Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 6 to 11, “Consequential amendments to other legislation”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Children questions specifically about clause 7, which says, “Section 24 amended (Annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau)”, that that section be replaced with these words: “When preparing the report, the Monitor must consider and be informed by any information obtained in accordance with this Act.”

My question to the Minister is: is it correct that that information will no longer be any reports that were published under section 7AA(5) of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989? Oh, no answer?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you, Madam Chair. The reason I ask that question is because, as we were debating earlier, the point is that what the list that was read out from the other side of the Chamber—the things that the Minister referred to—what they were referring to is not the same as what is being taken out of the legislation. To tell the public; to tell this committee, “It’s OK, There’s all sorts of other reporting that Oranga Tamariki and the Independent Children’s Monitor and others are still required to do.”; the point is that none of them are required to report on the things that section 7AA reported on.

So is it correct, Minister, that there will no longer be provided to the Independent Children’s Monitor, who does the oversight of Oranga Tamariki, any reports published under section 7AA(5) of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989? And which, of all of those reports that she has listed in her previous answers, is going to replace the information that the monitor would have been required by law to receive?

So this is the issue: it was mandatory reporting before, and now there is no mandatory requirement for that. There is nothing to require Oranga Tamariki to give that same information to the Independent Children’s Monitor. So can the Minister please tell us exactly which reports, which information, which part of the section of any of the pieces of legislation is going to require Oranga Tamariki to give exactly that information to the Independent Children’s Monitor so that we can get accurate reports on what Oranga Tamariki are doing in terms of their policies, their practices, and their strategic partnerships to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori?

I will repeat this one last time: this amendment removes references to section 7AA but retains the requirement to report on outcomes for Māori children, young people, whānau, and, especially, improving outcomes for these children through the Independent Children’s Monitor annual report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sick and tired of being an angry Māori wahine, but I am an angry Māori wahine, and the repeal of section 7AA is cause for anger. It is also cause for deep sadness and talks to the intergenerational trauma and pain that this Parliament has inflicted on tamariki Māori. It was actually the National Party who brought in section 7AA because they saw the outcry of New Zealanders when it came out that newborn Māori tamariki were being taken, ripped, from their mothers’ arms without due cause. This was happening just a few years ago.

When we brought in section 7AA—when the National Party brought in section 7AA—it was a part of helping heal that intergenerational trauma, and since that has come in, there has been an improvement with less tamariki Māori in State care, because there was a focus on reducing the disparities. Now, Dr Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown said the decision to repeal section 7AA is one of several recent actions which ignore, diminish, or directly breach te Tiriti. These include the decisions to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora, the removal of Treaty provisions in the Corrections Amendment Bill, Government directives relating to te reo Māori, the planned introduction of the Treaty principles bill, and many others. We cannot look at this in isolation. We have to look at this as a bigger picture of what is happening to tamariki Māori.

I want to talk to Part 2, clause 8, which replaces section 57(1)(e)(i). My Amendment Paper 242 replaces new section 57(1)(e)(i) to include direct reference to section 7(1)(c) and (2)(baa), (c)(i), (g), (ga), (h), and (i). And the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that earlier changes related to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, measurable outcomes, and public reporting are fully integrated and operational throughout the entire Oranga Tamariki Act. We cannot remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Oranga Tamariki Act when two-thirds of tamariki in care are tamariki Māori. By referencing section 7(1)(c) and (2)(baa), (ga), (h), and (i), it ensures that the oversight system consistently upholds these key principles and requirements, providing a cohesive framework for accountability and transparency across the Act.

I am asking the Minister to please listen to the people who are experts in this field, to the people with lived experience, to the tamariki who came to select committee and poured their hearts out, the tamariki with experience of having the State as a parent, a State who is supposed to fill that gap when, as you say, they haven’t been shown that love in their life and who failed miserably. And they asked you, Minister—they asked you—to listen to them and to keep 7AA. I understand that it is your belief that 7AA is not being operationalised correctly, but this is your opportunity to listen to those tamariki and to make sure that we, as the Government, are accountable to them and to all the tamariki in every future generation after so that this generational trauma that has been inflicted by the State can have some healing. Please consider my Amendment Paper 242.

