Thursday, 11 November 2021

THURSDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2021

THURSDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week, legislation to be considered will include further stages of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2), the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2), and the first reading of the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. On Wednesday, there will be a special debate that makes up time lost in the Estimates debate while Wellington was at higher alert levels. Wednesday’s sitting will be extended into Thursday morning.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that update. The Minister for COVID-19 Response has indicated that it’s the Government’s intention to introduce a past legislation to give effect to the traffic light framework. I wonder if the deputy leader could inform the House when that legislation might be introduced and whether it’s the Government’s intention to pass it through urgency.

SPEAKER: Either Minister can answer.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The reason I was late, of course, is actually Chris Bishop’s fault. He held up the media before me so they were late in questioning me. The Government’s intention next week is to pass the current COVID-19 bill that is before the House and to introduce legislation the following week that deals specifically with vaccinations and the response framework.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Angelo Dumlao requesting that the House urge the Government to grant permanent residence class visas to residence from work applicants who have been in the non-priority queue for 27 months or more.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, and the accompanying national interest analysis.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled Space invaders: A review of how New Zealand manages weeds that threaten native ecosystems. Those papers are published—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: No pleading guilty! Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Reports of the Health Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2), on the petition of Simon Wallace, and on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Preparations for the nationwide roll-out of the Covid-19 vaccine.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the report is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill, introduction

Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Housing

1. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Housing: What actions, if any, will she take in response to revelations that an upcoming political candidate was used in a Kāinga Ora promotion, and does she believe the culture of Kāinga Ora is upholding what is expected of the Public Service?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I have already taken actions. On 3 August, my office wrote to Kāinga Ora in response to receiving a departmental Official Information Act request that Kāinga Ora was processing. That email outlined my concerns that the conduct reflected in the information release did not meet my expectations for how Kāinga Ora should operate. In particular, I emphasised that my expectation was that Kāinga Ora should operate on the same basis that I do: once you know something, you cannot un-know it. I also made explicit in my email that Kāinga Ora fell well short of my expectations in dealing with this. I have also discussed the matter with the chair of Kāinga Ora, who is clear that what happened was wrong and is committed to ensuring it never happens again. And finally, as a belts and braces approach, I requested the Public Service Commission for some advice on whether anything further needs to be done.

Brooke van Velden: Will she hold an independent inquiry into the culture of Kāinga Ora, and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in answer to my primary question, I have taken the precautionary approach of asking the Public Service Commission for some advice on whether anything further needs to be done. In terms of this instance, as I’ve made clear, it fell well short of my expectations.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an email from my office dated 3 August to Kāinga Ora making clear that the conduct described in the questions fell well short of my expectations.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Brooke van Velden: Does she agree that senior Kāinga Ora staff were attempting to cover up the politicisation of a Government agency in the promotion of a future Labour Party candidate, and, if not, how would she categorise this statement made by a senior Kāinga Ora staff member, “She’s understandably nervous about people perceiving this as her electioneering ahead of her campaign announcement [but] we can just act as though we don’t know anything!”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think what that statement shows is that the candidate in question did everything that she needed to do to inform the agency that she was seeking selection for a political party. As I’ve made clear in answers to subsequent questions to the member, the way in which it was handled by the department fell well short of my expectations. In particular, I have already written to the department saying it is simply not possible to un-know something once you know it, and I expect the agency to adhere to that principle.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm she in fact learnt about this conduct in June, according to emails released by Kāinga Ora, and why has it taken until today for her to engage the Public Service Commission into what are grave matters of integrity in the housing entity she is responsible for?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On 23 July, my office was copied into Arena Williams’ reply to Kāinga Ora’s consultation on information to be released. As I’ve said in the House, on 3 August, as soon as I read the Official Information Act request and the documents that came through to my office, I sent an email to the organisation. My reason for contacting the Public Service Commission today is that responses to media queries over the last 24 hours by the agency suggest to me they’re not taking the matter as seriously as it needs to be.

Brooke van Velden: How can New Zealanders have faith in the culture of Kāinga Ora, when part of its half-million - dollar deal for advertorial content was arranged publication of a future Labour Party candidate that senior staff knew about?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The public can have faith in Kāinga Ora, not only because it is delivering on housing for New Zealanders but also, as I indicated in the answer to the primary question, that the chair of Kāinga Ora, Vui Mark Gosche, has made it clear that what has happened is wrong, it cannot happen again, and it is the board’s responsibility to ensure that it does not happen again.

Brooke van Velden: What does it say of the standards of this Government if she won’t hold an inquiry but simply writes a letter, and can she describe what actions she would find unacceptable enough for her to open an inquiry?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What it says about this Government is that when we proactively see a problem, we take action on it. On 3 August, I wrote to Kāinga Ora exercising my ministerial duty to make it clear that the behaviour and conduct was well short of my expectations. Furthermore, when I saw responses to media queries over the last 24-hour period that I felt were not of the standard that I expected, I did contact the Public Service Commission and asked them for some advice.

Nicola Willis: What responsibility does she take for allowing a culture to emerge at Kāinga Ora that made this sort of unethical conduct acceptable not only to a senior communications adviser but to a general manager?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I take my responsibilities very seriously and that’s exactly why I wrote to the organisation on 3 August, making it clear that this was well short of my expectations as the responsible Minister. It is exactly why I raised the matter with the chief executive. It’s exactly why I raised the matter with the chair of the board.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Confidence among New Zealand investors has returned to pre-pandemic levels according to the latest ASB Investor Confidence Survey. This shows that net investor confidence rose from 14 percent to 25 percent for the three months to October, matching the last peak in the March 2017 quarter. Confidence in Auckland reached a seven-year high, up from 18 percent to 31 percent. ASB said, “Investment confidence [had] remained resilient, in a similar way to the strength that we have seen in other business confidence surveys over recent months”. The huge uncertainty and volatility experienced during last year’s lockdown has not been repeated through investor confidence. Our approach that the Government has taken to support the economy and give people confidence through the period of restrictions is clearly contributing to this.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the resilience of the labour market and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The SEEK NZ Employment Report rose at a faster pace in October, up a seasonally adjusted 0.7 percent from the 0.3 percent gain in the previous month. The annual rate of growth was 36.8 percent, which BNZ said was “comfortably above” pre-COVID levels. Auckland job ads eased by 0.6 percent in October, despite the stricter restrictions, and followed an 8.1 percent drop in September. The Waikato also registered a 4 percent fall in job ads last month as part of that region went into the higher alert levels. Every other region saw gains in October after rebounding in September, as well.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on international comparisons for our economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the results show that New Zealand has performed favourably against the countries we measure ourselves against. If we just look at unemployment, on comparable measures, New Zealand’s 3.4 percent rate stands against 4.6 percent in Australia, 4.5 percent in the United Kingdom, 5.1 percent in the United States, and 7.2 percent in Canada, with the OECD average at 6 percent. Overall, New Zealand’s unemployment rate is among the lowest in the OECD, ranked fifth equal among the 38 countries in the September quarter, moving up from eighth place the last quarter. And New Zealand’s employment rate for people aged 15 to 64 years old was 79.1 percent, placing us third among the OECD rankings.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with the level of openness and transparency around the Government’s spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes. However, there is always room for improvement, and the Government is seeking to address this, in part, through our Public Finance Act modernisation programme. This programme is aimed at addressing issues which have been a feature of the system since the Public Finance Act was passed in 1989.

Andrew Bayly: What is his response to the fact that the Auditor-General could not find any reference at all to the mental health component of the $300 million Homelessness Action Plan in his 2021 Budget documents?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve noted the letter from the Auditor-General. What that speaks to is exactly the issue I am referencing with the Public Finance Act reform programme. The way we do individual votes and individual appropriations means that when a particular piece of work is part of a programme such as that programme, that is how we will describe it. It, however, will appear differently in the appropriations. I do agree that that’s an issue we need to work on together.

Andrew Bayly: How can he explain why the funding for the $100 million conifer control programme was not separately disclosed in the 2021-22 Estimates of Appropriations, and who is to blame for this mistake?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I can quote, in fact, from the Auditor-General’s letter on this matter, where he says, “We have contacted the Ministry for Primary Industries about this, and the Ministry acknowledges that there was an oversight in providing information on this initiative.” I would note that the Auditor-General says that this does not affect legality under the Budget Act.

Andrew Bayly: Does he agree with the Auditor-General’s assessment of his $57 billion COVID fund that it was difficult and sometimes not possible to reconcile where the money was being spent, making it hard for the public to see where taxpayer money is being spent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my answer to the first supplementary question, the way in which we organise the public finances there—the Public Finance Act and through the Budget—means that when funds are created that include expenditure undertaken by a range of different agencies under a range of different votes and appropriations, their Budget documents will not necessarily reflect the way that programme is announced. The same issue arose in the establishment of the Future Investment Fund in 2012, also a notional fund; also one where you would have had to have gone looking in individual votes to find the actual expenditure.

Andrew Bayly: Is he suggesting that Treasury, with a staff of 650 people, is not sufficient to produce a Budget without mistakes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Treasury does an excellent job of pulling the Budget together. As noted in the Auditor-General’s letter, the two issues that the member raised were the responsibility of the Ministry for Primary Industries and Land Information New Zealand. That is acknowledged here, and I reiterate that according to the Auditor-General, this “does not affect compliance with the Budget Act, or the amount and type of expenditure” authorised under these votes.

Andrew Bayly: Why has the Auditor-General had to raise concerns regarding the lack of details of Government spending on three separate occasions over the last 18 months, and why does he continue to make mistakes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! There’s an assertion at the end of that question which is certainly not justified. Ask it again. You’re lucky that I’m not taking it away. I think the member does know that he’s breaching the rules.

Andrew Bayly: Why has the Auditor-General had to raise concerns regarding a lack of detail on Government spending on three separate occasions over the last 18 months?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Auditor-General is raising concerns about the way in which the Public Finance Act operates. It has operated this way since 1989. What we have been trying to do in Government is modernise the Public Finance Act so it actually reflects the fact that our goal here is to provide services and achieve outcomes for New Zealanders. In the words of the Minister for the Public Service, as he often says, New Zealanders don’t wake up in the morning and say, “I am now going to use services provided under Vote Health, followed by services provided under Vote Education, followed by services provided by Vote Social Development.” This Government is trying to break down the silos of Government. Unfortunately, the Public Finance Act still keeps those in place. We’re committed to working with the Auditor-General on improving that.

Andrew Bayly: Can he assure the House and the public that there are no other mistakes in Budget 2021?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can assure the House that Budget 2021 went through the same processes that all of the Budgets under the previous National Government went through, and from time to time there were mistakes in those Budgets. He might want to give Jonathan Coleman a call.

Question No. 4—COVID-19 Response

4. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent progress has been made on New Zealand’s COVID-19 vaccine programme across the regions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): We continue to steadily move towards our goal of 90 percent of the country being fully vaccinated. Currently, 89.6 percent of the eligible 12-plus New Zealand population have now had their first dose; 79.6 percent have received both doses. I want to pay particular acknowledgment to the efforts of the people in Waitematā, Auckland, Counties Manukau, Capital and Coast, Canterbury, and Southern DHBs, all of whom have reached 90 percent of their first doses being administered. I can’t overstate the importance of those 3.35 million people who have now all been fully vaccinated. It is a hugely significant step forward for the ongoing protection of New Zealand.

Shanan Halbert: How is the vaccine programme progressing across northern regions, particularly for different age bands?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One point four million - plus people across Northland and the Auckland metropolitan DHBs have received at least one dose of the vaccine—that’s 91 percent of the eligible community—1.3 million have received both doses and are now fully vaccinated. We’re also seeing really positive numbers from those 65 and over in the North. Over 244,000, or 95 percent, of that age cohort have had their first dose, while 237,000, or 92 percent, have received their second. Northland DHB is looking to utilise every opportunity to increase demand. They’re currently operating weekly prize draws, they’ve engaged with all sorts of community groups, and they’ve got the mayors and businesses in the district highlighting support for the vaccination programme.

Shanan Halbert: And how is the vaccine programme progressing across the southern region, particularly for different ethnic communities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Nine hundred and two thousand people across the South Island have received their first dose, or 91 percent of the eligible community; 789,121 individuals have received their second and have, therefore, been fully vaccinated. Commendably, 99 percent of eligible Pacific people across the southern DHBs have had their first dose; 82 percent have received both. Seventy-nine percent of eligible Māori have had at least one dose, and 61 percent have had both. The South Island is focusing on each DHB in the region reaching 90 percent first doses, and the five DHBs have developed a joint campaign to make sure they reach that target. There’s great work happening in communities across the southern region, including with Māori health providers, iwi, and DHBs. They’re working in partnership on locally led, innovative solutions, and that includes young people from ethnic communities running targeted vaccination clinics to vaccinate their communities in Christchurch and the establishment of more after-hours clinics, which has been particularly successful with some of our ethnic communities, including Middle Eastern and Latin American communities.

Question No. 5—Health

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Health: What is the average length of time between someone testing positive for COVID-19 and public health staff getting in contact with them regarding isolation arrangements, and is he satisfied with the management of the home self-isolation system?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The care in the community system in Auckland currently has a target of contacting at least 80 percent of individuals with a positive COVID test within 24 hours. The Ministry of Health has informed me that for the seven-day period from 4 November to 10 November 2021, 85 percent of Auckland cases were contacted for their case interview within 24 hours of the positive case notification. What I continue to say to officials is that any delays are not acceptable outside of the 24-hour target, and we will continue to improve the system until we are satisfied that people recovering from COVID in the community are receiving the level of support we expect and in a timely manner. In terms of my satisfaction, I accept that any new system that is required to rapidly scale up, in the context of this pandemic, is going to hit speed bumps. The effort to constantly improve must continue. With this in mind, I’m continually seeking advice on how best to do that. The Ministry of Health, district health boards, public health units, and all the other parts of the support system continue to iterate and develop the system at every stage in this pandemic. I want to acknowledge that there are people in the northern region, in particular, who have been working hard to respond to the challenges that they face and to deliver on them. Finally, I would acknowledge that delivering care in the community is only possible because of the work we are all doing to drive vaccination rates, which are the cornerstone of community protection.

