Potaka TamaTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): He aha te mea nui o e te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata. [What is the most important thing in the world? It is people it is people it is people.]Karen mihi ana ki a koe. Respect sterling mahi and absolutely dedicated over this kaupapa. Angie ka rawe hoki ō kōrero—[Angie very eloquent what you have said]—DEPUTY SPEAKER: We use full names in the House please. TAMA POTAKA: Angie Warren-Clark ngā mihi ki a koe e hoa ka pai ō kōrero. The wellbeing and best interests of children are paramount for those in State care as captured by section 4A of the Act and this bill seeks to repeal section 7AA of the Act which places duties on the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki to support the wellbeing and act in the best interests of the child or young person. We support this bill at the first reading for the purpose of all Kiwis having input but would amend the relevant section rather than repeal it. It appears that our colleagues in the ACT Party are concerned with a couple of items: number one the health and wellbeing of children in State care is deteriorating—tautoko—number two Oranga Tamariki prioritises the placement of children with whānau Māori over the best interests of the child and effectively interprets placing children with Māori families as being in the best interests being in conflict with the paramountcy provision or section 4A of the Act which requires decisions to be in the child's best interests—āe kei te rongo; I'm hearing it—and number three the provision is race-based or race-preferenced law. Well kāore i te taukoko—I don't support that idea. As my whanaunga colleague Harete Hipango mentioned National introduced this provision many years ago and some folks at Oranga Tamariki and elsewhere have misused the intent the purpose and the application of this provision but the courts have concluded that the provision in and of itself is not race-based. I won't go into the details of those decisions except to observe that tikanga will have an increasing relevance for our judicial and legislative system and I have been known to encourage conserve of curiosity in that matter. The main problem—the main raruraru—to me is not the section itself but rather the misinterpretation and misapplication of the section and this is exactly the reason why we are elected to be here in this Whare Mīere this House: to draft and better curate legislation that carries with it certainty and clarity. We would not repeal the section but rather would amend it to ensure greater certainty in social work and bureaucratic practice. My view is based on a couple of items. The stats disparity is shocking: 91 of 1000 Māori are reported to Oranga Tamariki two-thirds of all children in State care are Māori and tamariki Māori are six times more likely to be in State care. Those disparities are shocking and that's why we introduced this section: to better help Oranga Tamariki to work with Māori communities to come up with solutions to support manaaki and tautoko those tamariki. Sometimes it has worked; sometimes it has not. While perfect is the enemy of the good for tamariki good is not good enough. The State alone cannot provide solutions for Māori children in isolation of Māori communities. The provision was initially drafted with the intention to be specific needs and relationship - based and our erstwhile colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson received advice that this provision did not contravene the rights set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. National also acknowledges that the Treaty of Waitangi is a founding document of New Zealand. It's one of our values and it is set out in the constitution and where suitable te Tiriti or the Treaty—or both—can guide substantive policy and legislation. Now our colleagues from the yellow-pink side of the House have espoused the view at times to remove the Treaty from legislation altogether or to subject it to referendum. This is not a waka that I respectively sit in. The Greens would have the Treaty of Waitangi as the Rosetta Stone for all legislation and wealth distribution or redistribution. Again it's not a waka I sit in; I take a more moderate view. Repealing section 7AA cancels the bandwidth of the CEO—the tumu whakarae—of Oranga Tamariki to work with local communities to provide targets measures and solutions for Māori children in need of care and protection but section 4A the paramountcy provision sets out the ultimate threshold for Oranga Tamariki behaviour. All sections including the interpretation use and implementation of section 7AA must be done in light of the paramountcy provision. It would be contradictory of us to dismiss this provision entirely which is intended to be a genuine option to address and meet the best interests of the child in State care. It is with these minor thoughts that I take this Puanga evening back to the backbench. Thank you Mr Speaker.