I wholeheartedly agree. I stand here sick of being an angry Māori too. I get sick of seeing an organisation making the wrong decisions because they’re not putting the safety and the wellbeing of our children first.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You have no evidence of that.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have no evidence of that. OK, I’ll read you some evidence that came through the select committee. Caregivers shared experiences of having a child being removed from their care to be placed with whānau, or Oranga Tamariki attempting to remove the child from their care. They submitted that in their experience, their best interests were not prioritised. One caregiver shared that in order to keep a child in their long-term care, they had to seek legal support. They raised practice concerns, including about a former social worker and a supervisor who prioritised placing the child with whānau, and, by the site’s own admission, were so set on sticking to 7AA that they failed to look at the child’s best interests.

A second caregiver spoke of their experience with providing emergency placements for children while more long-term placement arrangements were being sought. The submitter shared one case where a child was moved from their emergency care to live with whānau, which had ended with the child being harmed by another member of the whānau. This submitter also shared that in their direct experience with three other placements, the focus by social workers on whānau placement had meant the children were moved between placement several times where whānau placements fell through, sometimes in a matter of weeks or within matters of months. A third caregiver shared that when section 7AA came into place, they were told that tamariki Māori in their permanent care were no longer arraigned with them because they were Pākehā and he was Māori.

Now, I do not expect that Oranga Tamariki would have been able to say that section 7AA had resulted in poor practice decisions. It’s not like a social worker is going to record a case note saying, “I’m removing this child from a safe, stable home because 7AA tells me to do so.” I refer to paragraph 48 of the regulatory impact statement, which states, “There have been examples of decisions where the safety and stability of children was compromised.” While the regulatory impact statement notes that these cases appear to be the result of poor practice decisions rather than section 7AA, I would contend that it is legislation which drives the culture and the practice. And 7AA created a conflict for social workers between safety and liability on one hand, and cultural considerations on the other. This bill removes the conflict and makes it clear that the wellbeing and best interests of the child is a paramount consideration. I will quote from the initial advice I received from officials regarding the repeal of section 7AA, saying, “we acknowledge that there have been times where social workers may have used Section 7AA to justify decision making in relation to care arrangements for Māori children which may not have been safe or in their best interests.”

Kia ora, Madam Chair. I rise as a bit of a grumpy Pākehā, actually, just looking what is going on in this place this evening. I don’t know if it’s a debate—I don’t even know if it’s contest of ideas, but I want to look at clause 11—

Hon Matt Doocey: From your side it isn’t.

GLEN BENNETT: I hear it’s from our side, but I completely disagree with that in terms of what has been coming from the Minister’s chair. But what I want to ask about is in clause 11, “Regulation 8” where it says in the new paragraphs (a) and (b) “an assessment of the outcomes being achieved by the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki for Māori children and young people, and their whānau”, and then it goes on. I’ll talk about paragraph (b) shortly, but my question to the Minister is: the Minister has made it very clear throughout the whole debate that the Minister doesn’t believe that decisions should be based on race. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: why has the Minister allowed it to continue to be in this legislation? Obviously, from her perspective, is this not race that we’re talking about here, or do you have a different opinion on that?

So the question to the Minister is: is clause 11, inserting new paragraphs (a) (b)—are they decisions based on race, or are they decisions based on responsibility, which I believe is what it is all about?

Tēnā rā koe, e te Pika, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

[Greetings to the Speaker, and greetings to all in the House.]

This is my first opportunity speaking to this whole kaupapa around section 7AA so I’m going to tread really lightly to make sure I don’t—phew! I’m just coming to Part 2, section 27, around amended annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, could the member just clarify Part 2—

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Part 2, clause 7.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, clause 7. Sorry, I thought you said 27. I was trying to find it, sorry.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: It’s OK. Part 2, clause 7 and then section—oh my God, so many numbers. But anyways, you get my drift. “Section 24 amended (Annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau)”.

