Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): such situations from occurring in the future."—sounds a bit academic really doesn't it? What we're talking about is the last few hours days weeks and months of a five-year-old's life. Malachi a young child who was vulnerable already because his mother was in prison. That child should have been a high priority for Oranga Tamariki for that circumstance alone. Often when we debate issues of child protection in this House there are some pretty easy problems that are identified—some pretty ugly ones. Somebody knew what was going on and didn't report it. Yes that happened in this instance and what was the consequence? An early childhood centre identified concerns and didn't report it. The Ministry of Education took swift action and they've lost their licence. They have been held accountable for their failure to act.But also in this instance family members of Malachi raised reports of concern. And what would you expect in a situation like this? You would expect the agency responsible would take a complaint seriously. To have a report from the Chief Ombudsman where he says that Oranga Tamariki failed to do the bare minimum—we're not talking about one mistake. We're not talking about one error. We are talking about the fact that Oranga Tamariki who was responsible for "ensuring that children and young people are safe and nurtured in their whānau families and homes." failed to do the bare minimum and that is why we are debating—I'm not sure that we're debating; we are talking about the tragic life that young Malachi lived and didn't survive when family members have raised concerns and Oranga Tamariki failed to take the bare minimum steps to ensure he was safe.We've heard the Government members talk about systems and processes and reviews and all of these wonderful things but the fundamental heart of this is somebody failed to take action to ensure that child was safe—not just once; multiple times. I don't think I've ever read a report from the Chief Ombudsman that is as scathing as this one. The Government members can talk about improvements all they want; this is the core fundamental reason that Oranga Tamariki exists: to keep children safe from harm. When those concerns are raised you would expect that they are investigated. You would expect when there is photographic evidence of harm the police are involved. You would expect the child is spoken to that the home is visited and inspected. But no—and I'm quoting from the Ombudsman—"There is no record that Oranga Tamariki considered its obligations under the [Child Protection Protocol] at any stage nor did it record any consideration of the suspected bruising."There'll be people unfortunately who see this as part of our national shame and another child that's added to the list. In New Zealand on average one child dies from abuse every five weeks. Oranga Tamariki has one job. When there is a complaint when there is photographic evidence their job is to take it seriously. But no what did we hear happened? There's a bit of paper shuffling and "not my responsibility" "oh it belongs over there" "oh no someone else should look at it" "oh no we don't have a complaints system." When a poor family member then contacted Ministers contacted Parliament—still no action when they knew that Malachi's life was in danger. I just can't imagine what it's like for his family when they did everything possible within their power to prevent this and the system—the system—let them down. But guess what! The system is made up of people to serve other people and in this instance our most vulnerable: a five-year-old boy whose mother was in prison. That is what's disgraceful.Where is this review at? "Oh no there are a couple of reviews so we should feel relaxed about that." Why is it taking so long? Why isn't this urgent? This boy died in November last year. We are nearly a year on so why aren't those investigations complete? Why hasn't the Government taken urgent action? Why has there not been an apology? That's what is disgraceful today as we debate—I'm not sure that we're actually debating—a report from the Chief Ombudsman that says Oranga Tamariki failed to do the bare minimum.So you know what does need to be done differently? Well first of all we do need to ensure that anyone who is working with children in an educational setting has child protection training. The National Party supports Child Matters' call to ensure that that training is mandatory. That wasn't the problem in this case—someone recognised it but didn't take action. Perhaps actually the agency that's responsible for child wellbeing and their protection from harm needs to have that training themselves because they're the ones that took no action. That is what's disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful—and no words that the Minister utters in this House today can take that away. The accountability has to sit with the people in Oranga Tamariki that the concerns raised about this child's wellbeing were raised with. That's what accountability looks like.The Minister talks about the fact that we've got fewer children in State care. I actually don't think that's the right measure; I think the right measure is that there are fewer children being harmed. That has to be the outcome that New Zealanders are seeking. If a child is taken into State care because they're at risk of being harmed that's a good thing. The outcome has to be protecting children from harm. We have to make sure that when issues are raised those people who operate in the system do their jobs are accountable and make sure that no child is dropped between the cracks.One person should be responsible for that child but instead he died following sustained and horrifying abuse at the hands of the person that was meant to be looking after them. In New Zealand when the Prime Minister says this is the best country in the world to be a child I'd argue that's clearly not the case."