Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, title and commencement.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to talk about clause 1, the title. We have heard in this debate about the Waitangi Tribunal findings that repealing section 7AA will cause actual harm to tamariki Māori because repealing 7AA does not honour article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the intrinsic rights that tamariki Māori have to be connected to their culture and everything that that has to offer. I wonder if the Minister for Children would consider changing the title of this bill to the “Oranga Tamariki (We Will Hurt our Tamariki) Amendment Bill”.

We have also heard in this debate that removing the reporting on disparities that tamariki Māori face—and we know that there are huge disparities. Seven out of every 10 children in Oranga Tamariki care—that means that the State is their effective parent—is Māori. We’ve heard from those tamariki, from tamariki who are still in State care, that they want to be connected to their culture. In fact, those tamariki, when they do surveys, what comes out of those surveys is really telling, and we need to listen to our tamariki. They’re saying that those activities that are provided to them, that connect them with their culture, like carving, like kapa haka, like seeing their siblings, like seeing their whānau, contribute to their wellbeing and are some of their favourite parts of their lives. I wonder if the Minister would consider changing the title to the “Oranga Tamariki (No Accountability) Amendment Bill”.

We have also heard about the difference between empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence, and I believe in everyone’s ability here to understand the difference, the difference between some really poor practice that goes on and the actual empirical evidence which shows the bigger picture, which shows what really happens at a system level. Unfortunately, the Minister and the Minister’s officials have not been able to provide any empirical evidence to show that this repeal is necessary. I wonder if the Minister would consider changing the title to the “Oranga Tamariki (Lack of Empirical Evidence) Amendment Bill”.

We have heard through the select committee process from VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai. We’ve heard from those tamariki Māori who had the State as a parent. They told us that being disconnected from their culture, sometimes being given a Pākehā name and being told to change their Māori name, some of them being told that they are not allowed to perform in kapa haka—I see you shaking your head, Minister, but these came out of the mouths of these tamariki. Are you saying that they’re not being honest? Is that what you’re saying? I wonder if the Minister would consider changing the title of this bill to the “Oranga Tamariki (Trauma for Generations to Come) Amendment Bill”.

We have heard in this debate about people in select committee who had experience of abuse in care—tamariki and adults who were abused in State care—and who told us of being disconnected from their culture, that they are still searching for that healing. I implore the Minister to listen to the experiences of these people and to listen to the evidence—the empirical evidence, not the anecdotal evidence that has been cherry-picked, but the real evidence. I wonder if the Minister would consider changing the title of this bill to the “Oranga Tamariki (Another Royal Commission of Inquiry) Amendment Bill”.

I just want to congratulate the previous speaker, Kahurangi Carter. I think the Minister should look at changing the title, but I think there’s only one name for it: it should be “Oranga Tamariki (Kick the Māori Families in the Guts) Bill”. There’s just no doubt—there’s absolutely no doubt about it—the “Oranga Tamariki (Kick the Māori Families in the Guts) Bill”.

Jamie Arbuckle: How sad—that’s pathetic.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s right. You are very sad, actually—being part of that stupid party you’re part of. But this is in fact—

Jamie Arbuckle: Point of order.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: All offended, are we? We’re all upset.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): A point of order.

Jamie Arbuckle: Unparliamentary language.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, I’ll be the sole judge of that. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Chair, I should say, they’re very sensitive over there. I want to say this to the ACT Party, because this is about kicking whānau Māori in the guts. So that should be the title of this bill: “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau Māori in the Guts) Bill”. That’s what it should be. And you should be ashamed of yourselves, because, as the previous speaker said so eloquently, so many of our kids—and we saw them all here in the House, didn’t we? We saw them all here in the House—beautiful day. And we saw tears from that useless ACT Party lot over there—“Aw, we love you”, and all this sort of thing—and then they go and kick them in the guts with this sort of bill. It’s just a shocker. You have our people, and when I say “our people”, I’m talking young—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No—I don’t, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I don’t.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies—sorry. We have people, New Zealanders, with experiences of trauma—trauma—because for years they didn’t know who they were, where they were from, didn’t know their language. It’s like their words mean nothing. We hear them in the House, we mihi to them outside, and then we insult them with this sort of rubbish that we’re rolling out today. That’s why I want to thank our previous speaker, Kahurangi Carter, for all those beautiful titles—beautiful. But there’s only one title: “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau Māori in the Guts) Bill”. That has to be the title for this. Why? Because you keep putting the boot into whānau Māori. That’s a reality. There are so many statistics—so many statistics—when we look out there.