I also just want to note that I did want to have an opportunity but I didn’t get called in Part 1, 4A, after section 7(2)(g) of the principal Act but I wasn’t called. So there may be some references that I’ll still intertwine into the Part 2 clause that I will talk about because I wasn’t—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can refer to it—

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Refer to it, yep.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): But make sure that your question is related to Part 2.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Related to the question. Yep.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Yep. Ka pai.

So my question is around an annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau. One of those relates to the post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs) that we have in my rohe of Hauraki-Waikato and them having a whānau-based approach in their reporting and the way that they work with their tamariki.

That is because we have a post-settlement iwi under the Treaty settlement—we’re coming up to our 30-year this year post-settled. That is with Waikato-Tainui and that kaupapa is Mokopuna Ora. Mokopouna Ora—if I just get out my phone and reference: in 2020 to 2021, Mokopuna Ora successfully improved the wellbeing outcomes for 94 Waikato whānau, with reports of concern for 260 mokopuna. An overwhelming majority—99 percent—of those cases had their—

Laura McClure: That’s great. They can still do it.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Laura, it’s not your time—99 percent of cases had their care and protections concerns addressed with solutions informed by whānau-led processes, of which 70 whānau and 203 mokopuna successfully exited the Oranga Tamariki system completely—completely. This was one of our King’s last kaupapa and projects that he ran, and I will make sure that I’ll bring this into the committee and put it on the Hansard that this was a successful outcome that was brought in not just by whānau, but PSGEs—post-settlement iwis.

I think of my other iwi like Ngāpuhi, who haven’t had the opportunity to settle yet, and what will those relationships be like? Because when we put the overall blanket name of “iwi”, that can mean many different things. Is that PSGEs? Is that iwi? Is that whānau? Is that hapū? That’s a blanket name approach.

Joseph Mooney: Māori organisations as well.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: So I want to find the differentiation. What’s that, sorry?

Joseph Mooney: It says iwi and Māori organisations.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: That’s a differentiation between PSGEs and iwi.

Some of their strategies that they used were attending pōkai, rugby clubs, communities, kapa haka, reo programmes, taiao programmes, Waka Ama, mara kai, whakapapa sessions. These heavy loads shouldn’t just be put on Oranga Tamariki themselves, because you know what? They don’t have the capabilities to—they shouldn’t have that pressure or responsibility to go into those sections that PSGEs and whānau are already doing in the communities.

Now, I stand here from a privileged position because I have had all of this. I am the antithesis of this bill; my upbringing has been the antithesis of this bill. And this shouldn’t be a privilege; this should be a right for every tamariki Māori across this nation. And this—[Interruption] I don’t know why people over there are huffing and puffing because this—

Hon Members: Where’s the question?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: You don’t—sorry, Madam Chair. [Interruption] Madam Chair, please. I didn’t get to speak on this.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just going to call Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke for her question.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: This dangerous, dangerous bill—the whole thing—the fact that there isn’t anything liable or holding to account for this Oranga Tamariki to have engagement. There’s nothing holding them to account.

And I’m just really sorry, actually, I’m really aroha for the Minister for Children that she never got these opportunities and that, actually, this should have been a basic right. So I want to use this time to actually also talk to—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve got a point of order from the Minister.

Hon Karen Chhour: This is not about me personally, and I actually take objection to you mentioning—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Quiet during a point of order.

Hon Karen Chhour: —that I never received that. How would you know? So keep me out of the debate.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Point taken. I’m just referencing her as a Minister. We’ve had different—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That is a fair point of order and we’ve gone through that in the committee already tonight.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: I’m still yet to finish my—four minutes.

Laura McClure: You have to ask a question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not necessarily. I’m waiting—

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: I will, Laura.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m waiting for the question. [Interruption] Stop. It is Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s time to talk, but I am specifically asking for a question.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Yep. Noted.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why are you doing this?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: So I’m specifically—yeah. Why are you doing this?

