Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to speak to this bill and I want to first acknowledge the efforts of our colleague Ms Chhour. I sit on the Social Services and Community Committee with Ms Chhour and I have seen her deep and heartfelt need to make a difference for children so that the harm that was done to her many years ago is not repeated. I also rise as someone who has spent a lot of years—like Ms Hipango a previous speaker—in the Family Court as a Family Court lawyer and I have fought reverse uplift cases. I have fought Oranga Tamariki on behalf of caregivers and on behalf of whānau in the sorts of cases that Ms Chhour has been describing to us. So I have some understanding of the situation there and what I would say first is that we all want all children to have that equal right to love care sustenance and a proper safe home. We all want that. The issue for me—and I refer to the reports that previous colleagues have talked about going back into the 1980s. The issue is that the system wasn't fair. It remains unfair but it has been unfair for decades and decades and it has specifically been unfair to tamariki Māori. I think what has happened here is that there is a bit of confusion in this bill over two things that are being done. As my colleague Harete Hipango and other colleagues have said it is not the case that whānau connection to tamariki is paramount—it is not. The best interests of the children remain absolutely paramount and there is a complex set of figures ideas and concepts that get considered every time one of these decisions comes before the court. That is one thing and if Ms Chhour really wanted to look at those issues she maybe needs to look at section 4A because that is the one that tries to set out what the legislature tried to enunciate as what are the factors that a judge should look at in considering a child's best interests and that includes the maintenance of their connection with whānau hapū iwi and family. That is where there is that delicate-dancing balancing act going on. This section is actually quite a different matter. Section 7AA is an attempt to address the structural inequities and the embedded racism in the way in which Oranga Tamariki works. While it has been tried—including by yours truly—to get Family Court judges to operate on the basis of section 7AA in the context of an individual custody case what section 7AA is actually about is the professional conduct of the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki in designing structures in trying to make relationships with hapū whānau and iwi in the community and in reporting back on those changes. It was the Hon Anne Tolley from the other side of the House who brought this in. I'm disappointed that those current members with respect haven't got quite the courage of their convictions to stay the distance because the fact is—Simon Court: Well it didn't work. Dr EMILY HENDERSON: —this is something that is working. What shows that it is working is that when you get a Government into power with a Minister like Mr Davis who is prepared to do what I personally feel which is to condemn bad practice and hold Oranga Tamariki to account and to uphold the mana of all children—that's what we've seen. We have seen the dramatic fall in uplifts of pēpi and of children generally. We have seen the dramatic change in that appalling process of reverse uplifts. It's not about children being automatically placed with Māori whānau—that is not what it's about. It's about bad social work on a number of fronts and poor social work practice that we are steadily addressing and we are seeing in those dramatic figures the impact of what was put in place by the Hon Anne Tolley. I cannot commend this bill.