Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 5, “Amendments to Oranga Tamariki Act 1989”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take this call on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I have a number of questions, and we have some amendments that we would like to speak to throughout this committee stage as well, but I want to first start my contribution by saying how extremely disappointed I am in the Minister for Children for failing to listen to the majority of submissions that were opposed to the repeal of section 7AA, for not listening to the evidence that section 7AA will cause harm to tamariki Māori, for the Minister’s failure to present any empirical evidence that there is a problem that exists with this section. Throughout the select committee process, no empirical evidence was provided to the Social Services and Community Committee to support the Minister’s repeal of section 7AA.

I want to start by asking the Minister: where in the bill will there be an obligation on the chief executive which replaces section 7AA(2)(a), because in the repealing of this section, that entire section is being removed and there is no proposal, no proposed amendment by the Minister, to address this issue? This is an important clause that is being repealed, because the whole purpose of section 7AA was to ensure that the duties of the chief executive set out in this section are imposed in order to recognise and provide a practical commitment to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Now, what section 7AA(2)(a) says is that “The chief executive must ensure that—(a) the policies and practices of the department that impact on the well-being of children and young persons have the objective of reducing disparities by setting measurable outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department”. My question to the Minister is: why is she repealing that section? Why does the Minister not think that it is important that there be an obligation on the chief executive to ensure that the policies and practices of Oranga Tamariki reduce disparities for tamariki Māori? What is the point of retaining a strategic partnership if the purpose of that is not to ensure that we are reducing the disparities for tamariki Māori?

So my question to the Minister is: why is the Minister doing that? Where else in the bill is that obligation placed on the CEO, and what is the point of having strategic partnerships if it isn’t to do the fundamental objective of this section, which is to ensure that they are reducing disparities for tamariki Māori? This is important, because tamariki Māori make up two-thirds of the children in State care. That is why we have this section. That is why this is a very, very important debate in the House this evening.

Thank you. Today, we are talking about the disparities that tamariki Māori face in care, and these are historical disparities that we still are dealing with today in 2025. I have an Amendment Paper, 240, and the purpose of this amendment is that it elaborates on and clarifies what is meant by requiring regard for Māori culture, values, and beliefs and why that is so important for our tamariki Māori to have safety, security, stability, and aroha, which is their birthright. It requires specific attention to be paid to the inherent value and dignity of tamariki Māori and their whakapapa in all actions taken and services delivered by Oranga Tamariki.

A Māori worldview is one where children don’t belong just to their parents; they belong and have that sense of belonging not only to their parents but to their whānau, to their hapū, to their iwi, to their maunga, to their awa, and 7AA was the bare minimum for acknowledging their rights under article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Green Party agree with the Waitangi Tribunal, which found that repealing section 7AA would lead to clear breaches of article 2’s guarantee to Māori of tino rangatiratanga over kāinga and of the Treaty principles of partnership and active protection. This bill fundamentally misunderstands that tikanga Māori and the role of whānau in a child’s wellbeing. Tamariki do not just belong to their parents; they belong to their whānau, their hapū, their iwi, their river, their maunga. Māori have long understood this, and children thrive within their whakapapa.

Just a few weeks ago, I attended the St Patrick’s Day event—and we’re talking about the Irish people, another people who had their language, their culture try to be stamped out of them, but their Government took it seriously, and that was what they called the re-Gaelification of Ireland. Seeing those tamariki so proud of their culture, even though they live here in New Zealand and maybe had never been to Ireland before—they were so proud that they knew about St Patrick’s Day. They knew about their culture, and that made them feel so, so safe and stable and loved, because we know, and they know, that a child shouldn’t be disconnected from their culture.

We know that it has only been a short time since the royal commission of inquiry came out, and one of the main things that came out of that was that disconnection, and being pulled from their whakapapa caused actual harm to them, harm that they are still trying to heal from today. Section 7AA is the only legislative tool that comes close to addressing the failings of our Government, and its repeal will not only breach Te Tiriti but actively put tamariki Māori at risk. There is no conflict between tikanga and safety; rather, they are inseparable.

This amendment strengthens the obligation to uphold the dignity and whakapapa of tamariki Māori. I know the Minister for Children was really concerned about the interpretation of 7AA by Oranga Tamariki staff and that was what motivated her to bring this to the House, because of that interpretation. Well, this is a way, by amending this and accepting my Amendment Paper 240, to put that back in. So I want to ask: will the Minister accept this amendment?