Hon Member: What’s going on in your head?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Ko te pātai e pātaihia ana e au ki te Minita, he aha te take kei te whakaparahako ia, kei te hāmenetia, kei te kōhurutia i ngōku whakapapa, i tōku reo, i ngā ahurea Māori ki roto tonu i tēnei whenua? He aha te take? He aha te take? Arā tō koutou pātai, arā. Arā ngā pātai, kōrerohia ināianei. He aha te take?

[The question I am posing to the Minister is: why is he discriminating against, why is he penalising, why is he murdering my genealogy, my language, my Māori culture in this land? Why? Why? That is the question posed for you all. If there are more questions, ask them now. Why?]

Hon Willie Jackson: Could you repeat that please? For the monolingual bunch in the room?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: He aha te take? Nā runga anō i te mea, kua kite au. I roto i tōku rohe ake o Hauraki Waikato, ētehi o ngā tamariki tē taea te whai, tē taea te rapu, tē taea te tiki i ēnei momo āhuatanga e whai wheakoranga i roto i te ao Māori. Koirā taku pātai.

[What is the reason? This is based on the things I have witnessed. In my region of Hauraki Waikato, some of the youth who are unable to find, unable to search, unable to access these types of things that allow them to gain experience in the Māori world. That is my question.]

Why would you take it out? Why would you take these amendments out?

Because the cases that the Minister referred to before, those three cases—my reference—weren’t actually section 7AA. They weren’t section 7AA, those three cases. So let’s be really clear out there for the constituents listening and for everyone listening. And, yeah, this may sound a little bit cliche. However, I have 300,000 followers on my platform and I want to make sure that they know when we put this out that those three cases weren’t section 7AA and to make referencing: stop criminalising my culture; stop villainising my culture. Yes, obviously there are whānau who aren’t looking after tamariki. We know that—we know that and we’re intervening. That’s why Mokopuna Ora was established. That’s why our PSGEs intervened. That’s why our King made those different projects.

So I don’t understand why you would take them out if they aren’t causing any harm. I mean, there’s so much evidence in that.

Stuart Smith: What’s that got to do with Part 2?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: What’s that got to do with what, sorry?

Stuart Smith: Part 2, what you’re supposed to be debating.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Because it’s the whānau. How are they supposed to report back? How are they supposed to report back on the PSGEs, on the whānau interventions, on the programmes I’ve just talked about? How are they supposed to have any accountability with the organisations themselves, with Oranga Tamariki themselves, to the Minister? There’s no evidence. Those cases weren’t section 7AA—

Stuart Smith: There’s no evidence coming from you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Those words—I’m telling you, you have no evidence. It’s really sad, and to talk to the tamariki, those—heaps of questions in that, actually.

To talk to the tamariki and to use my platform: I’m not going to waste my time and my energy on the State issues that have happened and occurred for centuries—centuries. This isn’t just a business case for us to be talking about different clauses or parts. These are real, lived experiences that no one probably knows on that side of the Chamber, that we have to bring in for our constituents and represent them.

So with my 30 seconds left, ki ngā tamariki o te ao e whakarongo mai nei ki a au [to the children of the world who listen to me], from Aboriginal to Kanaka Maui, to Native American, to Māori. You may not know your whakapapa, but your whakapapa knows you. You may not know your reo, but your reo knows you. You may not know your whānau or your heritage, but your heritage and whakapapa know you. I’m honestly aroha for the Minister and I don’t want this to happen to any other tamariki.

Thank you for that, but I don’t think I’ve actually asked for you to sympathise for myself. I would say to the rest of that conversation, in regards to Mokopuna Ora - Waikato-Tainui, they are a strategic partner with Oranga Tamariki. They will continue to be a strategic partner with Oranga Tamariki. None of that will change. Nothing within this legislation will change that fact, and those wonderful things that the member spoke about will continue.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m going to take a question from Steve Abel, but I want to stress that we’re on a very small part of the bill, and in the speeches that we’ve had so far, I am not hearing as many questions as I would like to, in terms of this being a committee stage. So can we, please, focus on the questions? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I assure you I have questions specifically relating to replacement section 24(2), inserted by clause 7 in Part 2. I first of all want to recognise on behalf of the Green Party the critical importance of cultural competency, whānau-led solutions, and the genuine partnerships with iwi Māori organisations that are necessary for improving outcomes for tamariki Māori.

