Prime Willow-Jean; O'Connor GregHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Jack Gibbons who endured the suffering that section 7AA was helping to stop says My extended Māori whānau spent 11 years searching for me. I faced extreme hardship and disconnection and Oranga Tamariki never revealed my existence to my whānau." Tupua Urlich a former ward of the State who was the first survivor to speak at the Māori public hearing for the abuse in care royal commission of inquiry said about repealing section 7AA that "It's going to take generations to undo that harm. So when the Government turns around and fails to acknowledge our rights it's just another stab in the back." State care survivor Paora Moyle told 1 News "It is cruel to take children away from whom they belong to their standing place whom they know themselves to be."The reasons the Minister has given for the need to repeal section 7AA are that the Minister believes that it creates a conflict between the best interests of the child and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. On 13 December I asked the Minister to explain what that conflict was and I asked her how she can claim that there is a conflict in upholding the best interests of the child when section 4 of the same legislation says that in all decisions of Oranga Tamariki the best interests of the child is the primary consideration. The Minister this evening has talked about high-profile cases prominent individuals—caregivers I would add not the children who she spoke to—as the reason for the need to repeal section 7AA. Now I want this House to take on board what the regulatory impact statement says and what the Waitangi Tribunal's final report on the repeal of section 7AA says about those reasons that the Minister has given. What they have said to those claims that we heard tonight is that there is a lack of robust evidence to support the view that section 7AA causes harmful changes to long-term care arrangements. In fact on page 9 of the regulatory impact statement it says that "A range of stakeholders"—and caregivers and concerned whānau members as the Minister has referred to. In response to that they say "There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that section 7AA has driven practice decisions that have led to changing care arrangements. We have heard anecdotal concerns from a small number of caregivers". They go on to say "There is however no evidence to suggest that these concerns are related to the duties outlined in 7AA. Some concerned stakeholders and advocates have expressed their view that section 7AA was responsible for previous high-profile changes to care arrangements." They say "Again we do not have evidence as to whether section 7AA explicitly influenced these care decisions but internal evaluations suggest that it did not."So I only have five minutes in this first contribution but what I say to this House is the reasons that the Minister is giving to repeal section 7AA there is no empirical evidence to support it; said by your own officials said by the Waitangi Tribunal—it is only anecdotal it is only hearsay. What is actually driving this is political ideology. They are anti-Māori they are anti - Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that is what is driving this. Because for all the things the Minister has claimed there is no evidence.I will finish on the fact that she was not prepared to present to the Waitangi Tribunal and answer these very questions so that we could all understand what the problem is and what the possible solutions could be to this issue. She says she's proud. Well I don't think she should be proud of condemning future generations to having issues with their whakapapa their connections and their whanaungatanga. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member's time has come to an end."