Chris Bishop: Did public health units meet the target of 80 percent being contacted within 24 hours in the weeks prior to the week of 4 November to 10 November, which is the time period he just gave in his answer to the primary question?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The question that I received simply referred to the average length of time between someone testing positive for COVID-19 and public health staff getting in contact with them. So it did not have any confined time frame to it. I thought I was helping the member by making it as current as possible—certainly, in terms of the recent events that have hit the news about the scheme. So I stand by that answer.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. I think, Mr Speaker, you know what I’m about to say, which is: my primary question did not give time frame; the Minister, in his primary answer, gave a time frame from 4 November to 11 November. I asked about the weeks prior to 4 November and whether or not the 80 percent target was reached in those weeks, and if the Minister could tell us what those numbers were.

SPEAKER: And he said he can’t.

Chris Bishop: Did he say that?

SPEAKER: He did, because he didn’t have the information, I think. I’ll just check my understanding. I understood from the Minister’s answer that he indicated that he couldn’t tell the member because he’d just brought the latest information to the House.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yeah, in fairness, Mr Speaker, I interpreted the question in a way that I thought was most helpful. But I do not have that data relating to the earlier period.

Chris Bishop: Does the Minister know what the longest length of time a COVID case has gone between testing positive for COVID-19 and having contact from the relevant public health unit, and, if so, what is the longest length of time?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My office has been directly advised by somebody that it took two days for them to be contacted. I have had a journalist suggest to me that they’re aware of someone for whom it took six days, but I haven’t seen that information verified.

Chris Bishop: Why is the health system struggling with only 150-200 cases a day, when Professor Michael Baker said yesterday that when it was discussed last year, the intention was that it could manage up to a thousand cases a day?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The arrangements for care—whether it’s managed isolation and quarantine, whether it’s in the community—have been developed as the passage of the pandemic has evolved, and as all elements of it, including the vaccination programme and what we’ve observed now with the Delta variant. So the planning has been on the basis of projections of daily case numbers, and it was expected that they would ramp up over September, October, and hit a peak over the kind of November, December period. The reality is: the number of daily cases that are now happening are ahead of projections, and the systems that have been in place have struggled to keep up with the rapid escalation in daily case numbers.

Chris Bishop: How can he be highly critical of the home isolation programme, saying, just now, that the system hasn’t kept up and that he expects changes to be made immediately, when the Director-General of Health said yesterday that the system is working well?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, one case telling me that it took more than 24 hours to be notified, or to be given their first call so that they could be assessed for the appropriate place for their care, is one case too many. And as I deal with officials and they advise me that there are still issues to iron out, I go on the basis of that advice.

Chris Bishop: Does he agree with the Director-General of Health that the home isolation system is working well?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It is, by and large, working well but there are still problems to iron out, as officials advise me, and they are getting on to doing.

Question No. 6—GCSB

6. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: What recent announcements have been made in the GCSB portfolio?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for the GCSB): This morning, the GCSB’s director-general announced the agency’s operational decision that two of the satellite communications interception dishes and radome coverings at Waihopai will be retired and deconstructed, while the station near Blenheim will remain an operational facility. The nature of telecommunications has changed over the past 30 years, and our needs and capabilities have overtaken the sort of satellite communication interception that has been carried out at Waihopai. This Government has invested $150 million in Budgets 2019 and 2020, with about half of that funding going to procure new capabilities and maintain New Zealand’s technological advantages in intelligence gathering. The announcement by the director-general shows a contemporary intelligence agency being open about the national security challenges we face today.

Ginny Andersen: Will the functions of the GCSB change now the domes are being retired?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. The mission of the GCSB has not changed. Technology changes and the retirement of the domes reflects that reality. The GCSB collects signals intelligence and is primarily externally focused. Their intelligence insights help keep New Zealanders safe and help Government to better direct resources and manage risks. The GCSB also has a number of non-covert functions—for example, hosting the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) that helps New Zealand’s nationally significant organisations to protect their information systems. Over the past 5 years, the NCSC has prevented more than $284 million of harm to those organisations.

Ginny Andersen: How have New Zealand’s Five Eyes partners reacted to the GCSB’s decision to remove the domes?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The GCSB discussed their plans and operational decision with the Five Eyes. Our partners understand the domes are obsolete and their removal is part of the normal operational evolution and modernisation of the intelligence agency. I’ve seen the contribution New Zealand makes to the Five Eyes. Just recently, intelligence collected by the GCSB disrupted terrorist attack planning overseas. Our partners value the unique work New Zealand does as part of the Five Eyes partnership.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is she confident the Government is adequately supporting whānau in hardship through COVID-19?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes. This Government is deeply committed to ensuring New Zealand is the best place in the world to be a child, and addressing family poverty is essential in achieving this. The Government has been proactive and responsive to hardship through the pandemic. Following the original COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 where the Government invested $80 million over three years into community support and resilience, we have also supported the sector to respond to COVID with an additional $38.15 million during our response to Delta. We have also extended the eligibility criteria for hardship assistance so that families on low wages can receive hardship assistance from the Ministry of Social Development and Employment. The rapid roll-out of the wage subsidy has also kept New Zealanders in work. Because of this, we have seen unemployment remain low and only a small rise in the number of people receiving job seeker assistance. We know we’re not out of the woods yet and will continue to keep an eye on what is happening and respond where there is a need.

Jan Logie: Would extending the in-work tax credit component of the Working for Families package to beneficiaries make a more significant reduction in poverty levels than the Government’s recently announced package?

Hon JAN TINETTI: COVID-19 has been tough on families and has contributed to the increase in the cost of living. Increasing support for low and middle income families to help cover the basics is a fair thing to do. Working for Families tax credits were scheduled for an inflation increase on 1 April, and we have put in additional money to make an increase more substantial. This change will mean that 346 families are estimated to be better off by an average of $20 per week. This change combined with our already announced benefit changes and indexation will mean that families with children will be significantly better off from 1 April.

Jan Logie: Why does the Government continue to discriminate against families with tamariki who are unable to work 20 hours or more because they have care obligations or for reasons of health or disability?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This Government has a range of supports that go into supporting those particular families. This action that I’ve just spoken about is just one of the actions that the Government has taken to improve family incomes and support people with need.

Jan Logie: What is her response to the Child Poverty Action Group, who said, “Overall, low-income families will be just $5 per child better off in April next year than they would’ve been without this announcement [and] … well short of the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As far as the recommendations from the welfare advisory group, Working for Families is still under review, and this was extra money that was put into an existing change in order to make a bigger difference for families. More information on the Working for Families review will be released next year.

Jan Logie: Does she acknowledge that some families will actually be worse off because the Government decided to increase abatement rates to Working for Families to help fund the $5 increase to other struggling families?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No families will be worse off because of these changes. This is about targeting those people who are of the lowest income and making sure that we are absolutely targeting those people who are most in need.

Jan Logie: Is it true that currently the Government is offering less lockdown-related support to low-income families than it did last year even though the cost of essentials has gone up and inequity has increased?

Hon JAN TINETTI: If this was all we were talking about and all that this Government has done to support those families with the greatest need, then, yes, there might be an issue, but this is one of a raft of packages that is supporting those families that are most in need. This is around the changes that have been made to Working for Families as it stands already. This is around, also, aspects and packages like our school lunch programme, and like free period products, like the women’s fund that has gone into support those women in the greatest need. There is a full range of packages that are going in to help these families.

Jan Logie: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a great answer but to a different question. My question was about less lockdown-related support. It was about the whole—

SPEAKER: I think that was answered in the first sentence.

Jan Logie: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: We’re not going to discuss it. I think it sort of—that may have been the case, but the member should consider.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has been made to improve transport in the regions?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): We are making progress on a number of important projects around the regions to keep New Zealand moving and support the economic recovery. The first of three new safer link road connections into Tamahere opened recently, as the Hamilton section of the Waikato expressway drives towards completion. Later this year, stage 2 will see the on-ramp over Cambridge Road bridge open, and, next year, stage 3 will see the on-ramp from the link road to the city open, completing the southern interchange connections. Looking to the Coromandel, I’m also happy to report that Tairua locals have safer walking and cycling options, following the opening of a new footbridge across Grahams Stream at the northern end of the town.

Greg O’Connor: What other regional projects have reached important milestones?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Te Ahu a Turanga, the Manawatū Tararua highway, has completed its first earthworks season, with over 650,000 cubic metres of earth moved since construction began in January of this year. The landscaping team have been out in all weather and have met their goal of getting close to 250,000 native plants in the ground. Around 630,000 plants are growing at a number of nurseries for planting next year. Work is also starting on a new walking and cycling path in Napier, on State Highway 50 between Battery Road and Prebensen Drive roundabout, and work will include the construction of a pedestrian and cyclist - shared path, level crossing upgrades, and new road markings to improve safety and efficiency for everyone.

Greg O’Connor: How are other transport projects supporting the regions?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’m pleased to note that our investment to reopen the Napier to Wairoa rail line is supporting the Hawke’s Bay. While log trains have generally been running on weekends, due to increased demand to get logs to port, KiwiRail is now running log trains every weekday on this new line. This helps to reduce the number of heavy log trucks on regional roads, which boost the forestry supply chain, improves safety, and cuts emissions. Work is also about to begin on sealing State Highway 43, the Forgotten World Highway, which will create jobs and support the recovery. The project is estimated to contribute up to $45 million in economic activity to the region, while improving safety for everyone on the route. This is a Government that invests and delivers for our regions.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: How did she make it clear to Kāinga Ora that she is “not comfortable with them using political candidates” in their advertising, and what actions have been taken by Kāinga Ora to address her concerns?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): As outlined in my answer to question No. 1 from the ACT Party earlier today, on 3 August, my office wrote an email to Kāinga Ora outlining my concerns with the conduct reflected in the information released under the Official Information Act. I’m advised that at the time, the face-to-face meeting was held with the staff member involved, who was reminded of their obligations under the Public Service code of conduct. Again, as outlined in my answer to question No. 1, I have also discussed the matter with the chair of Kāinga Ora, who was clear that what has happened was wrong and is committed to ensuring it never happens again. Finally, again, as outlined in the answer to question No. 1 today, as a belts and braces approach, I’ve asked the Public Service Commission for some advice on whether anything further needs to be done.

Nicola Willis: Why did her office wait until August to convey this displeasure, when documents released to me show she first asked for clarification about this matter on 23 June?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It was on 2 August that my office received a bundle of documents that would be released by the agency under Official Information Act requests, that was the back and forth correspondence within the agency about the article that appeared on OneRoof. My discomfort was with the way it was dealt with, in particular the way that there was a suggestion that we could un-know about something that had happened. That is exactly what I conveyed to the organisation within 12 hours of reading those documents.

Nicola Willis: What follow-up, if any, did she do following the token email her—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Right, the member knows that’s not in order, doesn’t she? Right, well, she’s used a supplementary.

Nicola Willis: Ah, Mr Speaker, point of order. I don’t think my question was out of order. I think that I could have—

SPEAKER: No, you’ll now resume your seat. I asked the member whether she knew that it was out of order. She nodded her head to confirm that she did. You can’t be right both ways.

Nicola Willis: What follow-up, if any, did she do following the email her office sent in August to ensure Kāinga Ora had done anything to address the grossly unprofessional conduct that had occurred; and isn’t it the case that precisely nothing has changed at Kāinga Ora since she sent her email?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think, actually, I’ve covered what follow-up has occurred over numerous answers that I’ve given in the House today. The email was sent on 3 August. I raised it at a meeting with officials, both with Kāinga Ora but also with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, who is the monitoring agency for Kāinga Ora. I have subsequently spoken to the chief executive again, I have spoken to the chair, and I have asked for advice from the Public Service Commission.

Nicola Willis: Does she consider that Kāinga Ora takes her as Minister seriously, when in the past 24 hours, a senior communications adviser has released grossly misleading statements to the media claiming that a Kāinga Ora staff member made a personal judgment call on this matter, when there is documentary proof a general manager signed it off?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do have confidence that this matter is being taken seriously, and that my expectations as Minister are being taken seriously.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—

Nicola Willis: They don’t take you seriously.

SPEAKER: Order! That’s another supplementary.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent progress has been made towards regulating merchant service fees?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This Government is following through on its manifesto commitment to take action on merchant service fees. COVID-19 has changed the way we all spend our money. Online and contactless transactions are now the norm. The Retail Payment System Bill has progressed through first reading and is now at select committee. It’s expected to result in savings of approximately $74 million each year for New Zealand small businesses and consumers.

Naisi Chen: What benefits will these changes deliver for businesses?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Whilst all merchants benefit from these changes, it’s small businesses that will breathe the biggest sigh of relief. There’s growing demand for all shops and services to offer contactless credit or online transactions. Many have faced a choice of absorbing higher fees or risk losing customers. This Government does not believe that’s fair and that’s why we’re doing something about it.

Naisi Chen: How will these changes benefit ordinary consumers?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: These changes will mean being able to go to your local dairy, greengrocer, or butchery knowing your payment options aren’t likely to be limited to EFTPOS or cash. COVID-19 has changed the way we spend our money. It’s also made us much more conscious about how to keep each other safe when going about our daily lives. Therefore, it’s essential all retailers feel they have affordable access to contactless payment services.

SPEAKER: Now, before I call Harete Hipango I’m going to indicate that despite my displeasure with Nicola Willis, I accept that the next question is one where there is a lot of public interest and the member can have supplementaries that she would otherwise have. But can I just say that yelling at members while other members are asking questions is something which is not acceptable.

Question No. 11—Health (Māori Health)

11. HARETE HIPANGO (National) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): Will the Ministry of Health release Māori health data in the manner requested by the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, and how much have Government departments spent to date on legal costs in relation to this issue?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): This morning, I have been advised the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency have filed further legal proceedings with the High Court on this matter. Accordingly, I am limited in what I can say related to an ongoing matter before the court. The Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency—the commissioning agency—has asked for personally identifiable data for all people recorded as domicile in the North Island and identifying as Māori in the COVID-19 vaccine and immunisation programme’s data set, specifically requesting data of Māori who have had no or only one vaccine dose. In the High Court’s recent decision, the court accepted that the ministry must carefully weigh the public health need to maximise vaccinations against COVID-19 with its obligations under the Privacy Act 2020, as an agency in possession of personal information.

In reconsidering the commissioning agency’s request, in light of the High Court’s judgment, I’m advised that the ministry has considered evidence provided by the commissioning agency, as well as a wide range of views from Māori leaders, Māori health experts, and representatives from Māori organisations, including iwi. I’m confident that the ministry has been carefully weighing its obligations in all respects. What is important to everyone is increasing Māori vaccination uptake. It’s my expectation that Te Tiriti principles and the application of tikanga will result in appropriate data sharing. I expect that a way forward will be found, however, now the legal process must play out and discussions are ongoing.