First of all, I’ll just give an answer to the Hon Willow-Jean Prime around the reporting and the obligations of assessing outcomes for Māori children. This bill does not alter those obligations in any way. There are many ways that Oranga Tamariki is assessed on outcomes being achieved for Māori children and young people and their whānau. One of those ways that is reported is produced by the Independent Children’s Monitor reports, and of any questions the Independent Children’s Monitor requests information from Oranga Tamariki on, Oranga Tamariki is obligated to provide that information. That’s one of the ways that the chief executive is making sure that the outcomes being achieved for Māori are going well. But what I would say is that Oranga Tamariki’s focus should be that all children, and outcomes of all children, should be a focus of Oranga Tamariki—and all children that are in State care should be receiving the same love, care, and respect. That’s the first point.

The second one is speaking to Amendment Paper 240. I will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment is not consistent with the policy intent of the bill to repeal section 7AA of the Act. The suggested amendment exists in the context of the chief executive’s responsibility to achieve the principles and purposes of the Act to promote the wellbeing and best interests of children, young persons, their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups in particular.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister. But that wasn’t actually what my questions were. My questions were not about the reporting—I’ll come to reporting later and the questions that I have around reporting. My questions were specifically about the legislative requirement of the CEO under the current clause 7AA(2)(a), which is being repealed, and that puts legal responsibility on the chief executive to do something, not just to report on something but to actually do it. I’ll read it again for the Minister because this is important. This is the whole reason we have section 7AA, to address this issue. It says, “[The chief executive must ensure] that—(a) the policies and practices of the department that impact on the well-being of children and young persons have the objective of reducing disparities by setting measurable outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department:” This isn’t about reporting what sorts of outcomes there have been. That is what the Minister answered in her question. The question I have is about the legal responsibility of the chief executive to have policies, practices, and measurable outcomes to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori. The Minister jumped to the reporting on something, but what are they reporting on? This section is being taken away.

I think I’ve made it very clear that I do not feel it’s necessary to have separate obligations based on race. We should be treating all our children with the same level of respect and care and making sure that they are all taken care of, in a way. And the chief executive has an obligation to the Independent Children’s Monitor to report on those disparities and to have multiple reports and multiple obligations. Adding more red tape to how we deal with this, and writing reports rather than actually doing our job, is not accomplishing that. So, at the end of the day, every child deserves to be treated with the same level of care and respect and meeting their needs—and if “meeting their needs” means that it is te ao Māori approach, then that should be happening. But I am not going to treat our children differently.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I’m sure that last year, we were all told that we can’t wear our party emblems and things in here, but I see that the leader of the ACT Party is over there with an ACT pin on his chest.

Thank you for pointing that out. Are the ACT Party members wearing any noticeable—

Yes, indeed. I forgot that I’d put it on, and I’m really pleased to see Te Pāti Māori trying to uphold the protocol of the House instead of dragging it down, for a change.

In that response, the Minister for Children said that she doesn’t believe that there needs to be separate or specific policies for different ethnicities, or race, or so on in her answer. My question to the Minister is: given that Māori make up two-thirds of the children in care, does the Minister not think that it is important to have a requirement on the chief executive to look at policies and practices that would reduce those disparities for tamariki Māori that don’t exist for everybody else because they do not make up two-thirds of the care system?

The Minister referred in her answer to reporting on all of these things, but what is the point of having a report if there is no legal obligation on the chief executive to actually do something about it? Let’s be very clear, the Minister—in repealing this section 7AA—is very clearly removing the obligation on the chief executive to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori. I want to understand from the Minister why she doesn’t think it is important to have that legal obligation on the CEO for tamariki Māori, who make up two-thirds of the care system.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to speak to my Amendment Paper 241, which talks about the obligations of the chief executive (CE). Now, responsibilities—pay attention to what that means for tamariki Māori. What is focused on is what is addressed, and this needs to be enshrined in law because we know that tamariki Māori are not treated equally. We know that, because history has shown us over and over that tamariki Māori have been let down by the system. I’m sure the Minister has been party to far more documents and information and empirical evidence than we have, and I really implore the Minister to look at that empirical evidence, because I believe in all of our ability to decipher between empirical evidence and evidence. That is what we’re talking about here when we—it is not good enough to just expect something to be reported on and to leave it up to the Independent Children’s Monitor. When something is enshrined in law, it happens.

With the CE being responsible for the disparities that tamariki Māori face, that means that those disparities can actually lessen, and that’s the goal, right? Wouldn’t it be amazing if we didn’t have to have it, if in fact that would be the ideal? But at the moment, what the Minister is asking us is to walk around in a pitch-black shed with a torch, shining at these issues, shining a light on the darkness that happens within State care. But what we need to do is have that chief executive turn on the lights so that we can see the whole picture of what is happening, and shine a light on all of the darkness so that our tamariki Māori can have everything they deserve: all of the safety, which I know the Minister has said she’s really, really focused on; to have the stability that all of our tamariki deserve and need, and that aroha. When we boil it down, that is what all tamariki need: safety, stability, and aroha.