I’m proud of so many of our people who’ve come through the system. But all they have ever said is, “I wish we had that opportunity.” Well, that opportunity was presented by the National Party, who have betrayed people like Bill English and Anne Tolley and John Key. These are people who supported what we’re talking about today. All those National Party people should hang their heads in shame, including the guy who’s looking for the new leadership, James Meager, over there—we know he’s lining up. They’re putting him forward. Including Mr Meager—he should hang his head in shame because he’s going against the Englishes, the Keys, and some of the real legends of the National Party, who said, “Yes, we get it, Tariana Turia—we get it.”

You know, that’s how they worked. Bill said to Tariana—just for the morons on the other side—“I get it, Te Pāti Māori, I get it.” Oh, another one’s upset.

Hon Nicole McKee: Point of order. I don’t like the name calling, Mr Chair. I take offence at being called a moron.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, no—I was talking about National.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It’s been a very emotional debate and we’re just—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: “Mrs Moron”—how would that go?

Hon Nicole McKee: Mr Speaker, I’ve just been called “Mrs Moron”.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: You know, I was just offering another option.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): If that was a personal debate—did that member use that term?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Not directly, because I don’t know whether she’s “Mrs” or “Miss”.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, no. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. Carry on, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. Gosh, I’m being disrupted. Tonight, I want to acknowledge our former Minister Willow-Jean Prime, who’s been absolutely terrific on this and put a challenge—

Hon Member: Back to the title.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, it was part of the title. She agrees with me that this title should be called the “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau Māori in the Guts) Bill”, so that’s why it’s about that. But the former Minister knows how terrible this is, because we have seen firsthand the consequences—what has happened to some of these young ones who’ve become older people who did not know their whakapapa, who did not know their reo. This legislation gave them an opportunity. So I want to mihi to those former members of the National Party, the Māori Party, Helen Leahy’s crew up there. Helen Leahy was inspirational and pivotal in this sort of stuff. I mihi to her—to you—tonight, Helen, for all that work.

Tariana would be ashamed of this lot, because to get a National Party—that’s the point—to actually, I suppose, get on board in terms of whakaaro Māori, in terms of a strategy going forward, I think, was a wonderful thing. So well done to Bill English, Anne Tolley.

This is a grave, grave mistake. So I urge the House tonight to support my earnest plea to you all that the title will be changed to the “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau Māori in the Guts) Bill”. That’s a good title. I can continue if you like. I can see the Minister, because she quite likes the title, too. I can carry on if you like.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, and I’ll remind the member we’re on the title and commencement, and I’ll suggest continual referral to same.

Ka pai, thank you. I appreciate some of the ideas that have already come up about the names, and I like all of them. I think they’ve got a particular truth to them. But the one that I would proffer, if I may, is the “Oranga Tamariki (Self-serving the Minister) Bill”. And the reason I say that is because all of what we’ve heard, which is the bulk of it, lacks the evidence, the actual empirical evidence; there’s a bit of story, quite a bit of story, and anecdote. So I like the idea of the “Oranga Tamariki (Self-serving the Minister) Bill”. So I’d like to put that.

If I may, I do want to also acknowledge Helen, who is in the gallery—Helen Leahy, who most of us on this side will know, but I doubt if anyone on the other side knows. And that is because ignorance is rife, it seems to me.

What we’re challenging tonight, in terms of the name and in terms of all the other pieces that are part of this bill: it all comes back to the oppression of mokopuna Māori and their whānau. But it is used as a convenient statement like, “Oh, no, no, mana ‘ta-mai-ti’.” You know, and it’s said like that because the bulk can’t pronounce the words properly. So we get mana tamaiti and whānau, or w’ānau, and hapū, and just the murderous way in which our language is used is a clear indicator—is a very clear indicator—that we are not understood and not appreciated. Not from our reo, because of the amount of poorly spoken te reo Māori in this House on a daily, minute-by-minute basis.

So how do I know that this is part of that? Because it reads that way and it feels that way and it is that way. Deculturation is a key element to this, and I maybe wanted to ask the Minister if she understands what deculturation has meant to many, many of our whānau when, in this instance—I don’t know, she might need me to use another word or the Minister might need me to use other words—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, no, the word the Minister will need is something relating to the title of the bill. You’ll note the other two speakers did, at least once every minute, refer to a title of a bill and I’ll expect the member to do the same.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: OK, so here’s another offering, then, in terms of that: it is the “Oranga Tamariki (Deculturation) Bill”. And deculturation is key and true. And unless, I don’t know, it takes—you’ve got to understand what that word actually breaks down to. But deculturation is key to the reduction and the taking away, the ripping away, and the reduction of whakapapa, of reo, of tikanga and all the things that Māori mokopuna are made up of.