Regarding the legal cost associated with this matter, I’m advised that as at 27 October 2021, the Ministry of Health’s external legal costs have been $72,174.26 exclusive of GST. A more recent figure is not available due to billing cycles. As Associate Minister of Health, I am only able to speak to the Ministry of Health’s costs and not costs accrued by other Government agencies.

Harete Hipango: Does he agree with the Minister for Māori Development that “we’re in an emergency situation and Whānau Ora should be given that information.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, yes. The High Court in its judgment said that this was an emergency situation, and the Minister for Māori Development was reflecting that sentiment. I think if you have a look at the court judgment, the fact that the court did not order specific disclosure of data but in fact ordered the ministry to reconsider its decision, suggested that the court struggled with where the line was to be drawn between data that should be released that was appropriate and in accordance with the ministry weighing its competing obligations.

Harete Hipango: Does he agree with the Minister of Health that the court process is a waste of time for all involved and that he “hopes the ministry will give Whānau Ora the data they need.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I know that the Minister of Health takes a very considered view on these things, and, as a former litigation lawyer, he understands, truly, how much litigation can be a complete waste of time and money. Both the Minister of Health and I urge the parties to continue their discussions so that additional data can be released so that we can get the vaccination campaign for Māori continuing.

Harete Hipango: Why is the Ministry of Health able to share individual patient data, personally identifiable information, with Healthline but not with the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Again, on behalf of the Minister, that was a factor that the High Court drew attention to in its decision on this matter, released this week. But I, again, draw that member’s attention to the effect of the court decision, which was not to order disclosure of any specific information, but to order the ministry to reconsider its decision, so that it went through that weighing process of the competing obligations that it must consider.

Harete Hipango: Does he acknowledge that the Māori vaccination rates would not be 21 percent below the general population if the data had been shared with Whānau Ora nine months ago, when earlier requested?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Associate Minister, we know that the vaccination campaign, when it comes to Māori vaccination, has worked very hard and struggled in many quarters to lift those vaccination rates. There are a lot of reasons for that—perfectly justifiable reasons—and we always anticipated that it would take extra special effort involving a whole range of parties, but, most importantly, kaupapa Māori health providers, iwi, and others connected to Māori communities so that we could get those vaccination levels up. That is happening. It will be assisted by the release of more data, and I am confident both the ministry and the various other parties that it’s engaging with will reach that end.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: How many prior convictions on average does a third-strike offender have?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Today, the Government announced we are delivering on our 2020 campaign commitment to repeal that law because it hasn’t worked. It has created some manifestly disproportionate sentencing outcomes. And after the repeal, judges will continue to have tough sentencing tools for when they require them. Cabinet considered retrospectivity, but decided to protect victims having to go through a legal process if resentencing occurred. Based on available data, I’m advised that the average prior convictions of third-strikers is 74.3. Under our law change that is proposed, judges will continue to have serious tools to deal with serious offenders, and that discretion is for the judiciary. Prior convictions are already an aggravating factor under our sentencing practices, and this will continue to be the case.

Nicole McKee: Does he accept that his changes will mean that violent offenders who commit multiple violent offences will likely receive less severe sentences than they would have under the three-strikes regime?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I think what will be assured by the changes and the repealing of the three-strikes regime passed by ACT and National is that judges will continue to have serious tools to deal with serious offending and that the discretion for the judgment will be with the judiciary.

Nicole McKee: Why should violent offenders, like Dylan Davis, who brutally beat the victim to death and received a third strike, be given anything less than a maximum sentence possible under law?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I have maintained, under the law, if there is serious offending, the sentencing tools are still available to the judiciary. Those tools will still exist and that discretion is for the judiciary. As I mentioned in the response to the primary question, there have also been some manifestly disproportionate sentences handed out to people under the three-strikes regime, one which recently had the attention of the Supreme Court.

Teanau Tuiono: What specific investments in the justice system will the Government make to support rehabilitation and community-based alternatives to imprisonment?

SPEAKER: No. Order! Order! That’s sort of a good question, and if there had been something heading in that direction it would have been an OK supplementary, but this is a quite specific area of questioning rather than a general one on the justice system.

Nicole McKee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many victims of violent crime did he speak to in the process of preparing his proposed repeal of the three strikes?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I speak on a relatively regular basis to the likes of the Chief Victims Advisor, and, of course, Justice had an interaction with stakeholders as the policy was being put together. I will remind the member that Cabinet had the plight of victims very much at the front of its thinking, which is why, as I mentioned in the beginning of my answer, there is no retrospectivity, we do not want victims to be re-victimised through a process which might include resentencing.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of his discussion on ongoing tough sentencing, is he ruling out, today, any retrospectivity and, indeed, any compensation for prisoners who have been sentenced under the existing three-strikes law and who are found to have served sentences which, following his law change, are deemed too long?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I think I’ve already addressed the issue of retrospectivity. There’s no mention of compensation within the proposed law changes that we’ll make. I’d also note that—to reiterate—for serious criminal offending, there will continue to be serious sentencing tools available to the judiciary. For those who believe that they may have been subject to a disproportionate sentence, the Supreme Court has recently ruled on that, and there may be an avenue for them to take there.

Hon David Parker: In terms of the sorts of offences that are covered by the three-strikes law, does the offence of stealing the identity of a dead baby to obtain a false passport count?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I don’t believe that is a strike offence, under my understanding. But I will note that the architect of this bill, former ACT member—

SPEAKER: No. No. Order! Order! We’ve now gone past the point of answering the question and to the point of using a question to attack an Opposition party, and we’ll stop it there.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the removal of the third-strike law demonstrate a new approach, including more effective community-based rehabilitation initiatives?

SPEAKER: Much better.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes it does. I think, instead of taking a gimmicky approach to law and order and making sure there are fewer offenders, it’s time to start investing in the likes of things like the alcohol and other drug treatment courts, which actually has metric proof that it is reducing reoffending.

Special Debates

Māori Affairs Committee—150th Anniversary

TĀMATI COFFEY (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): I move, That this House take note of the briefing on the commemoration of the Māori Affairs Committee’s 150th anniversary.

I mark 150 years of the Māori Affairs Committee in this House of Parliament. It is a significant day, but it’s also a day that, as we look back over our shoulder and figure out where we started and how far we’ve come over the last 150 years, actually, we take stock and realise that whilst we’ve come a long way, there’s still a lot more to do.

The Native Affairs Committee was established 150 years ago on 5 October 1981 by a motion in the House of Representatives. The House agreed to the motion without discussion or debate. There was no reason recorded for its establishment, but it was generally accepted that it was probably to meet the demands of a flood of petitions from Māori to the House. The Native Affairs Committee met for the first time on the morning of 9 October 1871, with the first item of business: 10 petitions that had been transferred by the Public Petitions Committee, and the committee’s first report to the House was entirely about petitions—17 of them, in fact.

Petitions made up the majority of the committee’s work. A lot of our people that were out there at the time were mostly concerned about things like the confiscation of Māori land, the imposition of Māori land laws, the Native Land Court. All of these played an important role in communicating Māori concerns, and by 1900, just 28 years later, it had considered around 2,500 petitions. That was the size of the problem at the time and the reason for the establishment of the committee, to the point where the committee’s workload was much larger than most other committees. You see, the newspapers at the time described the chairperson’s role as “arduous” and not to be desired by any member with many duties. In fact, in recognition of the workload of the chairperson of the Native Affairs Committee, from 1876 to 1880 and again after that, they were paid a little bit extra in their salary to compensate them for the extra workload that they were having to go through at the time, when few other chairpersons actually were privy to that funding.

I want to talk about the actual room itself, and when I say “room” I mean “rooms”, because we have two of them here in Parliament. It started out as the native affairs select committee room and it was named Matangireia. The meeting room was created in 1922; a kawanga whare was attended by the Prime Minister of the day, William Massey; and there were also other people that were there, including Te Arawa leaders Mita Taupopoke, Te Naera Houkotuku, and Te Kiwi Amohau. They were the ones that created the carvings for the room, and they attended.

The chairperson of the committee considered it only fitting that the room be designated as a whare rūnanga in recognition of the committee’s mana and the committee’s place in Parliament. In his address to the kawanga whare, the Minister of Native Affairs at the time described the committee as one that was “governed by the highest traditions of justice and fair play to both races and the administration of its affairs.” He expressed the hope that the high traditions of the past would always remain with the room where they were about to enter.

The room was redecorated in 1955 by Ngāti Tūwharetoa carvers and chiefs. Red and black kōwhaiwhai were added to the decorative ceilings and the cornices of the room, and tukutuku extended all around the walls. Reproductions of Te Tiriti o Waitangi were cast up on to the walls alongside portraits of distinguished Māori members of Parliament: Sir James Carroll, Te Rangi Hīroa—Sir Peter Buck—Sir Maui Pōmare, and the Hon Sir Apirana Ngata. There were also portraits of Sir Eruera Tirikatene, the Hon Matiu Rata, Iriaka Ratana, and the Hon Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan, which have been added since.

The meeting room was closed from 1992 through to 1995 as part of a refurbishment of Parliament House. When it was reopened, it was given that name “Matangireia”, meaning the 13th, or the upper-most heaven. And although it’s no longer used as a committee room, it continues to have great significance to all of those that come through and get to see it for themselves.

Cue the second Māori Affairs Committee room, which was a baby of Koro Wētere, who, back in the day as Minister of Māori Affairs from 1984 to 1990, decided that, actually, we needed a room that was closer to the front of Parliament House and more accessible for whānau to be able to get there. Māui Tikitiki-a-Taranga was blessed and formally opened at a dawn ceremony, November 1995, by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and it was more prominently positioned as the Māori Affairs Committee room.

Three master carvers were chosen to complete the room: Te Warihi Hetaraka, Albert Poai Te Pou, and Rangi Hetet. The carvers organised groups of weavers from North Auckland and from Te Whānau Paneke of Lower Hutt to complete the tukutuku panels, and I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare, whose mum actually had a part in some of the weavings and the stories that are contained in that room.

It’s important to acknowledge the room itself, because we recently, as part of this commemoration, the Māori Affairs Committee, held an online commemoration. There were two guests that were invited to commemorate alongside us. One of them was my colleague, our colleague, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. She was chosen because this year also marks her 25 years of service to this country and to this House. Once upon a time, she served as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, and it was right and fitting that she came and presented to the committee, telling us about some of the trials and tribulations that she faced.

We also chose to invite to the meeting the legend—I’ll call her a legend because that’s what she is—and wahine toa, the great Annette Sykes, who, for my reasons, I thought it was incredibly important that we had somebody who’d been working inside the system for so long, fighting for the rights of Māori, but, equally, somebody that’s been standing outside on the steps of Parliament for just as long, again, fighting for the rights of Māori. Between them, they shared the kōrero. In fact, one of the lines that was used about “if these walls could talk”—and it was used by Annette Sykes. When she said that, I thought about it; I thought about “If these walls could talk, what would they say? Whose stories would they hark back to?” There would be a lot of stories, because both committee rooms have heard the pain, the anguish, the upset, the happiness, and the comedy that often takes place in that committee room as well, but, actually, they would have some pretty poignant things to say.

The Hon Nanaia Mahuta reflected on her time. As a newbie into this House of Parliament, she was put straight on to the Māori Affairs Committee, and, actually, one of her initial jobs was to see through one of the first of the Treaty settlements that we’ve become so accustomed to now. The Ngāi Tahu settlement was up and she was in as a member of the committee at the time. She talked about how outside in the real world, outside of this House—the protection of this House—actually, it was incredibly confronting and there was some vandalism and there was some not nice things said out there in the media about this process of Treaty settlements, but, actually, it was the right thing to do. So she used that example of the Ngāi Tahu Treaty settlement to really indicate some of those struggles.

I want to mention the great Annette Sykes as well, who talked to us about one of her first trips down to Wellington, where she was invited down by Bruce Gregory, as we were trying to make Māori an official language. She was brought down to help draft up the bill, so that she did. But she told us that in her experience, she finally understood what this place was all about. She finally understood that if you were given a 10-minute speaking slot, that, actually, you should only take five minutes of that and leave five minutes for questions afterwards. But what she also noted in the meeting was the compassion of the members that were sitting around the table.

Now I want to acknowledge all of those members past and present of the Māori Affairs Committee and the Native Affairs Committee, who have sat there and listened to the heart-wrenching stories of so many people that have come to this House looking for justice. I want to acknowledge those ones that have passed on, that have done the hard yards over the years, and I want to mention and state the great work that they did. We stand on their shoulders. As the current chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I prepare my shoulders for those coming after us that will join the Māori Affairs Committee and will continue to work for change within these hallowed halls of Parliament. I look forward to the change that they are able to bring. We’ll do our bit for the time that we’re here, but I’m aspirational for the future and I’m aspirational that, actually, we have a generation of young Māori activists out there who have grown up absolutely understanding who they are, where they come from, how they tie into this world, and learning from some of the mistakes of the past.

The Māori Affairs Committee is the place where rangatiratanga intersects with Kāwanatanga, and for that reason, the Māori Affairs Committee members are, and always have been, the front line of Māori politics. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving us this time in the House to look back over our shoulder. Tēnā koe.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): I rise to take this call, and am humble and honoured to do so, to speak in this special debate reflecting on and commemorating 150 years of the Native Affairs Committee—the Māori Affairs Committee. On 5 October 1871, the Native Affairs Committee was established. Today, 11 November, in 1918, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the guns of World War I fell silent. We sit, and I stand, in this Chamber of commemoration and the commemoration is of those who gave their lives, those who were wounded, those who acted in honour, duty, and service—

SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. Please continue. Masks on and sitting down—the members should know that they shouldn’t be meeting like that. Go outside if you need to have a discussion.

HARETE HIPANGO: —those who fell and gave their lives in duty, honour, and service for our nation Aotearoa New Zealand. This Chamber, every day we come into it, is in memory and honour of them. I pause to reflect and to pay respect on Armistice Day, and on 150 years, in commemoration and celebration of the contribution of the Native Affairs Committee, the Māori Affairs Committee, to this Parliament and to our nation.

I’m humbled because I am among many, 340 to be precise, members of Parliament who have served on the Māori Affairs Committee, as it is known today. It is amongst that distinguished company—and I say distinguished because our people, when we gather around the table at the select committee of Māori Affairs, we are not there as any one individual. We carry the memory but also the responsibility of those who have gone before, those here in our present, and those who are to come.

