Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): My contribution I think will follow on from that of the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern in specifically talking about clause 7. I want to just finish my earlier train of thought around what this may mean for Māori and the point that (1) there has not been good consultation leading up to this point and (2) that Cabinet papers indicate that the Minister is looking at the least at amending the provisions to place children with whānau hapū and iwi. That is not just with immediate family and to say that actually there is no safe person within someone's iwi is an extraordinary statement that cannot be anything but racist. Then to say that this is about enhancing opportunities for iwi is frankly ridiculous.We need to remember that it has been 20 or 30 years I think since Pūao-te-ata-tū. That was a result of such heartbreak for Māori of seeing children taken out of families and put into residences and abused and harmed and the consequences of that time we are still living with in that most of the people in our prisons are those people. We got that report because we recognised a need for a fundamental change and yet here we are moving backwards from that time—back to that time when so much of the thought about what was going wrong with our system at that moment and how to address it was the focus of the Māori Party previously in the development of Whānau Ora. Actually that was supposed to be the response to this—to be able to build up whānau so they were not at the point of having children needing to leave their immediate family—and yet that has not been properly resourced and now we are having legislation that again provides some very very mixed messages.I will speak now to what this means for other say Pākehā services even if they are working just with Pākehā families. I want to address this and what the Minister has been saying. The previous National speaker Jono Naylor has said: Well actually why should we have this role of uplifting children searching homes to go and find children and assess whether they are in danger and removing the kids restricted to Child Youth and Family? Couldn't that role be given to a nice lovely NGO that has got a nice relationship and would not be quite so scary?". Well the NGOs that presented in front of the Social Services Committee which that member sat on told us they do not want that role—that actually core to their ability to have that relationship with those families is the fact that they do not do that work. They do not have the potential to come and uplift those families' kids. The actual relationship is at the heart of that work and to uplift children would be to actually undermine the entire process.We also need to recognise and it was stated very clearly by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services that talking about handing over roles to the community sector and the NGOs at a time when they are so underfunded that their staff are just at breaking point and we heard at the homelessness inquiry that it was a little bit like being in a war zone without medicine because they have not had funding increases for 8 years—the talk about giving those agencies and those staff members roles far far beyond what they have now is frankly irresponsible. We were told that very clearly in the committee process.We need to recognise as well that the oversight of the system is also inadequately funded—that the Office of the Children's Commissioner has that statutory role for ensuring safety and it has said that within the existing centralised system it is not funded to be able to adequately ensure the safety of the children. So then if you talk about delegating out those responsibilities and powers how on earth can they provide that check and balance when they cannot do it in a centralised system?We also heard from NGOs that they were very concerned that this would have an impact on maintaining expertise and lead to the fragmentation of the system. It is worrying to say the least."