When we look at the evidence, we can see that when we have reported on these things, when we have reported on the disparities of tamariki Māori, actually, the proportion of Māori tamariki in care has reduced. It is working. So the concerns that the Minister has about section 7AA—well, let’s keep the really cool stuff that’s in section 7AA, the stuff that means that tamariki Māori are connected to their whānau, are connected to their culture, and that the CE is responsible for making sure that those disparities continue to decrease.

I want to know about why this proposed repeal of section 7AA—which the Minister has raised concerns about, particularly around those statutory duties of the chief executive to ensure that the policies and practices of the department—the department being the regional offices of Oranga Tamariki—and of any services and outsourcing for community providers and partnerships actually have the objective of reducing disparities of tamariki Māori. Because isn’t that what we’re here for: to make sure that all tamariki are treated with that safety, stability, and aroha? But having the lights off and just pretending that that doesn’t happen, and ignoring that section 7AA actually has helped reduce those disparities, is doing a disservice—

The member’s time has expired. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Members, the committee is resumed on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. When we suspended for the dinner break, we were debating Part 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wish to stand to speak to the member Kahurangi Carter on Amendment Paper 241, set down by the member for the Greens. I appreciate the questions that were asked in regards to this amendment. I will not be supporting this amendment. The Social Services and Community Committee considered the reporting obligations imposed on the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki by section 7AA. These include an obligation to report on the impact of measures taken to reduce disparities for Māori. By majority, the committee was satisfied that there are sufficient mechanisms outside of section 7AA for reporting outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori, produced by both Oranga Tamariki and the Independent Children’s Monitor. The majority recommended no amendments to the provisions in the bill around reporting duties.

I’d like to also include that there are other ways that this is reported upon. These include the annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau; the state of Oranga Tamariki system report to be released at least once every three years, which requires an assessment of outcomes being achieved for Māori children, young people, and their whānau; and the annual compliance report against the Oranga Tamariki (National Care Standards and Related Matters) Regulations 2018. These standards set the standard of care for all children in care, and achieving these is a priority for Oranga Tamariki. We also have several reports from Oranga Tamariki, including its annual report, which refers to measured performance against standards agreed as part of the annual appropriations, and its quarterly report, providing regular updates on progress towards ministerial priorities, its strategic direction, and key appropriation performance measures, among other matters. These reports publicly set out how the ministry is making a difference for children and young people and their families. We also have the annual Safety of Children in Care report, which publicly reviews and measures the findings of harm for Māori children and young people in care.

Now, in one of the questions or speeches prior to the dinner break, there was a comment made that we didn’t listen to the submitters. I would like to just push back against that because I actually went away and I did listen to the submissions in regards to the reporting, and I asked Oranga Tamariki questions around what we report on and how many reports are made. There were multiple reports that reported on just this. I also asked what kind of resources it takes to do the report that the chief executive is obligated to do right now. The resources were around four fulltime-equivalents to get this report put together. I believe that those resources are better allocated elsewhere. We’re actually putting the services in front of the young people rather than writing about it.

I thank the Minister for her response to questions on that, and I will come to that point, shortly, myself. But I do want to note that the questions that I had earlier haven’t been answered yet, and that is right back at the beginning around section 7AA(2)(a). I was not asking about reporting; I was asking about the statutory obligations on the chief executive that are now being removed with the repeal of section 7AA.

To come to the reporting, the Minister just then said that she has listened to the submissions and has come to the conclusion, based on what she had heard, to her satisfaction, that there were other reporting obligations and requirements in the Act, and, basically, that is a waste of money to spend it on four fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) to properly report against what is in this section. Essentially, what I was hearing is that she doesn’t think it’s justified to have four fulltime-equivalent positions to do this reporting, because the Minister doesn’t believe that this reporting is important.

But the point I would like to make and to ask the Minister about is—I’m pleased to hear that you said that you listened to the submissions and read the advice and asked your officials for further advice on this, because what you would have seen in the report is that some of us consider that clause 10 of the bill should require the monitor to carry out the reporting that Oranga Tamariki itself would have done under the principal Act. Some of us also note that, following submissions from the public, advisers recommended the committee consider two prospective amendments to the bill to move both strategic partnerships and all the reporting requirements contained in section 7AA to other sections of the principal Act.

Now, the Minister said that she listened to the submissions, sought the advice, and then was satisfied with the advice that it wasn’t necessary to do this. Now, the point I want to make to the Minister and to the committee is that what is there is not exactly what is being taken out. It is not like for like. It is not a complete replacement of that. So the Minister stood up here and gave us a big long answer of all the sorts of reporting that Oranga Tamariki is required to do—and it sounds like a lot, and it is a lot, and it should be a lot—but the point is that it is not what section 7AA required them to do. That is being lost now.