My colleague has spoken to the detailed information that has been provided for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It’s a briefing report on the commemoration of the Māori Affairs Committee and the 150 years’ service and duty that it’s given. It names those individuals who have given service over the course of time since 1871, and I stand here as uri of Whanganui and also a list member of Parliament for the National Party. I’ve reflected and gone through and looked at the names of those who have gone before, and all of us as Māori who come to give service in this Chamber, in this Parliament, are related to those who have served, and that is a big part of why I’m humbled to stand here to speak, because there are many who cannot because their time is due.

One of those persons who has given service—and, as I said, I speak today as uri of Whanganui. This morning I telephoned and spoke to one of our kuia, Dame Tariana Turia. She reflected by saying that she was but one of many, and the special and unique nature of us when we gather around the table of that Māori Affairs Committee is that we come together. Despite the political affiliations that we have, what draws and binds us is our whakapapa, and that as Māori we have a duty and service of care to our nation and to our people.

So if I may just briefly reflect on Dame Tariana’s recollection. She says, “Those of us who come, come with lived life experience, not just of our time but as those who have gone before, of our people. And always first and foremost, the important message is always, always, put our people first, not be driven so politically and not to forget why we are there—to serve.” The briefing report details petitions and also significant inquiries, and Tariana was the champion for Smokefree Aotearoa, but she did not do that alone, and she reiterated the importance that Hone Harawira drove that campaign as much as she did.

It is interesting, also—I talked about our whakapapa and our relationships, the whakawhanaungatanga. On 13 October 1975, some 5,000 Māori, some 5,000 people—New Zealanders—arrived at Parliament. That land march was led by Dame Whina Cooper, and we know that Hone’s mother was there as well—Titewhai—along with many. My father was one of those who marched. That’s why I say, “Those who have gone before.” We may be here for the moment—but those who have gone before.

Some 2,000 petitions were put to the Māori Affairs Committee in the early days, and that was the loading and the bulk of its work. I requested of the Parliamentary Library if they would please do some research in terms of my whakapapa and association to those who have served on the select committee. The research that came also happened to reveal—and I did not know this—that back in 1888, petition No. 276 was lodged by my great-grandfather Waata Wiremu Hipango. He was persistent, like many Māori who came before the Native Affairs Committee at that time, because it was a place to come to address Māori land confiscation grievances and many others, particularly concern about the Native Land Court, as it was at that time. So my great-grandfather, again, lodged petition No. 452, and then the final petition, No. 228—bearing in mind it started in 1888, the last in 1914, signed off on 23 May 1916—was to pray that land be granted to the children of Hoani Wiremu Hipango, deceased, my great-great-grandfather, and that owing to the death of the petitioner, his son, the petition was to be withdrawn. I was unaware of the personal petitioning by our tūpuna, but we all have that personal association and reflection, and thus the significance.

There is much that can be addressed. Time does not give the benefit or the merit of that service in 10 minutes, and I invite members of the public to go to the parliamentary website because information is there and it is available. This is a significant part of our history as a people and as a place.

I opened by reflecting on this Chamber as one of commemoration. It is a place where there is a melting pot of diversity in our representation, but also in the feelings, the emotions, that go with that. I finish off by acknowledging that on Armistice Day, which didn’t come to be celebrated with the contribution that was made by New Zealanders in the First World War—and Māori made a significant contribution. By the end of that war, 2,227 Māori had served in what was known as the Māori (Pioneer) Battalion. Of these, 336 died in active service and 734 were wounded. In the scale of our population today that may not sound much, but for the size of our population at that time it was significant, as was the epidemic of influenza.

The influenza epidemic—I reflect back 102 years, and now here we are as a nation wrapped and caught up in a pandemic of COVID. History is repeating itself, and what I do say is that with repetition of history, those of us here to serve today do so knowing that we have a duty of care and service—but with the pandemic our nation is in; we have a duty of care and service to look after each other, not just around the select committee. Mr Speaker, it has been an honour. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): E te Pīka, hari huritau. Hari huritau, hari rā whānau ki tērā komiti o tātou, ki tō tātou nei kotahi rau rima tekau o ngā tau mō te komiti whakarite ngā kaupapa ki tēnei o ngā Whare Pāremata. E mihi ana anō hoki au ki ngā kaimahi, ki ngā ringawera nā tēnei kaupapa i pīkau i roto i ō tātou nei mahi. Mīharo hoki tō rātou rangahau ki tēnei kaupapa mō tātou katoa. I a rātou i whāki mai i ō rātou nei rangahau ki a mātou he nui ngā kōrero i puta; ngā piki, ngā heke, ngā kōrari tūāhuatanga katoa o ēnei komiti.

I te rima o te Oketopa o te tau kotahi mano waru rau whitu tekau mā tahi ka mōtini te mema Pāremata o te Ōtautahi ki te Rāwhiti, a Edward Jerningham Wakefield, ki te Pāremata ki te whakatūria he Komiti Take Māori. I tumeke katoa au ki te whakarongo ki tērā ingoa. Kātahi i ruku ki roto i te rangahaua me te mea atu ko tōna pāpā ko Edward Gibbon Wakefield. He ingoa rongonui, rongo kino nei puta noa i Te Ao Māori i te mea ko tērā whara he purari pōkōtiwha, he pōkōtiwha i tāhae i ngā whenua Māori nā runga i ngā āhuatanga o te Kamupene Nui Tīreni. Nā runga i tērā o ngā āhua i tumeke katoa aku nei piropiro ki tērā o ngā mōhio. Kāore i te mōhio mēnā i pērā a Edward Jerningham Wakefield, kāore i mōhio pēhea te tata o te takanga o te āporo mai i te rākau. Heoi anō ki runga i ngā hītori me mōhio mai tātou ko tērā te horopaki i whakaturea e rātou te Native Affairs Committee.

He mea ārahi te Kamupene o Niu Tīreni e Edward Gibbon Wakefield, te pāpā. Ka whakapono a Wakefield ko ngā whenua Māori me hoko atu ki ngā Pākehā kia rahi ai te moni mō tōna kamupene. Ko te rautaki a te kamupene, mā ngā Pākehā whai rawa e hoko whenua hei tuku mahi ki te hunga kaimahi, ā, whiwhi mahi ai hoki hei hoko whenua ā tōna wā.

Ko te mea kē ko ēnei ingoa ko Wakefield, ko Tory, tērā te ingoa o te kaipuke i haere mai rātou ki tēnei whenua, i noho kēhua nei ki runga i ngā waitohu tēnā i ngā tiriti puta noa a Whanganui-a-Tara, puta noa i tō tātou nei motu. He mea kirimoko ana ki a tātou i tēnei wā i te mea he kēhua anō i te wā i raupatuhia te Pākehā i ō tātou nei whenua.

Ko tētahi o ngā kōrero o Edward Gibbon Wakefield i noho mauhere ia i roto i ngā tau e toru i te wā i Ingarangi a ia, i te mea i kāwhaki ia i tētahi kōtiro. Tēkau mā rima ōna tau. Tērā te momo o tērā, tērā o ngā whara. Nō reira ki roto i tērā, tērā o ngā horopaki i whakatūria te Native Affairs Committee.

I rukuhia e ahau ngā pikinga i roto i Te Ara, te pae tukutuku o Aotearoa whānui. E pēnei ana ngā kōrero mō Edward, te pāpā—me Ingarangi taku mita—“Edward Gibbon Wakefield was known for his appetite for power and influence. As a child he was brought up under extreme habits of liberty. This lax environment fostered a love and aptitude for bending the will of others through obstinacy, charm and fast talking.” Tērā ki roto i te Encyclopaedia o tātou o Aotearoa nei.

Ko te tama, heoi anō, ko ia te tuatahi o ngā Heamana o te Native Affairs Committee. Kāore au i mōhio i ngau tana ngākau i ngā hara nā tōna pāpā. Heoi anō kua mōhio mai ki roto i ngā tau tīmatanga o te Native Affairs Committee, nā te hora o ngā pētihana i tae ki te komiti i te wā o te i te mea kei te haere huri haere ana ngā āhuatanga o te pakanga whenua, ngā raru katoa i te puta i Te Tiriti o Waitangi, erā āhuatanga katoa. Tērā te take i muia te komiti mō ērā o ngā petihana.

Nā ngā pakanga me te raupatu ka noho rōrā ētahi iwi. Ka haere te kaiā o te whenua ina hoko ngā whakahaere o te Kōti Whenua ngā tikanga whakahaere whenua hou me ngā ture whenua. Tērā te āhua o taua rā.

Heoi anō, i tīnihia te ingoa ki te Māori Affairs Committee. Me mihi atu ki tērā tipua, ki tērā mātanga, tērā tohunga o tātou, Tā Apirana Ngata, mai i Te Tai Rāwhiti, mai i maunga kore rawa taea te neke. Ahakoa te kōrero atu ki a rātou, me mihi atu ki tērā āhuatanga o tātou i te mea ko mātou ngā mema Pāremata e whai ana i ōna tapuwae. Ko ia te tauira.

I te tau tahi mano iwa rau rua tekau mā ono rā anō ka hopua te heamana Māori tuatahi o te komiti, ko Tā Apirana. tērā. Ahakoa i whai wāhi a ia ngā mema Māori i pōtitia ai ki Pāremata nō te tau kotahi mano waru rau whitu tekau mā tahi ki te komiti, ko Apirana Ngata te tuatahi. Heoi anō, kua rerekē ngā āhuatanga i tēnei wā.

I a au e kōrero ana ki ngā mema o mua, nō reira me mihi atu ki a Metiria Turei, mihi atu ki a Marama Davidson, ki roto i te rārangi, ko rātou anō he mema pūmau ki te komiti. Mihi atu anō hoki ki tēnei wāhanga o te Pāremata ki a Jan Logie, ko ia tō mātou nei tangata Ttiriti, mēnā ka kore te Pākehā e tautoko ana ngā āhuatanga o Te Tiriti ka ngaro anō tātou.

E mea mai a Marama ki a au, ko te mea rerekē o tēnei o ngā komiti ko te mahi ngātahi o te tangata, ko te manaakitanga o te tangata, me te mea anō, merekara, ka huaki tātou i te kūaha, i te kēti, ko tēnei komiti te kēti mō tō tātou nei ao Māori ki te Pāremata nei.

Ko tētahi mea e rongonui tēnā komiti ko te kai. I te wā o Marama Davidson i mea mai ia i āhua whakataetae a Chester Borrows me Nuk Korako. Ko tētahi hari mai te kōhua kai ko tētahi hari mai te tītī. Ko tō mātou nei wāhanga ki roto i tēnei Pāremata, i te mea ko te nuinga o te wā ka noho rata mātou ki te Zoom hui. Heoi anō me mihi au ki te īkara o ngā īkara, Pāora Īkara, i te mea i tōna wā mō te whakarite te kai i hari mai ia i te kōura. Engari kāore au i te mōhio mēnā i rukuhia ia ki tōna kotahi.

Nō reira, e te Māngai o te Whare, tērā te rerekē o tēnā o ngā komiti o tātou, i te mea me whai tātou i ngā āhuatanga o te tikanga, me whai tātou i ngā āhuatanga o te manaakitanga. Ka aro anō Te Ao Māori, ka tiro Te Ao Māori. E pērā anō te āhua o tērā o ngā komiti.

Me mutu au me tēnei o ngā whakataukī. “Ko te manu e kai ana i te miru nōna te ngahere; ko te manu e kai ana i te mātauranga nōna te ao.” Ko te manu e kai ana i te kaimoana, tēnā pea ko ia tētahi mema pūmau ki te Komiti Whiri ngā Take Māori.

Tēnā koe, e te Pīka.

[Mr Speaker, happy birthday. Happy birthday to this committee of ours, to 150 years of its dealing with issues in this House of Parliament. I want to acknowledge the hard work of those who bore the brunt of carrying this work forwards. I was truly amazed by the research undertaken for all of us. While they were sharing their research with us many stories emerged; the ups and downs and the many situations encountered by this committee.

On 5 October 1871, it was moved by Edward Jerningham Wakefield, the member of Parliament for Christchurch City East, that Parliament should establish a Māori affairs committee. I was flabbergasted to hear that name. Then I dipped into the research, finding out that his father was Edward Gibbon Wakefield. This is a well-known name, and an infamous one throughout the Māori world because that fella was a thieving bugger, a thieving bugger who stole Māori land under the name of the New Zealand Company. On learning this bit of information, I was quite emotionally distressed. I didn’t know whether Edward Jerningham Wakefield would be the same, I didn’t know how close the apple had fallen to the tree. However, for the sake of history, we need to know the context around the establishment in law of the Native Affairs Committee.

The New Zealand Company was headed up by Edward Gibbon Wakefield, the father. Wakefield believed that Māori land should be sold to the Pākehā in the interests of making money for his company. The company strategy was for rich Pākehā to buy land to provide work for the working classes, and for them to obtain work selling land in the future.

The strange thing about these names like Wakefield and Tory—the latter was the name of the ship that brought them to this country—they have stayed hidden away on street signs all around Wellington, and all around the country. This is something that is only skin deep to us all today because it has been hidden away since the time the Pākehā confiscated our lands. One of the stories about Edward Gibbon Wakefield was that he was in prison for three years when he was in England for abducting a girl; a 15-year-old. That’s the sort of fella he was. So those are the circumstances under which the Native Affairs Committee was established.

I followed some of the links on the Te Ara website. This was said about Edward, the father—I should speak with an English accent—“Edward Gibbon Wakefield was known for his appetite for power and influence. As a child he was brought up under extreme habits of liberty. This lax environment fostered a love and aptitude for bending the will of others through obstinacy, charm and fast talking.” That came from New Zealand encyclopaedia.

As for the son, he became the first chairman of the Native Affairs Committee. I don’t know if his heart was affected by the sins of his father. However, it is known that in the early years of the Native Affairs Committee they were swamped by a high number of petitions at the time of, and because of the constantly changing circumstances of the land wars, all the problems that arose from the Treaty of Waitangi, all those things. That is the reason the committee was overrun with petitions.

Because of the wars and confiscation, some tribes were left powerless. Land sale dealings under the Land Court were just theft, due to the procedures and legislation regarding land. That’s how it was in those days.

However, the name was changed to the Māori Affairs Committee. We owe this to the experience and skill of the great Sir Apirana Ngata from the East Coast, from the great mountain that cannot be moved. Although I’m saying this to them, we must acknowledge this attribute of ours because we members of Parliament are following in his footsteps. He is the exemplar.