I’m interested whether the Minister can understand that name, “Oranga Tamariki (Deculturation) Bill”, and I’d be keen to know what her understanding is in that regard. All right, thank you, Mr Speaker.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. It is getting late, and it is important that we continue to prosecute the title and commencement because this is legislation. In my contribution, a question to the Minister is that a title that could be considered by the Minister is around some of the comments made throughout this debate this evening. One of the comments made was when the Minister mentioned that, yes, there are some disparities for Māori young people—just “some”—and I was quite shocked and actually offended by that because I would say that that is a horrific understatement. We in this House should be very careful with our language, and to minimise the fact that our rangatahi and our tamariki Māori are impacted hugely by the Oranga Tamariki system—I would like the Minister to consider that this bill should be called the “Oranga Tamariki (Even More Disparities) Amendment Bill”, because that is what this bill will cause. This bill will cause even more disparities.

The Minister spoke and said that there were just some disparities within Māori. But this is serious, and it is important for us to actually name it for what it is: it is about serious disparities for our young Māori in this community.

The second concept of a title that I have—and then I’ll get to the actual commencement—is around the Minister having spoken many a time about the fact that there are checks and balances: “It’s all OK. Don’t panic, people, it’s fine. We’ve got this covered. We’ll repeal section 7AA, but we’ve got it covered.” But then, of course, I looked at the regulatory impact statement, which has been thrown around this committee all afternoon and evening, and right near the end there is a piece that says that, currently, section 7AA plays some crucial roles. It goes on to say that it provides transparency—transparency—and builds trust and confidence with Ministers and with the public.

So I want the Minister to consider the fact that if the regulatory impact statement is saying that section 7AA and what it does in providing transparency and building trust for Ministers and for the community, she could consider that this bill could be the “Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Transparency and Trust) Amendment Bill”, because the evidence is here. The regulatory impact statement is here and is saying that that is what section 7AA does. It creates transparency and creates trust for Ministers but also for the public. So that needs to be considered this evening.

I want to come to my second question, which is around the commencement of the Act. Currently, as it stands, clause 2 says that “This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.” Now, we know that as we sit in this House week after week, these dates change and move. They can be three months, they can be six months, or they can be a year after the bill is passed into law.

I would like the Minister to consider this evening, because of what we’ve heard not only through the select committee through submissions—which, rightly so, the Minister has told us that she has read; she has even quoted some of them this evening in this Chamber—that for the sake of transparency, for the sake of iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations, for the sake of Oranga Tamariki, and for the sake of community groups involved in this system, there be time for them to get it right so that transparency and trust can actually be implemented to make sure. If she is convinced and so confident that taking section 7AA out of law and out of legislation for this bill will make things better and fix things, why not allow time for the different agencies and Māori groups to actually spend time to prepare, so that when it comes into force in, let’s say, one year from Royal assent, we can have more faith that it is transparent, that we can trust, and that we can actually see that the disparities—which aren’t just some, as the Minister said, but they are major and they are systemic, when you consider it.

So there are two questions. The first is around what the title should be, and then, secondly, around saying let’s get serious and consider the commencement date so that all can be on board with this.

I just want to finish off this debate with my last statement on this debate. This has been full of quite personal statements made about myself throughout this debate, so I do think I should have a right of reply to some of the statements that were just made in Glen Bennett’s speech just then to make out like I would minimise the thought around Māori that are impacted by being in care, to think that I’m minimising the disparities of Māori in care.

Now, many people have stood in this House, on that side of the House, and stated that they have a right to speak about Māori because they’re Māori, they have a right to do this because they are part of a specific group. Many in this House over time, since I’ve been here, have spoken to wanting someone who has had lived experience to sit at the decision-making table, but the minute you have someone sitting in this seat at the decision-making table that does have lived experience, no, it’s not good enough if they don’t think exactly the same as the people on the other side of the House.

I would never minimise the disparities of Māori within care; I was one of those Māori in care. I would never minimise Māori who were impacted by the care system, because I was a Māori in the care system. Every decision I make is based on what I am hearing from my community, what I have dealt with myself going through the State system, from family members who have dealt with the State system, and making sure that our children are safe, loved, and cared for. How do you think they got to Oranga Tamariki (OT) care in the first place? Because they weren’t looked after; they weren’t loved, and we won’t have the difficult conversations of the fact that OT didn’t put them there. We need to make sure, when we’re making those decisions about placing them back with whānau, that they are safe. It should not be whānau at all costs. That is the last statement I will make.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to talk about the commencement. The question that I have for the Minister—and it is a genuine question; please consider this suggestion. There is an existing mechanism within the Oranga Tamariki Act which allows for a full analysis of section 7AA. Section 448B requires the Minister to undertake a periodic review of the legislation, Government policy, and other arrangements, to ensure the needs of children and young people with whom Oranga Tamariki is concerned are met, including specific focus on the needs of Māori children and young people. This review is required no later than 1 July 2025.

