Sepuloni Carmel; Tisch LindsayCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to start by speaking to the point that was raised by the New Zealand First MP Darroch Ball and that was with regard to a briefing that the Minister for Social Development held for Labour MPs at 1 o'clock today on this bill. Actually we thought that it was a briefing for all parties outside the National Party so we were surprised to attend and find out that it was just for me Nanaia Mahuta and also Jacinda Ardern. We were unaware that that briefing was just for Labour MPs and actually we do and would expect that a briefing of that nature would be given to all political parties so that when we come to debate it—particularly because this has been pushed through rather quickly—we are all on the same page with regard to background information. So we are disappointed as well that that briefing—that opportunity for a briefing—was not extended to other political parties.I want to start on this bill with the parts that we do support before getting into the area—the major area—that we do not support. Labour has as this House knows for a long time been calling for the age of care and protection as well as of youth justice to be raised to include 17-year-olds in alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. So we are pleased to see that this is being considered and incorporated within the Child Youth and Family (CYF) reforms. It is also positive in this bill to see the Government again taking into account the recommendations of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by enshrining the well-being of children as a central focus of the new ministry Oranga Tamariki.However despite parts of the bill proposing a prioritisation of the interests of the child in State care it goes against this overall concept by removing the emphasis on kinship care. At the moment priority is given to placing a child with a member of their family or wider hapū or if that is not possible then with someone who has the same tribal racial or cultural background as the child. However this bill removes that whānau-first" preference. We heard one of the New Zealand First MPs saying that we were in some sort of la-la land for thinking that that could possibly work or that was the right thing to do. There is international evidence to show that it is the right thing to do. It should be enshrined in our legislation.The problem is not with it being in legislation; the problem is the way in which it has been enacted and practised. Yes the safety of the child should be the primary concern. So if you find a whānau member who is able to look after the child firstly you are going to assess whether or not that whānau member is then a safe person to look after the child. If that is not happening then we have an issue with practice and the way in which it is enacted. It is not about putting that in the legislation. So the removal of section 13(2)(f) of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act—the provision around kinship care—could significantly weaken the role of Māori in the care and protection of children.So although there are some positive aspects to this bill we cannot support it due to the overwhelming concerns we have in the proposal about the lack of incorporation of whānau iwi and hapū solutions in the care of children. The disregard for section 13(2)(f) goes against evidence both locally and internationally. We know that the best solutions for children include early intervention and the incorporation of iwi throughout the process. This is also true on an international level as I said with the prioritisation of a child's cultural heritage being instrumental to their care. The new ministry must take into account the importance of culture in a child's life especially as to their identity and sense of belonging. As Green Party MP Jan Logie said when questioning the Minister last week "for tamariki Māori their well-being is inextricably linked to their well-being of their whānau and hapū".There is also a strong need for a sense of belonging found amongst children in State care. This year's State of Care report from the Office of the Children's Commissioner stated that clearly. So even through the conversations that I have had with National MPs we all agree on safety stability identity. The other issue of course is being with family with whānau—siblings actually—as has come up in conversations. The report found that children and young people are already not given sufficient opportunities to build their sense of identity in the current process for children in State care. This can only get worse with the removal of the "whānau-first" section.We are concerned that there has been a lack of consultation in respect of this bill. Around 60 percent of children in State care are Māori as has been pointed out by previous speakers yet there was not enough discussion with Māori groups and organisations that have experience in the care and protection of children. The Māori Women's Welfare League has even raised concerns that the changes proposed in this bill could be in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and it did request that the bill not be put forward until it had been properly consulted.Looking at the ethnic identity of children who are in State care I saw even with my own Pacific people that Pacific children make up the third-highest ethnicity of children in State care with 407 as of June 2016. In 2010 the Government's pacific action plan specified an aim of keeping Pacific children and young people well cared for as part of a loving whānau. This was an acknowledgment of the different cultural upbringing and the importance and presence of wider family for Pacific families. Yet the removal of the kinship care section is far removed from this multicultural focus. There has also been a distinct lack of consideration given to Pacific groups and experts. The hurried nature of this current bill has meant little time for key Pacific organisations to consider these changes and provide input. It has been virtually impossible to find comment because it has gone through so quickly and people have had no time to consider the consequences of what this bill is putting forward.This bill also proposes a requirement to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations. However this cannot be possible without the kinship care section. Although this bill proposes that it will be more child-centred it fails to address the key issue of what in the current CYF legislation is not and where the system is failing. As is addressed in the departmental disclosure statement there is currently no cause given for the need to change legislation. Without acknowledging what the current issues are it cannot be possible for this bill to improve the situation. The example I want to give is that the Minister has argued that the current legislation is being employed in a way that kin care is given as the only option—whether or not it is the safest and best option. However in this case it is not the legislation that is the problem but as I said before the implementation and the practice at a service level. This is where the change needs to occur rather than the removal of a "whānau-first" approach.The proposal to make this bill child-centred raises the issue of why the Government will not commit to making other key sectors that have an effect on a child's well-being child-centred. Areas such as health social housing and social development are all oriented around policies and laws that do not put the needs of the child first. For the plight of children in hardship to be addressed there needs to be a holistic and Government-wide commitment to putting children at the centre not just in this one area but across the board. So it is unfortunate that the Minister has shown an unwillingness to do this even across her own portfolios having dismissed my proposed amendment to the principles of the Social Security Act which would have included a new principle that "primary consideration is to be given to the welfare and best interests of any child or children who may be directly or indirectly affected by the exercise of that duty or function:". Why would any Government not want that to be an underlying principle of our Social Security Act?So as I said we have some serious concerns. The final concern I want to share is in respect of data. The Privacy Commissioner has also raised several concerns about this. Firstly the issue is not confined to this bill but is slowly being implemented across the social development sector. Concerns have already been raised from those who will be affected about the Government's current inability to deal with the data the increased level of surveillance for those seeking help and a potential reluctance from people in sharing information knowing it will be held by the Government.The commissioner highlighted the unintended consequences of this data-sharing clause given that there is not currently a fully designed operating model for Oranga Tamariki and there has not been consultation with those who could be affected. The level of data sharing proposed could also risk the trust and rapport between case managers and their clients potentially impacting on the level of support given. This proposed data-sharing is a part of the Government's investment approach which frames people and children as potential liabilities. The data collection in itself will encroach on the privacy of individuals and is akin to selective surveillance. On top of that the data will be used to target those who are considered to be fiscal drains.We know that the Government believes our young people are already "pretty damned hopeless"—thank you to the Prime Minister of New Zealand for saying that—meaning they are not interested in investing in our young people but rather in viewing them as financial risks. What a way to view our young people! It is really hard to reconcile those kinds of statements with the statements that come out of the Minister for Social Development who says that it should be about being child-centred when in fact it does not feel that way at all—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member's time has expired."