In 1926, the first Māori chairman was selected; that was Sir Apirana. Even though any Māori member of Parliament could have been selected since 1871, Apirana Ngata was the first. However, things were different then.

While I have been talking to some previous members, I must acknowledge Metiria Turei and Marama Davidson who were both staunch members of the committee. On this side of the House, I also acknowledge Jan Logie, she is our tangata Tiriti. If the Pākehā did not support aspects of the Treaty, we would be lost.

Marama said to me that the difference in this committee is the collaborative work and the care for each other with the result that, miracle, we can open up a gateway. This committee is the gateway for our Māori world to enter into Parliament.

When Marama Davidson was on the committee there was somewhat of a competition between Chester Borrows and Nuk Korako. One would bring a boil-up, and the other, muttonbird.

However, I must acknowledge the eagle of all eagles, Paul Eagle, because when it was his turn to arrange food he would bring crayfish. But I don’t know whether he dived for them himself.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, that’s the different nature of this committee of ours, because we follow Māori protocol, with the kindness and respect of manaakitanga. We look at and focus on the Māori world. That’s what that committee is like.

I should finish with one of our proverbs. “The forest belongs to the bird who feasts on the miro berry; the world belongs to the bird who feasts on education.” The bird who feasts on seafood, they are a potential faithful member of the Māori Affairs Committee.

Greetings, Mr Speaker.]

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I stand here today to speak on 150 years of a committee that was formed to bring a stronger voice to our people. I didn’t know much about the Māori Affairs Committee, so I myself wrote to the library and asked them to do a bit of research into how this committee was formed and why it was formed, and I was quite surprised that there was actually no reason given to why this committee was formed and there were a few assumptions as to why that happened. I’d like to think it was because more Māori were showing an interest in having a voice in the way that their people were being represented. Petitions were being presented and voices were being heard, and I think that’s huge progress.

I stand here, proud, speaking about my ancestors, who paved the way for somebody like me to be able to stand here today and represent New Zealanders and the Māori people.

So Tāmati Coffey has spoken to the facts of how this all happened and the progress of the select committee rooms and representation within this building. But I’d like to speak to the fact that the fight to get here and the fight to be able to speak was a hard road, but now I am so proud that even if the Māori select committee was no longer here and the Māori seats weren’t here, look at the representation we’ve managed to achieve and the pride we can have standing here because the people of our past made this happen. We started with four MPs 153 years ago. That was 3 percent representation. Look at where we are now, in 2021: 21 percent representation in this House. We might have different opinions and different views and come at it from different angles, but that’s what democracy is. It’s about representing the wide variety, and Māori now have a voice here.

I would like to make a commitment that in my time here, I want to make my ancestors proud, I want to make my grandmother proud, and stand up for what I believe is right for my people. We are overrepresented in a lot of statistics that we’re not proud of, but we are doing well in other areas, and just fighting for better opportunities for our people to make the fight that they went through mean something.

So thank you for the opportunity to stand here today, and I will make sure that the ACT Party fights just as hard for our children to have the opportunities that everybody in this country has. That includes, for me, the education system, because unless our Māori children have better opportunities within education, we will always be overrepresented in these statistics.

I would like to finish off just by a prayer that was read out by Joseph Gordon Coates, actually, at the opening of the Māori Affairs Committee room: “He hoped that the race that owned the country previously, the race that we were proud of as fellow-citizens and as brothers, would long continue to flourish, and that the two races, Maori and pakeha, would always live together in unity. When they entered the room as members of Parliament they entered it as equals,” and our hope is that that is what people see here today. Every time we walk in here, we enter as equals. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. E mihi ana ki a koe, e te tuahine, mō tō kōrero ātaahua.

[Thank you, my sister, for your beautiful words.]

Although I don’t support your party, obviously, I support your journey and your struggle in terms of what you’ve done in your life. Well done, congratulations. Te Ao Māori is proud of what you’ve done. E mihi ana ki a koe. [Thank you.]

That kōrero sort of sums up a lot of what I want to say. I remember coming to Parliament in 1999 and sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee. I should have been the chairman, but, sadly, John Tamihere ended up as the chair, and I ended up as the deputy chair. I wasn’t too happy about that, but we all know what happened to JT. But it was a fascinating time for me, because we went on to this Māori Affairs Committee and we looked across at the Opposition, and I came in as bit of a lefty and I couldn’t stand Tories—

Hon Simon Bridges: Look at him now!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —not like now, you know. Simon Bridges and I get on OK. In those days, you know, we—no, seriously, I was young and a bit militant and just wanted to bash the Opposition all the time.

So we came on to this Māori Affairs Committee and we looked across the other side and we saw Richard Prebble and Murray McCully. And these guys are the Ministers of everything, as you well know. We saw John Luxton, we saw Doug Kidd, and we saw Georgina te Heuheu. And JT and I thought we were going to have a ball, you know, smashing into the Opposition. The problem is, we started agreeing with a lot of their kōrero. In fact, Prebbs was making a lot of sense in those days, and it really got our Prime Minister, Helen Clark, very worried about the Māori Affairs Committee at the time, because every time we’d sit down we’d be going, you know, here we went in wanting to deal to the Prebbles of this world and the McCullys of this world, they made so much sense we started putting inquiries in to every Government agency going. And it wasn’t a good look for the Labour-Alliance Government at the time, but it was an example of the whanaungatanga that Harete Hipango talked about. Here we were sitting down, but we could actually respect and embrace the knowledge. And even though we had different politics, there was experience there from these guys. So, sadly, we put in, too, an inquiry into my own agency, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, fisheries commission, education board—I mean, it just went on and on and on. Doug Kidd and then John Luxton were so clear with their kōrero. So it was a fascinating time for me, as sort of my politics changed—they didn’t change completely, but I also realised that you could all work together in that sort of whanaungatanga-type space.

It was a time, of course, that was a bit feisty at times, too. Richard Prebble threatened to punch out JT because JT wasn’t wearing a tie one day. So that wasn’t a good look in terms of the Māori Affairs Committee at the time. JT threatened to punch out Mahara Okeroa who was on the same side as JT’s, and I got promoted to chair that day. Then the select committee that John Tamihere had defamed a kaumātua of ours, a guy—you’ll remember this—Dennis Hansen, and JT very bravely in the House called him a drunk and a liar. And Dennis Hansen demanded the opportunity to come back to the Māori Affairs Committee so that he could have that opportunity to respond. The letter was put to the Māori Affairs Committee that the kaumātua could come back. Of course, unanimously we supported his request to come to the Māori Affairs Committee, and so he came. And the kaumātua walked in, and, of course, I got to chair the Māori Affairs Committee that day. We had a totally full room, it was absolutely packed out, and John Tamihere had to sit behind me. The kaumātua walked into the room, and he said to everybody, there must have been 50 there, “There’s only two things that I would’ve done in my day if anyone had called me a drunk or a liar, and that would’ve been me hitting that person and that person hitting the ground.” And, of course, the room burst into laughter, and we all clapped, showed JT no loyalty whatsoever. Audrey Young after that said that at every Māori Affairs Committee there should be a charge put on, because it was so entertaining.

It was a great day. But believe it or not, you learn a lot off some people—as you know Mr Speaker—and whether it was McCully or Luxton or Doug Kidd or Prebble, I learnt something off them. On our side, everybody else became a Minister—Dover Samuels, Mahara, Mita Ririnui, John Tamihere, and even I got there in the end. So they were wonderful days, and, as Harete Hipango talked about, a wonderful example of whanaungatanga and how this Government and Parliament can get on at different times.

Tēnei te mihi ki a tātou katoa mō koutou kaha ki te tautoko ki te whakanui tēnei komiti i tēnei wā.

Anō, ki a koe e te tuahine, Karen, mihi ana ki a koe, e hoa, mō tō kaha ki te kōrero e pā ana ki Te Ao Māori. Nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[This is an acknowledgment to us all, for your energetic support to commemorate this committee today.

Again, to you my sister, Karen, I acknowledge you, my friend, for your courage to talk about the Māori world. Therefore greetings, greetings once again, one and all.]

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Well, it’s great to commemorate 150 years of the Māori Affairs Committee. I was on it for a term, and that makes me—according to the briefing on the committee in its 150 years—one of the 341 members of it. I can remember in that term, which would have been 2008-11, touring marae, a lot of kai, a lot of kai moana, touring all over the place—places I’ve never been before, frankly.

I just want to say it’s funny because the Hon Willie Jackson has stolen a bit of my thunder there—I had a very similar experience to him. I can remember, in addition to the Treaty settlement work, some very important work—seminal work, actually—the work on smoking, the tobacco inquiry. I can remember about that. It was independent. The Ministers would get very nervous about it, and old Tau Henare, who some of us will remember, he was chairing it. He didn’t give a stuff what the Ministers thought; he was going to do whatever he thought would get his name in the paper in that inquiry.

Of course, as my friend Harete Hipango has said, what’s also true is there behind the scenes was Dame Tariana Turia, and also—a real force, actually—someone I got to know well on the committee, Hone Harawira. It was interesting, because, a bit like Willie said, I probably came in with the opposite views and values and principles to Willie Jackson, but seeing guys like Hone Harawira—who I still, obviously, disagree with on probably many, if not most, things—I could see his genuineness, that he was concerned about the issues. Actually, I still say that that report, in terms of my backbench experiences in Parliament, and the one I was involved with on alcohol, were a couple of the most important things I’ve been involved in. But still, when I think about the work when it comes to tobacco, I also identify with what Willie Jackson says, because I can remember Tau Henare was the chair of the committee. He would get so angry, he’d be swearing at members; I thought he was going to beat them up or punch them—yeah, we won’t go there, Mr Speaker! And then I can remember, on occasion, he would literally just—he was so angry, he’d walk out, and suddenly I was the chair. And there’d be Parekura Horomia there yelling at me in te reo—I had no idea what he was saying, and here was this young whippersnapper who just wanted to be a Cabinet Minister and wasn’t really sure what to do about it all.

But it was a good committee; it was a real learning experience for me. I already made the point, but whether it was Parekura Horomia or whether it was Hone Harawira, or whether it was Tau Henare, there were some great characters on the committee who I learnt a lot from. As has been said, the whanaungatanga—it ran differently than other committees. Other committees—obviously, I suppose, Western committees, we’d say, were more formal, and it was more adversarial. But on this one, one was expected to be not like that and to be more collegial and, dare I say it, friendly, although, as I say, sometimes the passions ran very high on it.

I just want to note what Tāmati Coffey said. In a way, it may seem like a superficial point, not the most important point given the substance of the work on the committee. But I do think, when I think of the Māori Affairs Committee over the years—and not just over the years, and not when I was on it, but even today—of the rooms. It seems to me that first one, which I think I’m right to say was built and put together in the 1920s, and then the next one, the larger one, with the windows facing the forecourt in the 1990s—these to me are the rooms in this place that have the most mana. Funnily enough, having been here 13 years, I don’t know Parliament that well. I don’t actually walk around and see the various parts of it. But if I’m doing a tour, if there’s a Simon Bridges tour going, they are always top of my list for people to see, because they are special; they have mana.

I want to reflect very briefly on the work. Obviously, the lion’s share of it these days is the Treaty settlement bills. But that’s been a process where it’s non-contentious, it comes with the spirit of wanting to improve those laws and do the best for iwi. Just on that note, I would note that it’s appropriate that today, my iwi has signed a deed of settlement, Ngāti Maniapoto, and that’s a great day after some 30-something years, I think, in the making—obviously much longer than that in terms of the grievance and the mamae there. But I’d just note that that’s a real achievement, and I commend Minister Andrew Little for that work and being the Minister who got Ngāti Maniapoto to deed of settlement stage.

So it’s a unique committee; 150 years is a great achievement. It’s had much more prominent members on it, dare I say it, than Willie Jackson or me, with the likes of Apirana Ngata and many others. Long may that continue. It’s a proud part of this Parliament; it’s a proud part of Aotearoa New Zealand’s culture and fabric.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā tātou. Tēnā koe, otirā, ngā mema o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m absolutely honoured to take a call on the 150-year anniversary of the Māori Affairs Committee.

But before I turn my attention to contribute to the debate in the House, can I also acknowledge the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918 when we saw the end of the Great War, the First World War, Armistice Day. I’d like to acknowledge sharing, at 11 a.m. this morning, the laying of the wreath with Our Excellency Dame Cindy Kiro, our new Governor-General of Aotearoa New Zealand, at a ceremony at Pukeahu. Can I acknowledge current and former servicemen and women who continue to serve our great nation with pride.

As we just heard from contributions in the House around the significance of the Māori Affairs Committee, I myself did serve on the committee. I want to acknowledge those that have been on it, who continue to be on it, and I want to join with members that say the Māori Affairs Committee is a special type of select committee. I’ve enjoyed the years that I’ve had on that select committee.

My journey into Parliament, when I came in in the middle of 2013, the Hon Mr Shane Jones actually said to me, “Meka, which select committee do you want to go on?” Of course, I went, “There’s only one select committee, and that’s actually the primary industry.”, not because I didn’t think the Māori Affairs Committee wasn’t important; it just had very, very mighty members on that committee. So he gave me about three months on the primary industry select committee, and after three months I got tailed back to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Can I acknowledge the significance of the committee formed in 1871. I thought I’d just use this time to take members back on a little historic journey, particularly as it relates to my electorate of Tai Rāwhiti, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, in that the Treaty was signed in May 1840 at a place that’s 10 minutes from my home in Manutuke, Gisborne—a place called Manutuke. It was a thriving economic township in Aotearoa New Zealand, Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa—or today known as Gisborne. We had schooners, we had traders, and people were living, I would say, with our new settlers rather well, until the Crown turned up 25 years later in 1865 and everything went to custard. The Poverty commission was set up. Land was confiscated. We had the Waerenga-a-Hika siege in 1865 and land was confiscated back then.

In 1867, we had the passing of the Maori Representation Act, which saw the formation of four Māori seats. I was going to say the naming of them is a bit like North Island and South Island. So we had Northern Māori, Eastern Māori, Western Māori, and Southern Māori. I’m pleased to see that we now have seven Māori electorate seats in this Parliament today. I want to acknowledge the first Eastern Māori MP in this House, Tāreha Te Moananui, who served Eastern Māori back when those seats were formed. It made me think that in 1867 this House moved to establish the four Māori electorate seats, but the Māori Affairs Committee wasn’t up and running until 1871. So it would be interesting to know how that particular piece of legislation that was really groundbreaking was considered by the House as a whole, or which committee it went to. It definitely didn’t go to the Māori Affairs Committee, because it wasn’t established until four years later.