The intent behind the original introduction of section 7AA, of course, was to address the deep-rooted issues with the Oranga Tamariki system, particularly the disproportionate number of tamariki Māori in State care. Now, in terms of addressing for the purpose of improving outcomes for Māori children and their whānau, requiring a deeper level of engagement and consultation with Māori communities, that is the key to it. That is why we obviously reject these changes. But what I’m seeking clarity on is an assurance that Māori rights, perspectives, and experiences are actually going to be integral to the system’s design and operation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, Mr Abel, can you tell me what part of Part 2 you’re speaking to.

STEVE ABEL: I’m on Part 2—replacement section 24(2), inserted by clause 7, which amends the reporting requirements related to outcomes for Māori children and whānau.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you.

STEVE ABEL: I’ve got several concerns. These amendments appear to fall short in ensuring that Oranga Tamariki is truly responsive to the needs of Māori children, young people, and their whānau. So my question to the Minister: the replacement section 24(2) states that “the Monitor must consider any information obtained in accordance with this Act.” Can the Minister clarify how this new wording ensures that information specific to Māori children and their whānau, particularly data relating to Māori outcomes, is meaningfully integrated into the annual report?

Secondly, in section 24(2), it also mentions that the Monitor must be informed by the information obtained under this Act. Can the Minister for Children provide assurances that this will include direct consultation with iwi Māori organisations and Māori communities rather than relying solely on data collected by Oranga Tamariki?

I just want to point out, Mr Chair, that earlier—when the previous Chair was in the seat—the Minister referenced some specific examples of issues that the Minister used to justify the legislative change in the amendment in the first place. Given the Minister spoke to them, I want to briefly point out, though it has been pointed out in this House before but not necessarily in this debate, that the regulatory impact statement made it very clear that the problem definition had constrained the assessment of the legislation, and it outlined the cause of various instances of poor practice. The regulatory impact statement said, “There is a lack of robust empirical evidence to support the problem definition. Departmental evidence demonstrates that the problem more likely stems from flaws in the practice of individual staff.” I just want to remind the Minister of that, lest they were to go on to make further anecdotal examples.

But those are my two questions. Section 24(2): can the Minister clarify that information specific to Māori children and their whānau, particularly data relating to Māori outcomes, is meaningfully integrated into the annual report? And can the Minister provide assurances that this will include direct consultation with iwi Māori organisations and Māori communities, rather than relying solely on data collected by Oranga Tamariki? Thank you.

I believe that those question you’ve just asked have been asked multiple times and have been answered.

I can just remind members that I have been watching this debate since the start, so I’m well aware of what has taken place. I will take one more speaker at this stage, but whoever speaks will actually speak to a section of the bill—they will identify it, and they will come back to it continually, till I understand the reference to it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this—the first of the evening. My question is really about measurable outcomes in Part 2, clause 10. The amendment to regulation 6(1)(d) requires the inclusion of “an assessment of outcomes being achieved for Māori children and young people and their whānau;”. While we support the inclusion of an assessment, could the Minister clarify what specific metrics or frameworks will be used in this assessment to ensure that it is both meaningful and genuinely reflects the outcomes for tamariki Māori?

My additional question is: will the Minister ensure that this assessment is made publicly available in a transparent and accessible way so that iwi, Māori organisations, and the public can hold the department accountable for the outcomes being reported? My question—Part 2, clause 10—relates to the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, which has long been a cornerstone of child welfare in Aotearoa. I’m not really interested in anecdotes dressed up like Christmas turkeys. I’d rather have some evidence, and I want to understand how the Minister is going to provide that so that we can have some measure, because what we know is that the application of the Oranga Tamariki Act has fallen short when it comes to Māori tamariki and their whānau, when we have seven out of 10 tamariki in care as Māori.

