edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): I rise to take a call on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I'd like to echo the sentiments of the Minister and thank officials for their work on the bill. I also thank the Minister for his support. Ultimately all matters have been traversed in the various stages of this bill and I just wanted to reaffirm why this Government is supporting this bill.This Government wants to ensure that all overseas investment continues to benefit New Zealand. This means making sure we have the right forests in the right place. The proposed changes will help manage the increasing concerns of some New Zealanders over the negative impact of farmland to forestry conversions particularly in relation to pastoral land and land that is otherwise important to local economies and communities.This bill ensures that forestry conversions by overseas investors continue to bring more benefits to New Zealand. These investments will now be considered under the same rules as other investments in sensitive land under the streamlined special forestry test. Again this will channel overseas investment into the right forests in the right place for the right reasons. Therefore there is nothing more to add other than my support and I commend this bill to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Geoff Taylor requesting that the House halt any reforms arising from the current three waters reform proposal that would give control of Hamilton's water assets to a mega-entity.petition of Kathryn Phillips requesting that the House pass legislation to re-establish a Department of Housing Construction.petition of Roman Kashpir on behalf of Friends of Ukraine requesting that the House urge the Government to expel the ambassador of the Russian Federation and sever diplomatic relations with Russia. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. I present the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2022 of the Parliamentary Service Commission. That paper is published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on report of the Controller and Auditor-General Tertiary Education Sector: What we saw in 2021 and the briefing into the distribution of the fund to support the mental health and wellbeing of tertiary students affected by COVID-19.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill introduction.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Hipkins Chris; Bishop ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 23 August. Legislation to be considered in that week will include the remaining stages of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the third readings of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill and the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill. The Estimates debate will continue with the Ministers of Justice Local Government and Police appearing on Tuesday. There will be an extended sitting on the morning of Wednesday 24 August.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I was wondering if I could ask the Leader of the House: is it still the Government's expectation that Ministers will appear before select committees to explain bills that they are in charge of?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): That's never been the Government's expectation. The Standing Orders Committee did make a change encouraging Ministers where it was appropriate to make themselves available to discuss a bill if that's what the select committee wanted. That wasn't an expectation set by the Government. That was a change by the Standing Orders Committee. I certainly support the change and where there is good reason—for example if there is a discussion about a policy intention behind a bill—then it can be appropriate for a Minister to attend a select committee and they certainly have my full support if they make themselves available to do that.
Rurawhe AdrianTHURSDAY 11 AUGUST 2022The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Wednesday 10 August 2022 (continued on Thursday 11 August 2022) - Volume 761
Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill — In Committee—Part 4
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 55New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 4 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we now come to Part 5. The question is that Part 5 stand part.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 53New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Karen Chhour's amendment to clause 57 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that Jan Logie's amendments to clause 57 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10. Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Part 3 as amended stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 55New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 3 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we now come to Part 4. The question is that Part 4 stand part.
Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
SpeechJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and I'd just like to in this contribution speak to the commencement really and again make the point—and if it's uncomfortable for some in this Chamber to hear and maybe they're bored with it I'm OK with that because actually our community is telling us so clearly that this bill should not be going ahead and definitely not at the point of commencement before or in July 2023 just next year about right when the royal commission's report is due. So on this commencement date and the continuation of this bill I want to bring the voices of all of those who have been strongly opposing this again into this Chamber. We were requested to put this on hold by the Royal Commission Forum which is made up of survivors as well as some long-time members of the Labour Party and people with very senior experience within Government and researchers who have spent lives monitoring our child protection service and speaking up on behalf of the children who have been harmed: the Auckland University Aotearoa New Zealand Centre for Indigenous Peoples and the Law; Māori submitters including the Māori Women's Welfare League; Waikato-Tainui; all of the dames; VOYCE-Whakarongo Mai who are set up to be the voice of young people in care right now; Save the Children the children's rights advocacy organisation; the Children's Rights Alliance which has a role of monitoring our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; Starship hospital; YouthLaw; Pacific Law providers working with children—it's been overwhelming the call to pause to go back and ensure that children are part of shaping this system to ensure that it meets their needs as opposed to institutions' or Government needs. At the heart of any system—which has been acknowledged in the papers around this but in a very weird way—is that for monitoring and complaints to work you've got to trust the people who are doing those roles enough to tell them if something's going wrong. And when everybody in our community and our young people in care are saying they do not trust the proposed model how are they going to trust those people enough to go to them to tell them that something is wrong? The potential of harm being silenced because of a continued lack of trust and we have to remember that we are starting from a point of very very low trust.The Government's answer to that is to tell the monitor that it has a duty to improve public trust. That's not how trust works. Trust works from changing behaviour when you've messed up. It doesn't work from telling people You need to trust me." It needs to work from changing behaviour and listening and building relationship because at the heart of everything is relationship. This bill going through in this way is another severing of relationship and it's doomed to fail. Even if it was the right thing to do it will be doomed to fail because it is again undermining the trust of people with whom we have so much work to do to rebuild trust with. So so disappointed—just so so disappointed."