After the submissions, the advisers recommended that the reporting requirements, as they originally were, be continued. It was the choice of the majority, and for anybody listening in tonight, the code for majority is the Government, not the Opposition. So the Government members who make up the majority of the committee recommended that they were satisfied that some reporting was fine and you didn’t need this actual reporting to be required in the legislation.

Joseph Mooney: Who voted against the strategic partnerships?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: That’s right. No, no, no. What are you talking about?

Joseph Mooney: Who voted against strategic partnerships in the committee?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Are they the same, Joseph? What is the point in having—

Joseph Mooney: Who voted against strategic partnerships at the select committee?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Madam Chair! What is the point of having a strategic—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Please call Joseph by both names.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Mr Mooney, chair of the select committee, what is the point of having a strategic partnership if there is no obligation, no responsibility, nothing in statute on the chief executive to actually achieve anything in terms of that? So let’s just window-dress this. Let’s just have a partnership for partnership’s sake, but not actually say we’re committed to reducing disparities and not actually say that we are committed to reporting on what was in section 7AA. No. “We’re going to cherry-pick one of the recommendations.” That’s what the committee did and said, “We just recommend this within this limited scope of what we want strategic partnerships to do.” Be under no illusion, I say to this committee, that that replacement that they have got in there, that retention of that one section—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for that, and I believe that that addresses some of the member’s amendments that have been tabled.

The member’s amendment that was tabled at 6 p.m. in regards to including outcomes for Māori children and young persons in section 7(2): “after paragraph (g), insert ‘(h) report annually on the impact of the chief executive’s duties on the outcomes for children and young people, including Māori children and young persons, and the reduction of disparities.’ ”—I believe that I have answered already my reasons as to why I would not be supporting that.

To the member’s amendment tabled at 5.31 p.m., requesting that in clause 5, “Section 7AA repealed”, be replaced with “Section 7AA”, I would answer that by saying that the whole reason I’m repealing this section is that I believe that it brings in a conflict when it comes to the chief executive actually making good decisions when it comes to the care and protection of our young people. This is the main reason why I’m repealing the bill, and so I won’t be supporting that.

The member’s amendment tabled at 5.32 p.m., which says, “Clause 4A(1): Section 7(2)(h), after subparagraph (v), insert ‘annually report on progress made to reduce disparities and improve outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department’ ”—I believe I have already answered as to why I won’t be supporting that.

I think we need to also have a conversation about what we do expect to be the obligations for the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki. Part of why I’ve brought this bill to the House is to make it very clear that the expectation on the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki is to get back to the core purpose of what Oranga Tamariki is there for. It is there to protect our children, and, yes, I do agree that there are some disparities for Māori children, but we need to get out of this idea that these children come to us in one piece, all whole, with no trauma.

Oranga Tamariki is the last line of defence for these young children. They have come here when everybody else has let them down. Everybody who is supposed to love them, care for them, and treat them with love and respect has not done that. Now, Oranga Tamariki is having to step in and pick up the pieces, and, as far as I’m concerned, the main obligation on the chief executive is to make sure that that child is safe, that child has a roof over their head, that child is fed, that child is loved, and that child has every chance to grow up to be the best that they can be.

They are not to be seen just as only a certain colour or a certain race or from a certain background. They’re to be seen as a child and we need to assess their real needs, which could be medical, which could be disabilities, or which could be all kinds of issues, and if we address those issues, we address the disparities.

I’m going to call Kahurangi Carter. I just wanted to make the point that this committee, while things that happen in select committee are part of the discussion, we don’t have any intention—or I don’t have any intention—of us relitigating what happened in the select committee process. It can be mentioned, but members are not to re-debate it.

Also, I would just make the point that this is a very tense and emotional bill. We are looking for questions for the Minister, and I did notice that when the Minister was talking, we had several people who were having their own discussions and not listening to the answers. So I think that perhaps if we be a little respectful across the Chamber, we’ll get a lot further, because this is something that does upset people, and we are not going to come to a decision tonight that everybody is going to like. So if we can just follow good process, and I was going to call Kahurangi Carter—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Just on a point of order, Madam Chairperson, if I may.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this a point of order?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Just a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

Point of order. Thank you. I hear it—I hear the direction from the Chair, Madam Chair. The point about it being very emotional, I get that too, but we’re talking about Māori children, and there are only very few Māori in here that can actually relate and understand that single, fundamental issue. So my colleagues—these two on the side here—think that they can discuss it up, like white men often do, because they come at it like it’s a white man talking to a Māori woman about Māori children. That’s the point of order—

Hon Member: Look at who’s the Minister.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I’m speaking to no one else but Madam Chair, thank you.