My question—Part 2, clause 10—is to the Minister. Will the Minister ensure that this assessment is made publicly available in a transparent and accessible way so that iwi, Māori organisations, and the public can hold the department accountable for the outcomes being reported? I’m very interested in what the Minister is going to say because we can’t afford to have things falling through the gaps, and we do not want to hear more anecdotes. We want to understand where the evidence base is going to be. Thank you.

The Hon Willie Jackson. And you will have heard my previous instruction.

Oh yes, quite right too, Mr Chair—quite right. But I do want to just follow up on the last speaker. And I note Helen Leahy here today, who’s been involved in so much of this work. I want to acknowledge her work because she worked with Tariana Turia, who would be very concerned in terms of section 7 and the section 24, “Annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau”, which is in Part 2.

What I need to know, and what I haven’t heard from the Minister for Children as yet, is the level of consultation with pan-tribal organisations—I have not heard that from the Minister tonight—particularly given the work ground level from pan-tribal organisations that has gone on over the last 20 years. It’s an important question for me, given there’s been a major concentration on iwi, which is fine, but so much work is done at ground level, as the Minister will know, by pan-tribal organisations who do not have the benefit of Treaty settlements, who do not have the base and foundation that many of the big iwi have. But what they do have is a workforce who are committed and who will get out there and support the kaupapa, who are particularly proud of and happy with the former National Government, run by people like Bill English and with leaders like Anne Tolley, who would never have gone along with this rubbish that we’re rolling out today, who absolutely saw the benefits of having legislation where a priority was given in terms of whakapapa for our tamariki.

What we’ve missed in the debate—and sadly, what they miss out on the other on the other side—is the uniqueness of that decision, that you would have a National Party and Minister who actually agreed with Te Pāti Māori at the time, who were driving it—and even some of the fools in ACT actually agreed with it at the time; they actually understood the benefits and why that had to happen. They were not persuaded by the nonsense that we’ve heard, sadly, from the Minister and some of her colleagues, that “Oh, this is about we are the world; we are one.” and all this sort of bloody nonsense—with respect, Mr Chair. They knew that an emphasis on whakapapa was incredibly important in tying our babies back to their people and getting them right for what was happening in the future.

So I ask this question tonight because it’s incredibly important. When—as I said, I acknowledge Helen Leahy up there in the gallery—I think about June Mariu from Waipareira, who died recently; I think about my mother, June Jackson; Titewhai Harawira—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: They won’t know any of them.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: These were the champions at ground level, and the ACT Party wouldn’t know who they were if they fell over them. They would be concerned today to know that we’ve got this being passed and we’re deviating.

So I would ask the Minister: was Dame Naida Glavish part of this consultation? She plays an incredible role in terms of our tamariki at ground level and has the ability to traverse between the urban environment and the iwi environment, and she is one of the real mana wahine in terms of te ao Māori today. So what sort of involvement did she have? I’ve heard the Minister talk about the consultation process, but I’m still yet to hear about where that occurred. Was that with Waipareira? Was that with Manukau Urban Māori Authority? Was that with Wellington? Was that with our organisations in Hamilton? It is a worry at the moment. So we need to know: what sort of comprehensive consultation occurred, and who were the key leaders for the Minister? I’m sure she probably spoke to some of them. But is she able to give me some assurances that at ground level, in terms of Maata Waka Walker and in terms of urban Māori authorities, a respectable consultation took place? Because it’s incredibly important going forward.

Just to answer in regards to the member Scott Willis, in regards to his question around Part 2, clause 7, amending Section 24 of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act: the annual report must address outcomes for Māori and improvements of outcomes. This is in regulations and is supported in this bill. And, yes, the Independent Children’s Monitor (ICM) reporting is published. The ICM consultation with Māori—the oversight Act requires, in section 7, appointment of a Māori advisory group for the ICM, and, in section 18, collaboration with that group. In section 19, the ICM must try to develop arrangements with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kahurangi Carter’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 242 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.