Having said that, though, like I said, significant pieces of legislation have gone through the select committee. I can’t do the time justice to acknowledging what legislation went through the Māori Affairs Committee; however, I want to acknowledge the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, as a previous speaker has talked about. The fisheries settlement Act was significant for Māori. Te reo Māori as an official language is another significant piece of legislation.

Like I said, there are so many pieces that this select committee would have examined and had open public to submit on. It is a great committee. I recommend all members of this House, if they ever get a chance to either be on a select committee or to sub in for people who can’t—I really strongly recommend the Māori Affairs Committee. It is a unifying committee. We do have our political differences but we look at the kaupapa and the issue. All members that I have sat with in the time that I’ve been on that committee have come with that approach. It is a great committee to be part of, to belong in. I celebrate with all members in this House its 150-year anniversary and its contribution to Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): It’s a real privilege to rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Māori Affairs Committee, which was formed on 5 October 1871. At that time it was called the Native Affairs Committee and later became known as the Māori Affairs Committee, and was created by the House of Representatives. It’s a real honour to be here in the House of Representatives this afternoon, commemorating it on what is also the day the guns fell silent at the end of the First World War on 11 November 2018. I heard from my colleague Simon Bridges as well and I join him in congratulating Ngāti Maniapoto and Minister Little on signing a deed of settlement today—that’s a great, momentous occasion as well.

I listened with great pleasure, actually, to Willie Jackson as he told his stories about the Māori Affairs Committee in his time. We haven’t had anything nowhere near that entertaining, but there is one commonality that flows through, though, and it’s a spirit of cooperation between the different political parties, because although we have our different ideas about how we should do things and what’s the best approach, we all have a common focus on what’s best for Māori and how to achieve that. And that creates a real spirit of whanaungatanga, I think, in the Māori Affairs Committee, which has been there for, it seems, a very long time and continues, and I hope will continue for the next 150 years.

It brings me to think of the whakataukī:

Kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua.

I walk backwards into the future with my eyes firmly fixed on the past.

This whakataukī or proverb speaks to Māori perspectives of time, where the past, the present, and the future are viewed as intertwined. This conceptualisation of time does not leave the past behind, rather the past is carried into the future. And I really feel that resonate here in the House of Representatives this afternoon.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the committee acted as a check on both judicial and executive decision making, ensuring a degree of parliamentary accountability and oversight of two powerful and dominating actors in the area of 19th century land alienation and governance: the Native Land Court and the Government itself. All select committees have an important accountability and scrutiny function. What makes the Māori Affairs Committee special is what Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Justice Matthew Palmer describes as the historic role of the “Māori land ombudsman”. For a large part of its existence, petitions drove the bulk of the committee’s work. This responsiveness to petitioners defined the committee’s constitutional role as a check on the actions of the Crown in relation to Māori land, at the very least, ensuring that grievances were formally communicated to responsible officials as well as compelling some level of explanation from the Land Court and Government.

I also wanted to take a moment to remember and commemorate all of those who have served on the Māori Affairs Committee over time, both past and present, and for all of the hard work that has gone into bringing us to where we are today. I note that it also has maybe a somewhat unique record in that 16 former members of the Māori Affairs Committee served as Premier or Prime Minister of New Zealand. In the brief time available to me I’ll quickly list them: William Fox, Frederick Whitaker, Harry Atkinson, George Grey, Robert Stout, John Balance, Richard Seddon, Joseph Ward, Joseph Coates, George Forbes, Michael Joseph Savage, Peter Fraser, Keith Holyoake, Norman Kirk, David Lange, and Jim Bolger. Quite a list of people who have led New Zealand and also played their role among others in the Māori Affairs Committee.

I would also like to just note that the very first Māori chair of the Māori Affairs Committee was the National Party member Sir Apirana Ngata, often described as the foremost Māori politician to have ever served in Parliament and known for his work in promoting and protecting Māori culture and heritage and setting up land development schemes to encourage Māori to develop their land, and played a very important role. I would also like to give particular note to Jim Bolger—a past Prime Minister who chaired the committee between 1976 and 1978. He was chair during the Māori Affairs Committee’s consideration of Dame Whina Cooper’s petition calling for the end of the alienation of Māori land. The committee, after two years of listening and deliberations, recommended to the Government that an inquiry be held. As Prime Minister he oversaw major Treaty of Waitangi settlements, including the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu claims in 1995. Reconciling the historic injustice that Māori have suffered and supporting a brighter, more aspirational future for Māori has always been important to National and it will continue to be, as it is to all members in this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnei te mihi nui wharahirahira ki te Komiti Māori o te Pāremata. Kotahi rau, rima tekau ngā tau o te Komiti Māori. E mihi ana ki ngā Komiti Māori tawhito me te Komiti Māori o tēnei wā, tēnā koutou katoa.

[This is a very important acknowledgment of the Māori Affairs Committee of Parliament which has been in existence for 150 years. I wish to acknowledge all past committees as well as the current committee, thank you all.]

It’s an absolute delight to be able to speak in the special debate as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in the last Parliament. I want to endorse all of the contributions that have been made today. It is a taonga the Māori Affairs Committee.

The Māori Affairs Committee and its work traces the history of Aotearoa, the legislation which has come through this House—good and bad—the Māori Affairs Committee obviously played a part through those processes, and so it has traced that journey. I do acknowledge the mamae and I do think of our ancestors past when we walk through these hallowed halls and we go past Matangireia. All of those Māori politicians of yore we have connections to. Every Māori has a connection to those politicians and the work that they have done through their time, right the way up to the present. So there is a rich history of this committee. Yes, the 19th century and the 20th century, it was a lot of grievances. There were tumultuous times, as we know, in Aotearoa. Petitions such as Harete’s tupuna and my own grandfather, who presented the petition of 40,000 Māori in 1932 under TW Rātana for the statutory recognition of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is really the root of the mahi of the Māori Affairs Committee, it’s being able to advance that Treaty journey that we have as a country.

From those days, we moved to the 20th century. We must celebrate the significant achievements that have been achieved, particularly over the past close to 50 years. I think of the landmark work of the Treaty of Waitangi Act and the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, which enabled the Government to actually address and accept responsibility for its actions and breaches of the principles of the Treaty, right through to what we have today, which is we continue the work to try to revitalise the Māori economy, to deal with those inequities through passages of legislation, recapitalisation of our iwi, driving resources through the likes of Matua Willie Jackson and his good work. The work is ongoing; it is continuing.

I’m very proud that we are carrying the torches at this time of the race. The work of the committee is special. It isn’t just Māori, too. All politicians from all parties in this House are members of the committee. Great contributions have been made in my time. I think of members like Chester Borrows and Jonathan Young, they were great members who made very good, solid contributions to really help the mahi of the committee. So it’s not just a Māori committee, although, it is the mahi that we do to really advance the Treaty journey, as I say.

I want to, in my short time that I have—I like to say that I brought a bit more decorum back to the proceedings of the committee from JT and Willie’s time. There were no punch ups. There were no scuffles. There was plenty of hākari, plenty of feasts that we had. Every week we were having great kai from all around the country. So I’m pleased that I was able to bring that to the committee during my tenure as chair. But the work does continue, it is serious mahi. It is a privilege that we are able to do and to try and move the needle forward on Treaty matters for Aotearoa.

I do want to spend the remainder of this time just to acknowledge the members past and present who have sat on the committee.

Nō reira, e mihi ana ki ngā mema hōnore katoa kua noho mai ki te Komiti Māori o Te Pāremata. Me pēnei te kōrero, hoki wairua mai, hoki wairua mai koutou ngā mātua. Nā koutou i kawe te rama, nā koutou i kawe te kaupapa o te Komiti Māori. Ka nui tō koutou tokomaha kua hipa te tahi rau rima tekau ngā tau. Āpiti hono, tātai hono. Te hunga mate ki te hunga mate. Āpiti hono, tātai hono. Te hunga ora ki te hunga ora. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, I wish to acknowledge all the honourable members who have sat on Parliament’s Māori Affairs Committee. Let us say this to our predecessors: come back to us in spirit. It is you have carried the torch. You who have carried the initiatives of the Māori Affairs Committee. And there have been many of you in the past 150 years. The lines are unbroken. Let the dead rest with the dead. The lines are unbroken. Let the living be with the living. Greetings one and all.]

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēna koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It is a privilege to be able to, I guess, have the last word on this special debate for the 150th celebration of the Māori Affairs Committee. I’m here because Te Paati Māori aren’t here, so, you know, when they aren’t here then our Labour Māori team and the party are here. So I want to say that, though, in the spirit that’s been talked about for this session, and that is that everyone comes to the Māori Affairs Committee with that joint kaupapa of advancing all things Māori.

Can I acknowledge the 341 previous members, all of those chairs, and people who have held senior roles on there as part of advancing things Māori. For me personally, it’s been a bit of a hoot just to hear just some of the history, and it’s always been marred by, as our Minister of Māori affairs says, a few punch-ups, some aggression, but lots of kai and whanaungatanga just to put into balance how the values of the select committee operate.

I asked our chief whip if I could be on the committee when the new term came. I said to our chief whip: “Look, this is the committee that I would most like to be part of.” I said that because when I reflect on where I’m from, Waikato-Tainui, when I look at the journey I took to come here and—can I not only acknowledge the Minister for Māori Development, but also our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little. It was a phone call prior to being selected as the candidate for Rongotai, where we both live. He essentially said, “Look, I’m not standing, but no guarantees, but the selection is there.” That really opened the door for me to advance my journey in.

I knew that there had not been a Māori male who had won a general seat for the party in a century, so this would be historical in some ways, and so I knew the mantel there was going to be heavy. I also knew that I wasn’t from Wellington, so mana whenua being Taranaki Whānui; Ngāti Toa Rangatira; our people on Wharekauri Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands—it was important that I had their support, because I wanted to ensure that things were done in a genuine way that reflected the values of me and things Māori. I haven’t been let down. I’ve been on that committee—we’ve had to re-induct Harete Hipango into the ways of collaboration and compromise, but our aunty has done a fantastic job, and we have worked together very strongly to ensure that our ideology, sometimes, and the way that we want to get things advanced is done with a kaupapa Māori spirit. That spirit has been in the spirit that our ancestors and those who have gone before.

I want to just pick up on some of the things that the Hon Willie Jackson has said because I was expecting some of this, but now I’ve heard that Rino Tirikatene had brought some peace and calm and some patience and a whole lot of other adjectives too to the former feral and rough nature of this select committee. That calm has prevailed and has been brought across. So I think maybe Rino has been a shining light in bringing that change of values and brought it back to that stately presence and manner that the select committee should operate in. But in saying and talking about Minister Jackson, I do want to acknowledge his father, Bob Jackson, who passed away on this day in 1994. So I know he had established Waatea Marae in Manukau in Māngere there, and so. Moe mai rā, Minister.

But as my time comes to an end, it is, as I said at the start, a privilege to be a part of the Māori Affairs Committee, the journey of the 341, and I hope forever that the values that underpin the operation of that select committee stand apart from other select committees. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Briefing noted.

Bills

Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I present a legislative statement on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill be now read a first time. I will nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider this bill.

This must be a bill with one of the longest titles. There is no confusion about what it actually is about. It is pretty much provided for in the title of it.

This Government is dedicated to improving the wellbeing and the lives of children in Aotearoa New Zealand, and that means that for those who require or come into the care of the State, or come under the agency of the State, we have appropriate safeguards around that system for children. What this bill does is, effectively, it adds a third leg to the stool—not that we’ve been sitting on a stool with two legs so far, but it does create a stool with three legs on it, and the third leg is this one, which is a dedicated oversight body of Oranga Tamariki to make sure that it conducts itself not only in accordance with its own laws and the laws of the land but in an appropriately ethical and acceptable way, given its multitude of relationships with all sorts of communities, including Māori and Pacific people.

So this is a very important bill, and it adds the third leg to the other two legs. One is the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman retains responsibility for accepting complaints about the conduct of Oranga Tamariki, and then the third leg remains the Children’s Commissioner, who is the advocate for children’s policy—good, effective, healthy children’s policy and advocacy to Government and to all the institutions that make up our democratic society on the interests of children.

The reason for this bill is that the current system is fragmented and lacks accountability and it’s not well-established around a common purpose. So this bill reflects the Government’s commitment to establish a more comprehensive and more cohesive system of oversight arrangements that will help to improve outcomes for children and young people—tamariki and rangatahi and tai tamariki—across New Zealand, and it does so in the ways I’ve explained. It sets up this new body, this independent monitor of the Oranga Tamariki system, as a statutory officer with specific functions and duties that it has to undertake to monitor those outcomes for children and young people who are in the care of—who are receiving services from Oranga Tamariki.

The current care system isn’t achieving the best possible outcomes for children, young people, and their families and whānau that New Zealanders expect. So we’ve heard the message from New Zealanders and from a variety of communities, including from Māori, that we need greater accountability and better advice on the Oranga Tamariki system from a trusted monitor who can provide evidence of how the system is meeting the needs of tamariki, rangatahi, and their families and whānau.

The objectives of the monitor are to carry out objective, impartial, and evidence-based monitoring on the performance of Oranga Tamariki and to provide authoritative and trusted advice to the Government and the public. In that respect, the monitor will be able to gather information from agencies and providers on the Oranga Tamariki system, as well as from children and young people themselves and their whānau, with their consent and in accordance with its code of ethics.

The monitor will also be required to assess the Oranga Tamariki system in the context of wider systems of support and services that are provided to children under other legislation or where there has been a report of concern to Oranga Tamariki for people who are in the youth justice system. This broad scope reflects how the outcomes for children and young people in the Oranga Tamariki system do not just depend on the services delivered through that system but on the wider range of services provided by other agencies. The bill reflects this by requiring the monitor to take account of this wider context in monitoring this work. The information collected by the monitor will inform regular, publicly available reports to help identify strength and areas for improvement in the Oranga Tamariki system, including an annual report on outcomes being achieved for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau.

In combination with a general obligation to develop arrangements with iwi and Māori organisations, the bill also creates a legislative framework to operate in a way that best supports better outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori, as informed by Māori. This includes meaningful and effective engagement with an appointed Māori advisory group under the bill. The monitor will collaborate and have regard to the views of the group when developing its priorities, work programmes, and monitoring approaches.