Thank you for that point of order. I was just going to make a statement on that point of order. I do understand, actually, the very point that people are wanting to make points from their different perspectives, and I’m trying to make sure that we’re not attacking each other through this. It’s always going to be a little difficult—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can I speak to the point of order again, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think I had someone else who wanted to speak to that point of order first.

Just to point out that that’s actually highly insulting, to be calling race into question in that point of order. Plus, we’re actually discussing the welfare of all children.

Speaking to that—

Hon Peeni Henare: That’s not a point of order.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: No, it’s hardly a point of order. It’s preposterous—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Quiet during—excuse me, the member is speaking to the point of order. Can we, please, have silence.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: In that regard, it is as preposterous as thinking that any man can talk about what is best for women. And every woman in this Chamber right now will understand exactly what I’m talking about. So when the two on my left think that they can tell me, as a Māori woman, what is best for Māori children, they will always be wrong and out-ruled, as such. Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I’m asking for, in terms of this debate, given that we’re not going to agree, is respect across the committee. I understand it’s emotional. Just let’s not beat each other up through this process. We’re going to get to a place that we’re not going to agree on, but the point of this is actually to ask the Minister questions, not to beat each other up as a Parliament.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m speaking to clause 4A(1AAA) which is part of my Amendment Paper 241—and I do ask again whether the Minister for Children will accept this—because I want to talk in response to a few things that the Minister has talked about in her answers.

So the Minister outlined the reporting that is required of Oranga Tamariki, the Independent Children’s Monitor, and other bodies, none of which are enshrined in legislation—none. We know that our laws have to reflect the country that we want. The Minister has said that she wants our tamariki to be safe, and to have stability, and to have everything that they need to thrive. When we’re talking about reporting annually or reporting quarterly, it really ignores the everyday day-to-day operations that are going on, the everyday care that we have for tamariki, and the need for the chief executive (CE) to be responsive to that.

So, for example, the Independent Children’s Monitor brought out a scathing report just a few weeks ago. So, naturally, what will happen at Oranga Tamariki and other bodies will be that there will be changes to processes and policy. What’s really important is that the CE has a legal obligation under our law to actually respond to those discrepancies that happen for tamariki Māori, which were outlined clearly in that report. By saying, “No, we don’t need to have that law in there for reporting.”, it takes away that real opportunity to have the CE have an overall view of what happens for these tamariki, because that report showed us that these tamariki aren’t getting educated, they’re not enrolled with a GP. There are so many things that are happening that really need us to take seriously that what is reported is what is addressed. By only doing that annually or in these quarterly reports, it really takes away from the importance of the CE having it in there.

I want to respond also to the Minister talking about the four fulltime-equivalents (FTEs). Now, we know that about 600 jobs have been cut from Oranga Tamariki under the Minister’s watch, and that’s leaving us with about 419 less people working at Oranga Tamariki. So it feels ingenuine that the Minister is saying that four FTEs is a really big deal when over 400 jobs have been lost at Oranga Tamariki. So if we really are serious about providing safety, stability, and that being paramount here, then let’s enshrine it in law. Let’s make sure that the CE is reporting on those disparities. Even the Minister herself has just said and accepted that there are disparities for tamariki Māori.

I just want to go to Dr Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown’s select committee submission. Now, Dr Luke is a lecturer at the law facility at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington with expertise in child protection and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and completed their PhD on the topic of decolonising child protection in 2022. Now, in part of his submission, he stated, “The stated purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children in care is paramount. Overall, as I’m sure my submission makes clear, this misconstrues how the law operates, as section 7AA in no way undermines safety and wellbeing.” He adds, “I oppose this repeal.”

So I ask the Minister again to please reconsider my Amendment Paper 241 because we’ve worked really hard to listen to what the Minister wants from this bill and this amendment will go a long way to achieving the purpose. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be the last time I answer to this question because I’ve answered it multiple times. But what I will say is that Independent Children’s Monitor (ICM) reports are a statutory obligation. The power for the ICM to require the information from Oranga Tamariki is a statutory obligation, and the chief executive has a legislative obligation to respond to the ICM and the ICM reports on these issues.

The other area is around the standards. When I talk about Māori having disparities within Oranga Tamariki, we know we have a high level of Māori children that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. What happens before they come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki is the responsibility of not just Government but society and multiple agencies to get involved before they get to the point where they end up in Oranga Tamariki. But when they do, we need to make sure that we are meeting the standards for these young children—and we know we’re not. And that needs to be the focus for all children within Oranga Tamariki.

