Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Things most definitely have to change in the care system for our children. In fact members across the House will know and understand acutely what the harsh impact of children being uplifted by State care has been on families. In my constituency alone we have numerous cases where the current system has failed the child and their whānau. However are we there yet with this bill? We have to ask the question. I do not think so. We are not there yet.If we look at the statistics to see that 60 percent of children who are uplifted are Māori you would want to see the type of legislation that gives greater recognition to things that will ensure the care and protection of Māori children in a way that will lead to long-term integration back into their whānau settings. Why is this important? Because we know—and my colleague Jacinda Ardern has pointed to the research—that when a child is connected to their whakapapa their culture their language their identity and their place of belonging then their opportunity to move forward can be so much more enhanced.What are the barriers? Some of the barriers are legislative and many are operational. That is a given. I think during the select committee process we will see some quite thoughtful and insightful submissions that will provide the committee with ample context to be able to argue in favour of making explicit in the legislation a provision for and a preference towards kin care. That is really what we are debating here. There are numerous aspects of the bill that I think the committee will consider and see the benefits in such as the voice of the child being provided for in the recommendations of what is in their best interests. However when you think about getting the balance of interests right and who makes the decision that is where context will matter and that is where the legislation and what is written in the bill will absolutely be critical. We would argue that ensuring that there is recognition at the front end in the legislation of kin care as a matter of equal priority to all those other aspects—observation should be put into that recommendation.The other aspect is on information and data sharing. It seems to me at a first reading—albeit a first reading—that this will be a very challenging area but necessary. If you want to make the best decisions for a child when there could be multiple agencies involved in offering information to the child and the whānau information sharing and data collection are absolutely necessary. You only need to look at the family safety network and how that operates and also the child safety teams and the amount of information gathered by various agencies and providers to be able to say: OK what can we all do together to ensure the options around care for this child are better strengthened?".However I want to come back to the germane issue and it is a matter that Metiria Turei raised in her question to the Minister for Māori Development today. That is that at the heart of this bill if we are trying to turn around and make fundamental changes to improve lifetime outcomes for tamariki Māori then greater recognition of those aspects of a child's context matters. She alluded to the Māori Women's Welfare League's Waitangi Tribunal claim and the issue of rangatiratanga. Well at the heart of mana is rangatiratanga.I am asking the question certainly of the Māori Party: what are the benefits of sitting around the table if the Government has ignored any advice that might have been given to it about a fundamental issue hinging off the Treaty of Waitangi recognition of mana rangatiratanga and the interests of the child—this 60 percent of children who have been uplifted?Marama Fox: There wouldn't even be a Treaty clause in this bill.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I am looking forward to the contribution of the member because if the Māori Party has been sitting around the table and it has been totally ignored on this front then absolutely we should be concerned because those interests that have been advocated by Māori social workers providers out there in our community and even iwi providers—my own iwi who are in this space right now and who have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government have concerns about this bill.There has been inadequate consultation. The Minister presented the architecture of the bill to the Iwi Leaders Forum. There was some trepidation about whether or not it would achieve what she said it would achieve. In fact there has probably been quite a high level of concern about the lack of consultation not just with iwi leaders but with those organisations that fundamentally want to be in the space of caring for our tamariki those people who work at the front line those people who have experience in family group conferences and those Māori social workers who know intimately all the different aspects of trying to make the best decision for children so that they do not remain in non-kin care but actually can migrate back to their whānau. These are the things that we are concerned about.Pūao-te-ata-tū—when John Rangihau who used to be an early Māori welfare officer and who went to the University of Waikato was commandeered back to advise the Minister of Māori Affairs at the time he absolutely focused on health and absolutely focused on identity and these aspects to do with well-being. Pūao-te-ata-tū provided a number of opportunities for the Government of the day to think in a different context about getting things right. Matua Whāngai emerged out of Pūao-te-ata-tu. The issues around the early settings for State care and how we approached that in recognising whānau hapū and iwi in care models emerged from Pūao-te-ata-tu. In fact the genesis of totally revamping the social welfare system to make greater provision for at its time a more targeted approach can be linked back to Pūao-te-ata-tu. But what we have seen is a systemic non-recognition of the intent of that earlier report and I will leave the rest of it for other colleagues to comment on.My point is that if this legislation is designed to help support and reverse the high numbers of Māori children in State care and to allow them to be better positioned or better put into care models that will have long-term gain then we cannot ignore and deny the need for whānau kin care models to be prevalent within the way the legislation is written but also within the way that we support those models that are out there now working. I heard the speaker previous to me Alfred Ngaro speak about the social investment model and the new procurement approach. If this is code for being able to support preventative solutions for care for children which it may well be then I would put this on the table: iwi providers that are currently in this space are identifying that the front end of the service is where you need to invest if you are going to go for long-term solutions. The funding does not follow the intent and right now all of that responsibility is being borne through the innovation and the care and concern that iwi want to have within this space. I pointed to this issue in the previous debate on a child youth and family bill and said to the Minister that if there was genuine consideration of the evaluation coming out of those early iwi-based care models then absolutely they would be looking to see how preventative care can be better supported. It is unclear in this legislation.I want to finally come back to whether or not the bill will actually fix the biggest challenge that we have which is far too many Māori tamariki in State care. I do not think we are there yet. It does need to go to select committee and it does need to get a full hearing. It is going to be really important the way in which the select committee entertains aspects of this bill that fundamentally look at a different service delivery model. All that said if the bill does not provide in some shape or form a preference towards iwi hapū and whānau care models then I think we are leaving it to chance.This is what I would say: if we think any Government department will within its own good conscience recognise that the things that we are saying must be written into legislation you are dreaming—absolutely dreaming. If we make provisions specific that kin care matters and that it needs to be considered alongside those other aspects—the voice of the child the role of the whānau and the ability to support services; on balance all those things considered together—then the best decision can be made but you have to be explicit in the legislation.I support the contribution of my colleague Jacinda Ardern and the explanation as to why we cannot support this bill at its first reading. We would urge people to be involved in the debate. We would urge the Government to look at the Waitangi Tribunal claim and at what has been expressed as a result of a number of contributions to the forum Hui Whakatipu but other than that at other areas as well. We would also urge the Government to consult with those iwi who are involved in this care provision space because they are creating the innovation and the practice model to ensure that our kids are better cared for. Kia ora."