SpeechClauses 1 and 2 and new clause 2ACHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 and 2 and new clause 2A. I call Harete Hipango.HARETE HIPANGO (National): I apologise Madam Chair. We are speaking to a proposed motion to divide the bill into two bills—is that where we're at? Title and commencement?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh I'm sorry. I was looking at my sheet. Could the member repeat her—is the member taking a point of order?HARETE HIPANGO: No not at all. I was taking a call thinking that we were addressing the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No you were asking what it was. You don't even know.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I don't need the Minister's help here.HARETE HIPANGO: Thank you. I may have misheard. I didn't want to miss the call and let the opportunity lapse. Are we speaking to SOP 210 which is about the proposed motion to divide the bill into two parts?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): If the member wants to raise a point of order she says point of order".HARETE HIPANGO: Title and commencement. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): There is clear confusion and I'm sorry if it's me that's been the cause of it so I will start again. Our final debate is on clauses 1 and 2 and new clause 2A.HARETE HIPANGO: Thank you for that clarity on the matter. So in terms of the title this bill is proposed to be named the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill. On that note that is the bill that had been put to the public to the House and to the Social Services and Community Committee for consideration. However there is a proposed motion before the House so in speaking to the title of the bill it is pre-empting what that motion will be and that's on the premise that this bill has been addressed in five parts and that those parts have dealt with the three specific oversight entities and mechanisms of the Independent Children's Monitor the Office of the Ombudsmen with their complaints investigation role and the Office of the Children's Commissioner soon to be under this bill the Children and Young People's Commission. So the title that has been proposed is that of Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill; I understand that's not how it will eventuate in time."
Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill — In Committee—Part 5
SpeechANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I'm going to just hear some more contributions. I'm very aware that Part 2 contains a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). I'm also aware that this part began its debate at 11.52 so with all those things in mind I will just see where we go. I'll be looking for relevance and addressing SOPs and making sure that we're not going over old ground.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Do you know we're on Part 5? You said Part 2.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Part 5—yeah Part 5. Thank you. That was a bit unorthodox but the message got through. Thank you. It's obviously been a long morning. Right—easy. The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 be agreed to.
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm referring to the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 209 with the multiple proposed amendments some 10 initially which are more substantive amendments. Then on the face—I haven't done a specific count—are the minor and technical changes which traverse the entire scope of the bill not just Part 5.So Minister a question: why is it that towards the end when we get to the committee of the whole House at least 10 substantive amendments have been proposed to Part 5—at this point in time when advice has been given at select committee and your members of Parliament of the Labour Party did not in fact take heed but the Minister has at the eleventh hour? Could the Minister please just clarify that? I think the public is probably due an explanation when they are the ones who have made their submissions at the earlier stage and the anguish that they've been put through. And finally Minister it's acknowledged that it's been taken heed but why the delay?
SpeechJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. This will be a fairly brief contribution—the Minister might be relieved—but I guess it's to the point around the functions and investigations and the removal of that to the Ombudsman. We've heard from the Minister previously about the fact that the Children's Commissioner actually does that already. They give the complaints through to the Ombudsman. And I think the Minister's said in an answer to a question in the House that there'd been 78 complaints referred to the commissioner in recent years. I wanted to know whether the Minister would take this opportunity in the committee in terms of acknowledging that those figures conflicted with the material in an Official Information Act request that said actually only 26 cases have been referred over the last 12 years and that the Children's Commissioner has provided evidence to the committee about how quite often when people come to them with complaints they engage and they seek resolution early as does the Ombudsman but that they are set up in terms of the focus of their systems is around child-friendliness and engagement. There's now going to be a huge amount of resource and effort that is going into trying to create that expertise within the Ombudsman because they've acknowledged they don't have it. And that really feels a bit wasteful when we could have just put more resourcing into the Children's Commissioner to enable all of that skill to be used in its fullest extent and for that information that came from those complaints to inform their work much more broadly as an organisation. So that is my contribution. I'm interested in the Minister's answer.
Sepuloni CarmelHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a question to the Minister in terms of having spoken to clause 95 Appointment of Judge to Commission". Minister if you are able to take advice perhaps and give clarity to why we're seeking specifically the appointment of a judge to the commission. Is it because the current Children's Commissioner is a judge and to make room for the Children's Commissioner who is now going in as a result of an amendment to this bill that has been proposed as a chair? So I directed the question to the Minister to clarify that because I do have it on authority that judges are unlikely to be given permission to apply or sit on a Crown entity in that capacity whilst they're serving as a presiding judge—so they're unlikely to be given permission to apply or sit on a Crown entity board as a part-time board member due to constitutional conflict of interest issues. As I say I do have that on good authority.So I'm interested as to how this clause came to be in terms of appointment of a judge to the commission when the presiding or the current Children's Commissioner is a judge not giving service quite at this time as a judge—one day may go back to that position of service—but also is a person as I referenced earlier as have been a number of people who comes from lived experience. As is well known Judge Eivers was a specialist child welfare Family Court lawyer advocate representative in other sectors too—representing advocating for our children and young people as a specialist lawyer—before appointment to the Family Court bench giving approximately 13-14 years' service in that capacity before her appointment as Children's Commissioner. So clarity around clause 95 and some of those potential constitutional conflicts of interest and how that's to be addressed.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Briefly to this one there's no expectation through the legislation that the person appointed to the Chief Children's Commissioner role needs to be a judge. The provisions in this bill are carried over from the other Children's Commissioner legislation. There's nothing new in this. There have to be provisions that allow for alignment between any legislation where judges may have some kind of connection and that is it."
SpeechDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I move That the question be now put.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to speak to Part 5 as a whole—replacing the Children's Commissioner. I have a huge fear that the Children's Commissioner who has built up a brand of trust within the community with our youth within organisations is now having that trust factor taken away. Whether the Minister feels this is true or not it's perception from young people that matters the most and young people have expressed huge concern that youth are going to fall through the cracks in this new scheme where we are separating monitoring advocacy and oversight. It's been stated by quite a few people who have knowledge from the ground that young people need a simple system so that they know where to go what's going to happen and the processes. This just seems to have complicated the issue for young people more. Many times the Minister has said the problem is they just don't understand or we don't understand—it's a misunderstanding. If it is that complicated that even people who have years of experience with legislation and with writing policy—the Minister is saying they just misunderstand—how are our youth supposed to understand this?