Now, Oranga Tamariki has an obligation in many places to report on multiple things, and the National Care Standards are one of them. They have a legal obligation to report on the National Care Standards. There’s around 80 of these National Care Standards to make sure that we are meeting them. What I want to do is focus on making sure that we are assessing all these children for what they need, and, when they have those needs, that we’re meeting them. Oranga Tamariki needs to get that focus back, and this is the intention of this bill: get back to the core purpose of Oranga Tamariki, which is to make sure that we have the care and protection in place for these children, and also making sure that we are getting young people who come to our attention in front of the right people. That’s what these strategic partnerships and enabling community programmes are about: they are about making sure that we are putting these young people in front of the right people who can meet their needs.

I take the point of the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, pointing out that the one thing that the submitters really did want to keep was those partnership and enabling community programmes. And the very party that’s supposed to be fighting for that voted against it, which I really can’t understand—why a party that wants things done for Māori would vote against the strategic partnerships for Māori and the enabling communities for Māori staying within the bill. I mean, that’s where we listened to what the submitters were saying and what they wanted, and we agreed to those changes.

So I think we need to be very careful with accusing people of nitpicking at little bits and pieces because, honestly, for the party that talks about wanting to do things for Māori to vote against one of the biggest things that they asked for is actually quite disappointing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister for Children’s contribution just then, then what’s the point of throwing the baby out with the bath water? If the Minister is prepared to sit there and accuse members, in particular in the Opposition, of cherry-picking matters within the bill that we choose to support—we’ve raised this from the start of this Government’s plan with regard to section 7AA, about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But I’m going to leave that there, and I want to bring the attention of the committee and the Minister to a number of questions that I have with respect to clause 4A, “Section 7 amended (Duties of chief executive)”, and I want to touch on two key points here. One, it says there, in in the proposal of the bill, “partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations”, and then it says, “including iwi authorities”, as if to differentiate between an iwi authority and an iwi. This begs the question that I have for the Minister and the officials here who support her: the definition of iwi. What does that mean for those who are—if the definition is what I suspect it will be with respect to settlements—yet to settle, for those who present, whether it be through resource management and other matters, to be representative of iwi? Just a little bit of guidance there from the Minister on that particular matter. It is a broad term, and the Minister’s that committed to making sure she gets it right. We want to make sure that in her working with others in this most important sector, she’s working with the right people.

Then I come down to the third point there: “enable the robust, regular, and genuine exchange of information between department and those organisations”. I wonder if the Minister is of a mind to extend the definition of “information” to include “clear data”. There have been a number of challenges to this Government, and previous Governments, to be fair, about what data set to share, the protection of data, how crucial that data is to make informed decisions, and to make sure that they’re able to support the people that they’re there to support. The term in this particular bill says, “information”. I wonder if the Minister has considered, or if the advisers have given her any advice about, making that far more explicit in saying “clear data sets”, or is this just a broad sweep for information that the department is willing to share and has the discretion of doing so? That’s of huge concern. If you’re entering into a strategic partnership, you want to make sure that they’ve got the information, they’ve got the data, they’ve got all the things to make sure that this is a successful strategic partnership and not one still simply run by the department, which continues and has continued over many years to let communities down, whānau down, tamariki down.

So just two clearer points for the Minister: one is around iwi; the other one is around the expression of information and whether or not that extends into data. I think those are two important questions that the Minister can help us to understand the broader aspect of the plan that she’s tried to describe in her contributions, not just in this particular committee of the whole House but throughout the whole passage of this entire bill. So I’ll leave those questions on the table for the Minister’s consideration.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Just to start with this context, I worked in Child, Youth and Family Services—which was called CYFs back then—in 1989 and 1990. I registered as one of the first family group conference coordinators and was a care and protection social worker and youth justice social worker, so all of what we’re discussing now, there are probably very few in the House that understand it like I do. So when I’m running this line and when I’m talking the way I’m talking, it’s not because I’m talking through a hole in my head; it’s because I’m smart and experienced. And I’ve been a Māori for a while, so I can talk to those things with clarity and I’m not traumatised by it. I’m not traumatised by it. All right? So I want to put that context there.

I want to follow up also just in support of some of the questions that have already been placed to the Minister for Children. I am curious to understand, when you’re benefiting from Māori organisations or iwi and you love all that Māori kōrero, those kupu, but you won’t treat and acknowledge mokopuna as tapu, and you won’t because you can’t understand—well, actually, let me just ask you if you understand te tapu o te mokopuna [the sanctity of the grandchild]. I’d really be interested to know what you understand and how you can articulate that in the context of this bill. If you can do that, that might be really useful for me to understand and, well, fathom where this is at.