A prudent and responsible way forward would be to stop the repeal of section 7AA and wait for this review to provide the evidence required for good, public decision-making and governance. This option has been available to the Minister all along. If the Minister had genuine concerns and wanted to know what the policy problem was with section 7AA and these perceived conflicts between the best interests of the children, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, section 7AA, and practice decisions that may have been made using section 7AA, the responsible way forward would have been to use the very section already in the Act to do that review.

But the Minister does not appear genuinely interested in this. The decision was already made to repeal section 7AA. There was no consultation with the strategic Māori partners prior to introducing this to Parliament. There was no negotiation that could take place. In fact, the Minister herself said, in terms of consultation, “Make a submission to the select committee.” How offensive. That is not consultation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. What a disrespectful way to treat your strategic Māori partners: you are relegated to making a submission to a select committee, in a process that is open to every member of the public. That is consultation, no opportunity to review how section 7AA works alongside strategic partners?

The suggestion that I have for the Minister is to delay the commencement of this repeal. Once done, the devastation it will cause, the damage you know it will cause to the relationship—because it was pointed out in the regulatory impact statement, the harm that the tribunal, that your own officials, and that others have said will be done to children if this is passed. Will the Minister pause this, delay the commencement until after the periodic review is done, as already provided for in the legislation? Because if the Minister is not prepared to do that, it tells us that she never cared in the first place and that it is true that this is all just about political ideology, ahead of what is actually in the best interests of our tamariki.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to speak on the title. I was thinking that I might have been a bit harsh, earlier on, when I was talking about the “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau in the Guts) Bill”. I could see I upset a few members on the other side—and some of the ACT members. So I had a good think, I sat down, and I thought maybe I was just going a bit too extreme there. I don’t want to be extreme. So rather than call it, in terms of the title, the “ Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau in the Guts) Bill”, I just thought the “Oranga Tamariki (Rotten) Amendment Bill” might be—I thought that was a bit more subtle and a bit more sensitive to some of the New Zealand First and ACT members. I just thought that if we just insert “Rotten”—the “Oranga Tamariki (Rotten) Amendment Bill”—I think that does the trick.

But I want to address the Minister because I did hear some of her kōrero earlier, and I listened respectfully to what she was saying. Never once, I think, on this side, did anyone say that they were better Māori than her or whatever, and I actually respect what she’s been through. I understand it completely, and I think many of us do. I just asked the Minister, tonight, to think about what my colleague Willow-Jean Prime has been saying with respect that you’re not listening to what our experts are saying, you’re not listening with respect, Minister, to what our community leaders are saying.

When you talk about lived experience, I used to uplift babies in my former role. We used to go in where we had abuse happening in houses. We would go in and take the babies—take the babies. We didn’t care what the story was. We would go in, a team of us, so that, first and foremost, those babies were safe. And we did not care where those babies went to, as long as they went to somewhere safe. In those times, 25 or 30 years ago, Minister, they didn’t mind at all if they went to Pākehā families, Asian families, as long as they were safe. That was our thinking at the time.

But as the years went by and we were working for our urban organisations, we were told by our people, by our kaumātua, that these babies would benefit hugely if they went to some whānau who knew their background, who knew their whakapapa, who knew their language. And don’t get me wrong; Māori families didn’t get it right all the time at all. There were failures in terms of—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: But neither were the Pākehā ones.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s right. But we’re not saying every Māori family had it right—of course not. But the principle of tying these kids back, these babies back, to their whakapapa was, without doubt, successful.

And what we’re saying tonight is that should have been the driver. I had doubts myself 25 years ago, Minister. I had doubts myself because, first and foremost, I wanted those babies to be safe. I wanted them to be safe. We used to have to go in, in terms of abuse and gangs and abuse in terms of what was happening within partners. The main thing was to get the babies right. But as our kaumātua came through, as our leadership came through, they talked about the benefits of learning the language and of tying the whakapapa together. And then we were won over.

And, then, so from a community level, we progressed to a political level, and we started pushing those types of lines with people like Tariana Turia, John Tamihere, and others who, through the years, were always pushing the whānau ora message all the way through. And then we had different people from the Labour Party picking this up. Parekura Horomia—he was a big supporter of this type of thing. And then in the ACT Party, Rodney Hide was supporting it. And in National, Anne Tolley and Bill English were supporting it because they knew that the benefits of tying kids back to their whakapapa would be really good for the communities and good for iwi.

So I say to the Minister, tonight, in all seriousness, I hear your kōrero. We hear your kōrero. But the problem is you’re not listening to our kōrero. You’re not listening to our iwi. You’re not listening to our community. And we know you’ve been hurt, but our community is hurting, our people are hurting, and this is very, very dangerous going forward. Our fear is that we’re going to be put in the same type of position that we were in 25 years ago.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading next sitting day.