Secondly, the bill designates the Ombudsman—as I’ve said, the second leg of the stool—as the body responsible for independent complaints and investigations of the Oranga Tamariki system. We need a stronger complaints process that is easy to navigate for all system participants, including children and young people, families and their whānau, as well as caregivers and delivery partners. I believe that focusing the Ombudsman’s role on complaints and investigations will help reduce complexity for people navigating the system and allow the commission to have a greater focus on systemic advocacy for all children and young people in New Zealand.

The bill will empower the Ombudsman to provide a timely and child-centred complaints and investigation mechanism that is separate and independent from the internal Oranga Tamariki processes and governance. Individuals will now have the option to go directly to the Ombudsman if they wish to complain about their approved care or their custody partner.

The bill supports the Ombudsman’s role by providing additional powers and duties that will augment the Ombudsman’s existing investigatory powers under the Ombudsmen Act 1975. The Ombudsman has stringent information-management procedures, reflecting their strict statutory confidentiality requirements, as well as robust processes for engaging ethically with complainants and other parties, including children. I’m confident that this existing strong framework precludes the need for explicit information-management or ethical engagement requirements in the bill.

Under the Ombudsmen Act, the Ombudsman can exercise its powers over any of the Public Service agencies and organisations set out in Schedule 1 of that Act. I note that the bill extends the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction beyond Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act to include partners providing care or holding custody under section 396 of the Oranga Tamariki Act. The select committee process will provide an appropriate opportunity to more fully consider the views of stakeholders that may be affected by this, or any other broadening of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It is going to be very important to hear from those who are in those partnership roles who aren’t formally part of the State apparatus about what they think about the Ombudsman’s reach being extended into their operations.

Finally, this bill strengthens system-level advocacy for all New Zealand children and young people by establishing the Children and Young People’s Commission—the commission—to replace and enhance the existing Children’s Commissioner’s functions, with that being the third leg of this very important stool. Currently, under the Children’s Commissioner Act, the Children’s Commissioner has key functions to monitor the Oranga Tamariki system, investigate decisions, report on children’s issues, and advocate for children generally. This bill shifts the role of the Children’s Commissioner away from the monitoring of complaints and strengthens its systemic advocacy role. It means that we don’t have one organisation spread thinly across all those functions, but we make each of those very important functions, when it comes to children, discrete and self-contained.

But, knowing that, the system as a whole will need to operate effectively together. Children and young people’s issues span a huge diversity of sectors, including education, health, care and protection, and the justice system. The bill will replace the current commissioner-sole model with a new, enhanced Children and Young People’s Commission governed by a board that reflects the diverse skills and experience required to advocate on a broad range of issues. Parts of the bill that relate to the commission will become its own separate Act.

The commission’s role will be to promote the interests and wellbeing of the children and young people of New Zealand and to advocate for their rights. These rights will include those under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and other child-specific local and international obligations such as Te Tiriti o Waitangi and, indeed, other documents. In addition, the commission will have more clearly prescribed and expanded responsibilities to encourage and facilitate the participation of children and young people in matters that affect them.

As noted earlier, the Ombudsman will have a strengthened complaints and investigation mechanism, and so the Children and Young People’s Commission will not duplicate this function. So there is a strengthening of those functions all around.

It’s to be noted that the bill also includes a requirement for a five-yearly review of the commission’s and the monitor’s functioning, so this will ensure that we continue to evolve, grow, and adapt as children’s issues change. This is a reasonably common feature now, when we’re setting up these new oversight bodies and advocacy bodies, it’s to provide for a review so that we stop and check to see that things are working as intended, and we can refine things and improve things and make them better.

I believe this new bill will further strengthen this Government’s commitment to ensuring New Zealand is the best place in the world to be a child. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): I rise and take a call as spokesperson for the National Party on children, Oranga Tamariki, and Whānau Ora. I’m not as confident as the Minister was in his address that this will improve the system. Having received the bill late on Monday evening, it’s a bill that is 82 pages long, 122 clauses and four schedules. I haven’t had sufficient time to scrutinise thoroughly this bill. However, should this bill progress to the select committee, the scrutiny will take place there, and I think the judgment will come from the stakeholders who are invested in this specialist area and field.

I do know a little bit about child welfare, and I do know a little bit about the review systems within Oranga Tamariki as it is now. There are issues, as we know, about the organisation of Oranga Tamariki. There are issues about the leadership. There are issues that have come under the scrutiny of the Family Court and also the media recently. That is part of the oversight in terms of accountability as to the functioning—or the dysfunctioning—that has occurred within our child welfare system. I acknowledge that social workers are tasked with an onerous responsibility. I acknowledge that it is a most complex and highly fraught area. However, I also acknowledge that another level and layer of bureaucracy charged with some form of oversight may not be the remedy that’s required for this.

Having perused this bill—as I say, 82 pages long—I’ve seen the explanatory note of the bill, and I acknowledge the Minister for the contribution that’s been made in the House this afternoon. However, having perused this, I have to draw to the attention of members in the House and the public that the fact that the Ombudsman has been given additional powers to look into, deal with, complaints and investigate complaints around child welfare is not something new. The Ombudsman has those powers under the Ombudsmen Act 1975. What’s proposed in this bill is to make that more specific.

I draw to the attention of the House and the public that the Chief Ombudsman, Judge Peter Boshier—a former Family Court judge and Principal Family Court Judge with immense and considerable experience in child welfare—has the powers under the Ombudsmen Act 1975, to the extent that he has already conducted two major pieces of work supporting children in care. That is supporting tamariki and rangatahi and also investigating the removal of newborn babies.

So to premise that this piece of legislation is going to empower the Ombudsman to conduct those inquires with a more honed lens, I think, could be questionable. However, this bill does prescribe and set out in detail what is expected of the Ombudsman, which, effectively, a person of the ilk and calibre of experience of the Judge Peter Boshier, New Zealand’s Chief Ombudsman, has already conducted himself accordingly to do so.

The bill is in two main parts. One is about the oversight in terms of monitoring, of conduct within the organisation, and dealing with complaints and investigating into those. The other component of the bill is the establishment of a Children and Young People’s Commission. On 1 November this country welcomed to the role the new Children’s Commissioner, Judge Frances Eivers. I do not know whether Judge Eivers had been briefed of this bill and that this was going to come about effectively with the disestablishment of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. So with that, what are the powers that the current Children’s Commissioner has under this bill? As I’ve read it, my eye has been drawn to Schedule 2, which effectively says that the Children’s Commissioner is going to become just one of up to six board members on the commission. The select committee, should this bill advance to them, will need to seriously scrutinise and consider what the significance of the role of the Children’s Commissioner will be.

This is a very detailed bill. The hesitancy that we as the National Party have about this bill, as I said, is that it’s another level and layer of bureaucracy, something that the Labour Government is very proficient at. Looking at reforms of the Ministry of Health in the middle of a pandemic—and I know, within this House as I stand, we acknowledge that we have a crisis in terms of child abuse within our nation. We also acknowledge in the National Party that with the country being in lockdown for so long and our children and our families being in lockdown, mandated that they must stay at home, that is going to undoubtedly—and we’re not seeing the reports that are coming out on the extent of family violence, family harm, and child abuse. So with the bill being introduced at this time, it would be inappropriate of the National Party not to support it. So I declare that this does have the support of the National Party at the first reading and to the select committee. It will be at the select committee that there will be that examination and scrutiny of the bill as to whether this really is just another layer of bureaucratic intervention that is not necessary.

As I’ve glanced at this, I’m not diminishing in any way the importance of addressing the serious concerns we have about the system in dealing with child abuse, but it’s not just about the system within Oranga Tamariki. It’s about the systems within our communities and how we address child abuse, and that’s the important factor that I will be seeking to come from this bill—it’s what level of enabling and empowering our communities will address that very issue. It is all very well to again have an overlay and another piece of legislation that looks at strengthening a complaints and investigation system. The importance has to be about what is the solution and the remedy, so that it reduces the level of child abuse within our nation, and it also strengthens the organisation of Oranga Tamariki to deal with appropriately providing the child welfare care and protection for our children.

It’s acknowledged by way of background that in 2017, in response to reforms for Oranga Tamariki, there was a commissioned review of independent oversight arrangements, and that review found that it was important that there was a system-level advocacy. This is what this bill will attempt to address. However, it also looks at diminishing the power of the specialist agency of the Children’s Commissioner. So, as I say, Judge Eivers was appointed to the role on 1 November. It will be interesting when it comes to that engagement at the select committee, and the extent of the concern that not only the Ombudsmen’s office may have about this and what level of support or lack of support there is, but also from the Children’s Commissioner. The detail within the bill is outlined, as I say, in 82 pages. The proposed amendments, or the proposed implementation of this new oversight system, and the formation of a commission, a Children and Young Peoples’ Commission, will have bearing on 21 other pieces of legislation. That’s profound. That’s significant. I would encourage the Government not to rush this through the select committee and through the House. This is too important a matter when it comes to our children’s welfare and this is the Government, this is the Labour Party as a Government, that says it has its children’s welfare at the forefront, and that child poverty is an issue at the forefront.

I just remind everybody that under this Government’s leadership child poverty has amplified. It has intensified, it has increased, as has family violence—which we haven’t had the reporting of the statistics put to the public for attention, because everything is about COVID as a health crisis. We fundamentally have in this nation a child welfare crisis, and it will be interesting if this bill will make a jot of difference to that and to handling complaints. The National Party’s focus is on providing solutions on what childcare welfare really is, and enabling our communities to do that.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a real pleasure to rise and speak to this bill. I am delighted to hear that the Opposition will support this bill through the first reading—quite surprised, after hearing that speech, that they were going to do so. This is a bill that I believe the community has been asking for for quite some time. I want to acknowledge the Minister bringing this bill, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, and also the good work of the Hon Kelvin Davis, who is working to improve Oranga Tamariki and what we all know, and having heard from many people over many years, is a system that is groaning under the need to change. We know that the people who work at Oranga Tamariki often do that with the best of will, but this is a system that has been recognised under the Kahu Aroha report as needing significant change.

We have, at the select committee that will hear this very important piece of legislation, heard a number—a number—of petitions, and those inquiries looked into the briefings and those inquiries into what was happening at Oranga Tamariki. We all, each and every one of us at select committee, in the 52nd Parliament and also here in the 53rd Parliament, were greatly moved by the stories, by the commitment of the families that do the work to look after our most vulnerable children. So I am personally delighted that this piece of legislation is here and that my select committee, along with my colleagues, will work to get this into its best shape. What I can assure this House is that we will give it the scrutiny that it certainly needs. It is an omnibus bill. It is large—82 pages, as previously recognised—and there are some really interesting processes that will come out of this.

This bill does something I believe that is long overdue, something that has been thought deeply about by this Government in its recognition that New Zealand should be the best place for children to grow up. As a consequence, the three things that it sets up, it strengthens absolutely the oversight of Oranga Tamariki. Many of us on the select committee have the experience of having worked in the system or having been in the system or having been a caregiver or a person who has been a foster parent, etc. So we inherently know some of the issues that happen, and what we know, from our own experience and from what people have told us, is that the system needs more accountability, and this is what this bill seeks to do. This bill seeks to strengthen that oversight. There’s a monitoring of the system, there’s an investigation and resolving of complaints, and there’s advocacy for all of the children in this country but in particular for the specific role of our children and young people who are under Oranga Tamariki. Because those pieces of work interact between each other, it’s right and it’s appropriate that they are in different models or they sit in different organisations. That is because independent scrutiny and support of these processes is best managed in that way.

I am, as I have said, really delighted that we have this piece of legislation. I think that it will improve the systems that we are putting in place with Oranga Tamariki, the systems that already exist in Oranga Tamariki, the accountabilities, the monitoring, and the support for our families who are most vulnerable in this country. I commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand to speak to the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill in its first reading this afternoon. Before I head into the detail within the bill, I would like to take the opportunity to remember the commemoration today, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, when the Great War ended 103 years ago with the signing of the armistice agreement. We remember the 9 million who died across the planet, the 21 million who were wounded, and that the sacrifice of our allied soldiers was so that we could live in freedom. Let us maintain respect and defend that freedom always.

With the tabling of this bill, once again it’s a very big piece of legislation. It covers six Acts and 15 Acts simultaneously within Oranga Tamariki and the Children and Young People’s Commission. There is a huge list of the Acts that it deals to, which I won’t go into detail about, but basically what it does is it’s going to set up another level of monitoring, and that monitor will look to the performance of Oranga Tamariki. But already—and my colleague and friend Harete Hipango has referred to this in her speech, is that what it looks like on the outside is that we are introducing yet another layer of bureaucracy into the system. There’s already been, in terms of the conversations with entities in the initial feedback that the Minister sought, some quite critical comment about this imposition. One of the things that this bill will look to do is it will authorise staff members to enter homes, properties, residence, or offices that are contracted or approved providers to Oranga Tamariki. And when those types of freedoms start to be compromised, we need to be very careful about the scrutiny of the legislation that empowers that, which is appropriate, given the commemoration of today. And always when we are talking about the freedoms of individuals and families, we need to exercise extreme caution. Of course, the ultimate goal of this is to ensure that the safety of the children is always paramount. So there is a fine balancing act that will need to be found, and I anticipate that this will be part of the discussions around the select committee table.

Clause 99 identifies in this bill the functions and duties of the commission, and they will include, and I quote, “[promoting] the interests and wellbeing of children and young people by”, among other things, reporting on issues, advocating, raising public awareness, and conducting inquiries; promoting and advancing the rights of children and young people by, among other things, monitoring the application of the Children’s Convention by departments and other instruments of the Crown, making reports to the United Nations, and encouraging children and young peoples’ participation and voice. I recall when the Oranga Tamariki legislation was going through this House several years ago that that was one of the issues that was identified and introduced: that the voice of young people would be included in that legislation. So, appropriate, I hope, that the monitoring will also look to see that those young people are being adequately heard and that their voice in the system is not lost.

Now, in this time that we’re under, the families that are probably going to be using the services of Oranga Tamariki are under huge pressure. We’ve had nearly two years of pressure on those families and a lot of insecurity and uncertainty about their future. As a consequence, the regard for the anticipated family violence and abuse of children is one of the consequences that we must stay alert to. So National is going to support this bill to select committee. And I do hope that given the Government’s majority on that select committee, there will be sincere, open conversation and negotiation about the details in this bill. One of the things that we have come to realise is that when select committees have an absolute majority of Government members, it has not been unusual for all of the contributions that are made in good faith to take us nowhere. So this is one of those issues, because it relates to the care and the monitoring of Oranga Tamariki and, therefore, the safety and the welfare of children in their care that we hope the good faith negotiations and the voices of submitters will be heard and, as a consequence where needed, the legislation will be adjusted.