These are important questions because the core of this is about mokopuna, their tapu, their whakapapa, and their whanaungatanga, despite the fact, Minister, that you yourself might not recognise it in you, therefore—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is actually a Government bill, so let’s not make personal attacks on the Minister.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: It is a Government bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do get that, but it is held tightly by a Minister who at times has borrowed her whakapapa and nearly held it up—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No. No. Stop—stop! I’m not going to wait for the point of order. Can we please go back to the piece of legislation and not focus on the Minister.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: You know what, Madam Speaker—see, that’s the missing piece that is completely misunderstood or the huge gap of knowledge on the other side of the House. You cannot separate those things. You cannot separate them. So that’s why, when I’m standing up to be this and talk like this, it’s not because—

Laura McClure: Point of order.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I’m still talking so I’m going to keep going.

Laura McClure: Point of order. I want to take some relevance on the previous member. If we could just stick back to the bill. I believe she’s completely irrelevant.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah. I’m watching for the questions and I’m just waiting for some answers, but I am concerned we’re going back to where we were about 15 minutes ago, where we’re starting to actually point the finger at each other and move away from the legislation. So I would like this to move clearly to questions to the Minister, not comments about the Minister, because actually this is a Government bill and the Government is totally responsible for the fact that this bill is in front of the House today. So can we please focus on the piece of legislation and can we please focus on questions. I know it’s hard; it’s very narrow.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Thank you. Thank you for clapping. I would like the Minister to respond to my question on her work to work with iwi and how that will occur. I’d be interested to hear that, particularly Ngāpuhi iwi, because, of course, there are far too many people in State care, Ngāpuhi people. So I’m interested to hear what her response might be to that. Ngāpuhi—yeah, that’s a big one for us. I’ll just sit there for now and see what else I can come up with in the next minute.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to take a moment to respond to the Hon Peeni Henare around section 7, which will be maintained within the Act, and around the wording regarding iwi authorities and data. The wording will stay exactly the same. The wording is not changing within that section, and it will stay the same as in the current Act, the interpretation developing over time in the normal way. But what I would say is that when it comes to data, I hear that everywhere I go around New Zealand and when I’m visiting the strategic partners and the people with their enabling communities, that is something that has been a real problem for a very long time.

So we are running pilots at the moment, around how we can share that data in a more open way and be a bit more transparent. I have set my expectations that Oranga Tamariki make sure that we are making those connections, and with those connections should come the data—that has been something that I’ve been very passionate about. And making sure that we can do that in a safe way and work together with iwi and hapū to make sure that they know where the children are so that they can step in and help and do what’s needed. So I appreciate that question, and we’re working on it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start my questions in response to the Minister for Children’s statement. She said that the one thing, or the main thing, that submitters wanted was to keep strategic partnerships. The Minister should be careful with the words that she chooses to use, because that mischaracterises what the submitters were actually asking for. To be very, very clear, many of the submitters were asking to stop entirely the repeal of section 7AA. They also asked to retain the requirement on the CEO to ensure that the policies and practices are to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori. They also asked for the reporting requirements to remain. So, no, they didn’t only ask for strategic partnerships. They asked to keep Te Tiriti. They asked to keep the entire section 7AA. They asked to keep strategic partnerships. They asked to keep the reporting. So to say that was the one thing and then the Labour Party—who purports to represent this, that, and the other thing—vote against it, like we are the bad guys and letting these submitters down, is not a reflection of what actually happened in the committee and the submissions made by the submitters.

Now my question to the Minister, because I see that she really wanted to dismiss my proposed amendments, move past them really quickly, and say that they have been addressed—I don’t believe they have been addressed, because what I need the Minister to confirm for me is they cannot be addressed because they are not like for like. So the big, long list that she ran off about the reporting requirements of Oranga Tamariki; I need to understand from the Minister whether she agrees and acknowledges that what she has listed in response to my proposed amendments around reporting—just to remind everybody what those are, the annual report on progress made to reduce disparities and improve outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department—has not been addressed by her answer. Those things she listed do not do that.

Now, if the Minister read the departmental report, on page 20, the official said, “There are no other provisions in the Act that provide for … public mandatory”—mandatory; this is a keyword, “mandatory”—“reporting on measures taken to reduce disparities for Māori children and young people in state care.” And on the basis of that conclusion that officials came to, they recommended on pages 21 and 22 that “clauses equivalent to subsections 7AA(5) and 7AA(6) regarding reporting duties of the chief executive in the other parts of the ACT.” be inserted. So it wasn’t just strategic partnerships; the officials also recommended these reporting requirements. Why? Because nowhere else in the Act is it mandatory for anybody—the Children’s Monitor, Oranga Tamariki themselves, the Children’s Commissioner, nobody—to do what has been taken out today.

