a challenge going in the first place if that youth justice residence is far away from where those tamariki come from.

That’s why the Greens have been persistent in saying that we do not believe in youth justice residences as they exist today. We believe that these need to be far smaller, in situ homes in communities so that tamariki are not ripped from their communities, where their families have to travel across the country to see them and then are subjected to some of these checks and balances. We obviously support provisions around removing strip-searches. No tamariki should ever be subjected to a strip-search—that would make anybody in this room feel deeply uncomfortable and horrified by that. But, again, I want to build on this idea around the use of force—and just really hammering home the point that use of force—if you use that against tamariki, in some ways, you are teaching them that it is OK to use that as a tool in their future. That use of force also can lead to further trauma and further use of violence.

So there are lots of different parts of this bill that I think my colleague articulated far better than I have, but just to say that we are committed to the journey and the teamwork that it will take to turn our youth justice system around. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a contribution on the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill on the second reading. As the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, I’ll just make a few comments and I’ll have an opportunity to say more in the third reading, so I’ll just limit the comments I make here to some themes that came through on this bill at hearings.

I just want to acknowledge the 69 submissions that the select committee received, the 20 submitters who presented orally—including many survivors of abuse in State care. Thank you for letting us know, in very visceral terms, the issues they’ve faced and continue to face and the importance of this to them, something that we also consider to be very important.

Some of the things that our committee heard is that some didn’t think this went far enough and wanted all of the recommendations the royal commission implemented. I note that this is the first step, and is an initial legislative response to the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. There are many more steps to come, and a lot of work has been done by the Government to respond to that, but this is the first thing and some critical initial things that the Government could move quickly on and is doing.

I just would note a couple of points. One was the recommendation that came from the royal commission to specifically include disability within the definition of a “vulnerable adult”. Some submitters were concerned about that terminology, and our committee very carefully considered that. An issue that was brought very clearly to our attention was that an unintended consequence of changing that definition would mean that it would actually have issues in the Crimes Act and it would probably result in fewer prosecutions. I acknowledge those submitters who raised concerns about this, but that is the reason why we have not recommended any change in respect of that—as we do not want less prosecutions of people who should be prosecuted.

In terms of the Children’s Act, this is extending workforce restrictions to include equivalent overseas convictions. We obviously want to ensure that people who have overseas convictions should not have the opportunity to be around young people and have an opportunity—that they should not have—to abuse them.

In terms of the Oranga Tamariki Act, I note the concerns that were raised by some around the search powers. It is important to note this is removing the power to conduct strip-searches. What it does do, instead, is allow scanner and pat-down searches upon entries of others to these facilities, to ensure that nothing is brought in—weapons or other contraband—and it permits the use of force only where reasonably necessary. We really interrogated that point and we got a lot of information to our committee about how they’ll be very, very carefully used and there will be very careful provisions put around that and reports that would have to follow if there was an occasion where it was deemed it was reasonably necessary.

There’s a number of other points that we probably can go into further, but I just want to say that we considered this very carefully. This is the first step of many steps to come. Thank you again to those who came and shared their experiences with our committee. We will talk again in the next hearing on this.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Just wrapping up this kaupapa, I thought that my colleague and friend Willow Jean Prime summed up the position very well in terms of our doubts with regards to the bill. It’s a sad state of affairs where you know that there’s still a lot to do. In fact, there’s so much to do, but you really have no choice in terms of supporting a kaupapa because something’s better than nothing.

Systemic abuse is shocking and, at times, hard to see or to believe for a lot of people, but it’s true and real and will always be, and that’s just a fact. And we’re talking here about the systemic abuse of a quarter of a million people, and many have acknowledged that—but a quarter of a million; it’s almost beyond belief. I think that many of us in the House here are still stunned when we think about the pure evil that was rolled out by people and organisations that many of us thought we could trust. We never thought for a moment—and I won’t mention any of the organisations tonight at all; that would not be right, but I think it was a stunning time back in November when we traversed this, when we addressed this.

I, like others here, was very pleased with the different kōrero that came around the House; particularly pleased with, obviously, our leader’s address, but also the Prime Minister gave a very, very good address—which was good, but many people were also saying, “Well, what does that actually now mean?” In terms of a real and practical sense, what can be done now—because the kōrero was good but what people want to see is real effect from their kōrero. They want to know what’s next, because the tough part of this is you’ve got a system that’s not working. Do you turn that whole system over or do you just put tweaks in there and roll it along?

We tried hard as a Government to change things. We addressed things in terms of Oranga Tamariki, we changed the whole board, we put a new chair in, we put a whole Māori board in, and we tried. Why did we go down that track? Because we were told that a by Māori, for Māori approach was the right way to go, and we started to get results. However, obviously, we got turned over as Government, and what we had put in place was not continued by the current Government.

I just wanted to make this short contribution before you cut me off, Madam Speaker, to say that the big question—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wasn’t going to cut you off, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The big question in terms of what survivors are saying is the system hasn’t worked for us. The system hasn’t worked for us, so we need more than a few tweaks. We need the whole system turned over, and that’s something that I think we want to address in the third reading, because it will take bravery, it will take courage, but at least we’ve made a start and the framework is in place. I look forward to addressing some of that in the third reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)