The focus of the monitoring is to look at the performance and those other issues that I raised before, but they’re also the issues that have already happened. So, from my humble opinion, they are very backward-looking. But one thing that we certainly would hope—and I speak on behalf of my National colleagues—is that we don’t treat this like an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We hope that there will be a focus on solutions to the causes of family violence and the stress that families are under, and therefore the consequences that fall upon the children. So National is always looking at solutions, and that will be part of the contribution that we make to the discussions at the select committee table.

Now, one of the issues that I’d like to raise is around the uncertainty that has crept into the discussions already before this legislation was tabled. And one of those I’d like to focus on is the actual need for this new monitoring regime. We keep going back to the fact that it seems, on the face of it, to be another layer of bureaucracy, even to the point where initially, when the discussions were under way, the Minister indicated that the children’s monitor and the monitoring function would have an in principle intent to sit with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, but in actual fact that’s not what’s being proposed. And I’ll just point out some of the quotes that were made by the former Children’s Commissioner about creating an autonomous Crown entity. He thought that having an autonomous Crown entity was the best watchdog, because it had to be able to bark—“a watchdog … that can bark” were his words.

Also there were Māori leaders who were concerned about the decision for where this entity is going to sit, which is in the ERO—the Education Review Office. It does seem to be quite a disjointed relationship when you think about the work that this monitoring is going to be doing. So it doesn’t seem like a comfortable fit. But they weren’t alone in their concerns, because one of the issues that was raised by some of the people that were initially consulted was that if the monitoring function is perceived to be too closely affiliated with ERO—the Education Review Office—this may impact on the willingness of communities to engage with and trust the monitoring agency. And I think that’s a really valid concern. There was also VOYCE who made their comments about this relationship: “It feels to me it’s the strangest place of all to have it sitting”. There’s a lot of work to do on this bill; let’s take it to select committee.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker; thank you. I stand with enthusiasm to speak on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. This very much is a bill that reflects the Government’s commitment to strengthening advocacy for all New Zealand children and young people, including oversight of Oranga Tamariki and its system.

The previous speaker, Maureen Pugh, was just questioning around it sitting within the Education Review Office. And I was curious that when the ministry was originally established in 1972, the Child Welfare Division was actually part of the Ministry of Education. So obviously it’s been a natural fit for many years to sit in that place.

Now, this legislation, and the work it does, makes me think about the saying that we all love, that it takes a village to raise a child. Now, for this piece of legislation, I think we can flip that and say it takes a child to remind us that we’re part of a village. It takes a child to remind us of our responsibilities, of what we need to do. And with this legislation, the work being done here is very much about that.

This afternoon, the piece I want to focus on is the Children and Young People’s Commission. Now, we’ve had two speakers from the opposite side talk about another layer of bureaucracy that’s been thrown in—that old chestnut—but it’s actually, for me, around getting the bureaucracy right and getting it in the right places. The Hon Andrew Little, as he spoke earlier, talked about how currently the Office of the Children’s Commissioner is spread really thinly in what it does. And this legislation, with the Children and Young People’s Commission, was able to focus it far more in what it does, and then allow the Ombudsman to focus more on what they do.

Now, I got involved in this space in the 1990s, when it was called the Children and Young Person Service (CYPS). Obviously, it’s transitioned now to Oranga Tamariki, but back then, in the late-1990s, I was involved in a mentoring programme and got involved in family group conferences that were facilitated and run through our child protection agencies—CYPS. And then I got involved in the early 2000s as a foster parent.

So this is important legislation for me, as I reflect back and put my hat on as a foster parent. If there were issues, if there were struggles, if there were challenges in dealing with a social worker, in dealing with the system, it was often hard to know where to negotiate, and how to advocate, because often it was just going up the chain—which, then, was Child, Youth and Family, if I remember rightly.

Now, back in 2003, a young person who was just turning 12 ended up in my care. It was a challenging situation, and we had some real struggles. School didn’t work out, the situation was tough, and I needed support. Due to some circumstances, things weren’t going well, and I didn’t have many options in terms of where I would go and what I would do in terms of the support I needed. But looking at what we’re doing here, having the Children and Young People’s Commission, it feels like a space that would fit naturally for me, if I was in that position today, to work with.

I support this because I want to make sure that we do all we can to protect our tamariki, our rangatahi, and with this new commission’s role, it’s around promoting the interests, promoting the wellbeing of children and young people in New Zealand, and it’s around advocating for their rights. And I was really lucky to be with the Children’s Commissioner a little while ago, and he gave me this little book, which is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it reminds me—it sits in my desk here in Parliament—of what our responsibilities are. Article 20 says, “A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.” And this work is around providing that support and that protection by the State. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. I’d like to start my contribution this afternoon with a mihi from the beginning of the report Hāhā-uri, Hāhā-tea – Māori Involvement in State Care 1950-1999, a report released today. I’ll start with that:

“To all those children who were taken from sanctuary and

thrown in to the mouth of the state

Those of you who have experienced the dislocation of your

innocence physically, psychologically and spiritually

Who have died within State Care

Who have survived State Care

All of that which has happened to you, without your permission

We have reached a reckoning

We see you”

In this report, they’ve told us what we have been told for many years—that our children have not been safe in our collective care. They found that for tamariki Māori, the reasons for that were structural and systemic racism across several Government organisations, Government policies over successive Governments dismantling Māori communities, and undermining whānau, hapū, and iwi structures, and that Māori in care were subjected to racist and inequitable treatment, including being prevented from seeing their whānau. The voices of tamariki Māori and their whānau were not heard in decisions about their care by the State. Māori were, and continue to be, overrepresented by up to 10 times in the State care system. It showed the impact on Māori of the Crown’s lack of response to the work done in the 1980s to present a solution to this problem in the form of specific actions for the Crown to take in Pūao‑te‑ata‑tū, a document that if you speak with people in our communities around the country, till today, they will tell us that the solutions are in that document and that future solutions must involve the Crown working in partnership with survivors, iwi, and Māori across State agencies. I start this speech with that context because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the lives of our children and of whānau right around this country. We know this is a very long history and this problem is deeply embedded in our State agencies and it will not be solved quickly or easily.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner, more recently, was raising the alarm back in 2015, saying clearly at that time that they could not be sure that children were safer in State care than what they were in the homes that were causing them harm. The public calls arose around the same time for the royal commission into abuse in State care. A key driver of that call for us to have this royal commission was survivors wanting their voices to contribute to a sense of protecting tamariki from that future, to protect those children in care now and in the future from having those experiences that they’d had. Thousands of tamariki and whānau have, for generations, raised complaints, raised the alarm, suffered in silence, or resisted in ways that hurt themselves or others, because our system was and is causing harm. That is why this piece of legislation is so critically important, because we know—and at a very deep level—we are causing harm in our so-called child protection system. We need checks and balances that will change that and that will create a future where our children can all be safe.

I want to acknowledge, too, the voice of—I’ve mentioned the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and that they have raised their voice and the alarm multiple times in recent years. And they have apologised to children abused in State care for their failure to protect them due to underfunding by Governments and acknowledge that this was successive Governments, not specific Governments, and they have called for a truly independent monitor of the care and protection system, empowered, when necessary, to speak out publicly as a watchdog. When we know that in the recent reporting from Oranga Tamariki at the moment, the reports are that 7 to 10 percent of children now are still being abused in State care, that is definitely an under-report of the reality, because of the challenges of reporting. If we are going to do a service, to stop what has been happening for generations, to stop the harm of the State, we have to ensure independent and strong monitoring.

But what this proposal does is it establishes a semi-independent monitoring agency, making the monitoring body a departmental agency. It does prohibit the Minister of the Crown from preventing the monitor from carrying out any activities they deem necessary, but it still sits within the structure of Government agencies who, report after report after report, have been identified as failing Māori. We know that the normal business as usual of Government agencies is proven, yet, so far, to be unable to partner effectively with Māori, unable to work with and include, on a comprehensive basis, the voices of disabled people, unable to work with whānau, to put the needs of our communities before the interest of Government, the Crown, and their own agency. We know that. That is an undeniable history.

What we have seen is a Children’s Commissioner causing trouble, raising voice, challenging Government for not getting it right, not being able to do that effectively enough because they were under-resourced. What we’re being told with this piece of legislation is: well, they were stretched too thinly, so we’re going to take that role away from them, even though, in recent times, they have been that voice within the system, alongside Māori who have raised the alarm. It was not our Government agencies raising that alarm, was it? I don’t think anybody in the House could say that it was our Government agencies—any of them—raising the alarm. It was Māori, communities, whānau, and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. The fact that they were stretched too thinly—now, who’s fault is that? That was the decision of successive Governments, and to restrict their role, I would suggest, when, actually, the Māori advisory group set up to support Government in making the changes to Oranga Tamariki said that their first preference was for the monitoring agency to be within the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. So now we’re saying that we’re going to be partnering and showing a new way forward, but we’re not going with their first choice; we’re going with something that they’re willing to accept, and we’re building-in an advisory body to that new department, telling everybody that that’s going to provide the model of partnership that’s needed, that will address that tenfold increased likelihood of tamariki Māori being in care. And yet we’re not actually taking the advice of the Māori advisory group who are sitting there already. Can’t say I buy it. So the Greens, unfortunately, will be unable to support this bill at this stage.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I stand on behalf of ACT, and I’m saying we will support this bill through the first reading because I think we need an opportunity to actually scrutinise this a bit better. It’s an omnibus bill, it’s 82 pages long, and it’s actually quite complicated, and it covers a lot of areas and a lot of laws and legislation that it will affect. Unfortunately, a few days is not enough time for me to look through the whole thing and understand it completely, so I look forward to going to select committee and scrutinising this and giving it the attention it deserves. It’s well known that I came here because of the issues with Oranga Tamariki and my personal dealings with the organisation through lots of name changes and lots of promises that have never come to pass. So, for me, I’m very sceptical when we say we’re going to make changes, and I really hope that this is not just another making changes just for the sake of making changes and not actually getting any results.

We hear a lot about Māori, and I understand Māori are overrepresented within Oranga Tamariki, but we as a country are very diverse and we have multiple cultures in this country that also come through Oranga Tamariki, and we need to see it through their eyes also. So we need to make sure that this organisation is looking at people as people, not just the colour of their skin and who their grandparents were but see them as children. All children feel hurt the same, feel abandonment the same, and feel that their voices aren’t heard the same. Pain is pain. We need to make sure that we are hearing the children’s voices.

So I am all for oversight of Oranga Tamariki and more accountability with Oranga Tamariki and making sure that they are actually achieving what they were created for: protecting our children, making sure our children are safe. No child should be hurt or abused in State care; it’s absolutely unacceptable, but what we also need to accept is that we should be ashamed as a country that we have got to the point where we have children dying at the hands of their own family. Why, after all these years of talks and discussions and promises, even from when I was a child, are we still having children die at the hands of their parents? Where are we as a community and in society, standing up and saying enough is enough, our children deserve better than this? It’s not just up to Government or Parliament to deal with this; it’s up to us as a community to look at our children and see them as they are: vulnerable, unable to stand up for themselves. Any policy that can be brought into place to help our children have a voice, stand up for themselves, and say, “You are not doing right by me.” is good in my eyes.

As I say, I’m sceptical, but I look forward to hearing the voices of the people that this actually affects, because we sit here and we talk about the adults, the grownups, making decisions for our children, but I look through paperwork over and over again and we hear about all the bureaucrats and all the grownups that can make their own decisions, but the best interests of the child seem to have disappeared. Their voices are not being heard. I’ve heard promises about how we’ve got to give our children a voice, but it’s just not happening, and we should be ashamed of ourselves that it’s taken so long to actually have this discussion. Let’s stop discussing it and actually make sure we put some action in place so that it happens.

The only way we’re going to do this is by coming together, all parties coming together and deciding that this is the best path to go down, because every time a new Government comes into place, it goes backwards again because we haven’t come together for what’s in the best interests of our kids. We’ve let political views and political opinions interfere with what’s in the best interests of our children. So I hope that as a select committee we can work together with all the submitters in good faith, listen to people from all different views of life, and actually come together. Left or right, it doesn’t matter; what matters is that our children are safe. What matters is that we are listening. What matters is that we should not have children on the front page of our newspaper dying at the hands of their caregivers, their parents, and the people that are supposed to love and care for them.

We also need to acknowledge the fact that not all parents are good parents, and sometimes the State does have to interfere. Blaming the State for all the issues is just not fair. We need to acknowledge that sometimes parents need to take that responsibility on board and parents need to do the right thing by their children and, if they can’t, seek the help. There’s so much help out there. Community organisations that will take you under their wing and give you the resources you need to be a better parent. Reach out to your neighbour. Reach out to your friends and your family. Tell them you’re not coping, because once your child dies, there’s no coming back from that. Whether you meant to or not, whether you were stressed and not coping or not, that does not bring a child back. Let’s as a community look over your fence, talk to your sisters, your brothers, your cousins, your aunties, and your uncles. If you think something’s not right, say something. If you think Oranga Tamariki in their organisation is not doing their job and not stepping up where they should, speak up.

This is a piece of legislation that will help you speak up. It will give you a better avenue to go to look for help and have a voice. If we put this in place, there is no excuse for society to not step up and seek help and let Oranga Tamariki know where they are failing—where they are failing you, where they are failing your child, where they are failing your community. But at the end of the day, Oranga Tamariki’s only there because the child has got to the point where we need to step in and we need to do something to protect your child. Don’t let it get to that point. Ask for help, because no matter how much we mess around with this organisation, it’s not going to change if society doesn’t say enough is enough.

So we will support this bill, and I look forward to hearing from the community, families, about how we can improve your voice and improve the help we can get out there for prevention, rather than us having to come in and take over and ruin lives and communities, because that’s the last thing we want to do. We’re here to protect your children. We’re here to protect your community. We’re not here to pull you apart. Oranga Tamariki needs to get to the point where it has the respect of the community, where it knows that they’re not going to be manipulated and lied to, where they know they can get the help they need. Hopefully, some of this legislation will make people feel more comfortable reaching out for help, so I’ll support this through to the first reading.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 November.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.04 p.m.