So can the Minister please confirm for me that it is in fact the case that with the repeal of this legislation, there will not be a replacement for this, that this monitoring and reporting function is not in fact being done in those other reports that she has spoken to this evening.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to go through a couple of points with the Minister on this. Just in terms of the reporting, can the Minister confirm that Oranga Tamariki regularly prepares and releases a number of reports, including its annual report; its quarterly report, which is an overview of progress scores and strategic directions; and the Safety of Children in Care annual report, another one reporting on findings of harm for young people in care. Under section 448B of the Oranga Tamariki Act, the Minister for Children is required to report to Parliament, in addition, every three years on whether legislation and Government policy meet the needs of children and young people. In addition to that, the Independent Children’s Monitor must prepare annual reports on compliance with national care standards and regulations, and outcomes for Māori children, young people, and their whānau, and the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki must prepare a written response to any report produced by the monitor in relation to Oranga Tamariki. The monitor can request any information that it deems relevant, which the chief executive must provide. Can the Minister confirm that all of those reports remain in place?

Now, the next thing I want to ask is around strategic partnerships. Can the Minister confirm the original bill was repealing section 7AA in its entirety? Concerns were raised by a number of submitters. The Waitangi Tribunal also recommended that the requirements in section 7AA to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations be retained. Can the Minister confirm that there’s been an amendment, following the select committee process, to retain that aspect of section 7AA to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, including iwi authorities, noting that those were still going to be available but now have been specifically retained in the legislation?

Clause 4A amending section 7 includes things like: “(i) provide opportunities to, and invite innovative proposals from, those organisations to improve outcomes for Māori children, young persons, and their whānau who come to the attention of the department: (ii) set expectations and targets to improve outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department: (iii) enable the robust, regular, and genuine exchange of information between the department and those organisations: [and] (iv) provide opportunities for the chief executive to delegate functions under this Act or regulations … to appropriately qualified people within those organisations:”—and, just to clarify, those are iwi and Māori organisations, including iwi authorities. Those concerns that were raised around strategic partnerships—can the Minister confirm that those have been specifically addressed and are now being retained in the legislation, to address those concerns that were raised?

Just one other, final point: can the Minister confirm that the purposes section, section 4, of the Oranga Tamariki Act has not been changed, was never going to be changed, and includes things such as “(1) The purposes of this Act are to promote the well-being of children, young persons, and their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups by—(a) establishing, promoting, or co-ordinating services that are designed to affirm mana tamaiti (tamariki), are centred on children’s and young persons’ rights, promote their best interests, advance their well-being, address their needs, and provide for their participation in decision making that affects them:” and “(iii) are culturally appropriate and competently provided:” and go on to “(d) assisting families and whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups, at the earliest opportunity, to fulfil their responsibility to meet the needs of their children and young persons (including their developmental needs, and the need for a safe, stable, and loving home):”, “(g) recognizing mana tamiti (tamariki), whakapapa, and the practice of whanaungatanga for children and young persons who come to the attention of the department:”, “(h) maintaining and strengthening the relationship between children and young persons who come to the attention of the department and their—(i) family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group; and (ii) siblings:” and “(i) responding to alleged offending and offending by children and young persons in a way that—(i) promotes their rights and best interests and acknowledges their needs;”?

Can the Minister confirm that all of these purposes, which are specifically spelled out in section 4 of the Oranga Tamariki Act, have never changed, were never going to change, and are being retained in the bill?

Yes, I can confirm that all of those things are within the Act and they will not change. The Act already has provisions that protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi. There is section 4(1)(g), section 5(1)(b)—and another part of section 5(1)(b)—5(1)(c), and 13(2)(b). All have protections for whānau, hapū, and iwi within the legislation. My point, which I will repeat again is: if we are taking care of the real, assessed needs of these young people that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki and we put them in front of the right things that they need at that time through a proper assessment process across multiple agencies who have a role to play with these young people, we will address those disparities, because we will have Māori children that don’t have a GP. But we will also have non-Māori children that don’t have a GP. We will have non-Māori children that don’t go to school. We will also have Māori children that don’t go to school.

These children do not come to Oranga Tamariki for no reason. Oranga Tamariki is the last line of defence for these children. They have been let down by everybody who is supposed to love and care for them, and, now, Oranga Tamariki, a Government organisation, is having to take care of these young people and take care of their needs that are often caused by the very people that are supposed to love and care for them. Sometimes, we need to listen to the voice of the children, too, not just all the adults in the organisations trying to make decisions for them. What if a young person doesn’t want a Māori approach? What if a young person wants a different approach? We need to create the options so that if they do want that, they can, but we are not going to be forcing young people to do anything. We need to listen to their voices.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I will remind members that we will have silence during voting, thank you. I did hear some comments. I’m not going to make anything of it right now, but we’ve got a few votes to go through and we’ll take those in silence, thank you.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 240 be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 241 be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 242 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4A inserting new subclauses (1AA) and (1AB) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4A(1) inserting new subparagraph (vii) into section 7(2)(h) be agreed to.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting section 7AA is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.