Penk Chris; Sepuloni CarmelCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. This might be my final chance at least for now to comment and I congratulate you Mr O'Connor on your current elevation to the role of Chair. I won't do so at length—I appreciate that the debate has to move on—but as a fellow member of the parliamentary cricket team I thought it might be helpful for you to consider that if members are speaking outside the scope of the bill then a wide" might be appropriate. If you don't accept a point of order I suppose you'd have to say "that's a no-ball" and finally if any more of us are sent from the Chamber then that's obviously a dismissal.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll be very wary of bouncers actually.CHRIS PENK: Very good. Thank you for that guidance Mr Chair. I'll try to avoid imparting too much spin.Clause 95 in Part 5 notes that there's to be the appointment of a judge to the commission so I just wonder if the Minister can tell us—I appreciate that it's a fairly arcane point and she might not know; that's fine—whether the judge and their actions and contribution to this process would be subject to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner arrangement. Ordinarily of course a judge performing their duties in a normal courtroom setting could be the subject of a complaint in terms of their conduct and I don't know if that would apply to the role they would do as part of this regime because we see that for all purposes the judge's service as a board member is taken to be service as a judge. So I'm curious to know but I'm comfortable if the Minister is unable to answer.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): It's explicitly stated in clause 95 in Part 5 of the bill. Clause 95(2) states that "For all purposes the Judge's service as a board member is taken to be service as a Judge.""
Sepuloni CarmelPart 5 Children and Young People's CommissionHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This part sets out all matters related to the Children and Young People's Commission. This includes the establishment of the commission; all functions duties and powers; and review of the Act. The notable change from the Government Supplementary Order Paper is reducing the time for that. The review of the Act must commence within three years—a change from five years.Notable changes that were recommended by select committee include providing for a Chief Children's Commissioner explicitly providing for the commission to report to the Prime Minister and requiring members of the board of the commission to have knowledge and understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Sepuloni CarmelPart 4 Amendments to other legislationHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Brief remarks just to lead out. This part relates to the monitor and Ombudsmen and makes necessary amendments to other legislation including the Official Information Act the Ombudsmen Act the Oranga Tamariki Act and secondary legislation. This part has not been amended by the Government Supplementary Order Paper. The notable amendment recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee was to remove the Children's Commissioner from the list of persons who have access to specific court document. As the commissioner will no longer have an investigation function access to these documents are not required however can be obtained if necessary through the standard process of requesting them from the court.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm also wanting to look at the way the monitor will share or disclose this information and what obligation the monitor has in sharing the information with the children's commission. I'm just wondering is it all their reports and information—and I know we've discussed this—or is it what they feel that the children's commission should know? And if they are coming across information that should be advocated about but under the clause they're having to uphold the good name of Oranga Tamariki is there a conflict there? If they hand this information over it may not be upholding the good name of Oranga Tamariki. That was just something that submitters did talk about. It may not be an issue but I just wanted it clarified.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to talk about collecting information from a child or a young person. It's clause 46 and it just talks about complying with the requirements of the monitor's code of ethics in respect to engaging with children and young people.All through this bill it says it's all about engaging with children and young people in a respectful and meaningful way but what does this actually mean? And if our children don't trust the monitor that's trying to collect this information and children just will not give their consent and caregivers will not give their consent how are we going to collect relevant information and how would the monitor go about requiring that consent?
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Again Minister speaking to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 209 your SOP which is addressing clause 57 and the amendment there and the reduction of time and speaking to Ms Chhour's SOP in relation to that I just refer the Minister to what the core principles of this Act are as detailed specifically in clause 5. Clause 5 Principles" states "A person who performs a function or duty or exercises a power under the Act must have regard to—" and one of your proposed amendments was the inclusion of "the best interests of children and young people" and "the perspectives of children and young people."So Minister with the amendment you propose a reduction of the time from five years to three years. At a minimum you've emphasised again that there is a contradiction in terms of perspective of children and young people in the concept of time frames and the impact that the review of this Act and also the review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act and the monitor under this Act will have on the children. So Minister the reduction of time from five years to three years in my submission to this committee on behalf of children having worked with them for many years and that concept of time although it may be amenable to the State the Government sector the system in terms of review—and taking heed of Ms Chhour's proposed amendment to clause 57 a commencement no later than six months after the delivery of the royal commission of inquiry—is very very important.The whole point of this proposed legislation is about an oversight not overlooking the impact of this on our children who are in State welfare care but having the insight—not the oversight the insight—to their perspective of time frames and the impact that a review at such a significant expended period—a minimum as you say of three years—is a considerable element in part of a child's life. The whole point of this bill as the Government and you Minister have declared is about what is going to provide for the best interests of children and young people—and you've acknowledged that by way of an amendment to the core principles in clause 5—and the perspectives of children and young people. The time frame is a considerable insight into their lives. Don't dispense with and dismiss that with an oversight."
SpeechJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. It might be the first time in my life that I've spoken in support of an ACT Party Supplementary Order Paper but I do want to on this occasion and part of it is around—I understand what the Minister is saying on the three years. Our preference along with all of the submitters and a huge number of other advocates is that this legislation would have been delayed until the royal commission reported because in our view that is the best way to pay respect to the people who are going through that process of historical as well as in some instances current experiences of abuse. While I hear the Minister saying that three years is a minimum and so it might happen earlier it will be up to the Government of the time and if we're looking at restoring trust then actually that degree of flexibility is not a clear commitment. Karen Chhour's amendment directly links it to the royal commission and tells them that this House is united in wanting to ensure that actually this system is addressing their experiences. I think that matters because it is a huge undertaking. It took years to get commitment for this royal commission and I know there's concern coming through from the Royal Commission Forum and others that the Government isn't as engaged as it should be in following and knowing what's happening in the commission. It is a very real concern that there's a disconnect and this would be one of our ways of things that we could do to help restore a sense of connection to that work and to honour those people. I do want to acknowledge the Government though for the change around notifying abuse when it's found. That is something that did come through really strongly in select committee and it is important from my perspective because it did seem as if that could have been deeply problematic for people to go in in their monitoring duties and discover abuse but there not being any obligation for them to report that. So we are pleased with that change. I will also just briefly in this contribution—and there isn't I think much more. My further comments will be reserved for Part 5. But at this point it's around our amendment to clause 57 around the review of the Act and we're looking to add a new provision to that to ensure that the monitor is upholding tino rangatiratanga over kāinga. Again it links back to the point I made in the last part about the legislation reinforcing the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal and ensuring that our whole system is working towards recognising that right which is so blatantly and consistently trampled on. So that was my contribution and question.
Chhour Karen; Sepuloni CarmelKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Just on the note of reviewing the bill—and I appreciate that it's been brought down to three years—I just thought it could have gone a little bit further to give some assurances to those who have done the most courageous thing that I can think of: put themselves out there and speak to the royal commission review about the atrocities that they went through growing up either in care or how they were let down.I've got Supplementary Order Paper 189 that looks to amend clause 57 and make it so that the review must commence no later than six months after the delivery to the Minister of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care and it must be completed no later than 12 months after its commencement. The reason for this is it would just give assurances that these people haven't spent the last few years trying to advocate for change and find that it was just pointless because the Government has already pre-empted what they feel needed to be changed—and there's a fear out there that the royal inquiry into abuse in care may just not be worth the paper it's written on if it's not acknowledged. So to acknowledge those who have been courageous enough to come out and speak to those atrocities and deal with that trauma again I just want the assurance that we're going to actually review it and take into account what this inquiry has said.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Again it's just to restate that it's a minimum of three years from the commencement date of the bill and so therefore it can be done earlier if there is something significant that could impact or influence the legislation. I'll just remind the member that there may be things that come out of the royal commission's redress report that are not specific to informing any changes to the legislation but may actually have an impact on the operations that exist within the system. I mean I think that's important to note because then actually the system will have the opportunity to take on board those things that inform operational changes and then potentially moving forward when we get to the review period there'll be an opportunity to check that those things were incorporated into the practice.
Sepuloni CarmelHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Part 3 is specific to clauses 43 to 57. A question to the Minister in terms of the recent address to the committee and the reduction of the time of the five-year review and reporting on that to three years—again arguing from a child-centric point of view and that the whole point of this legislation proposed is to provide an oversight of the systems that are to be critiqued and reviewed as impacting on the children who are in State welfare care. So I acknowledge and I'm pleased that the advice that had been given at select committee—particularly from me around time frames and impact critically on children and how their concept of time is so very different to that of an adult—has finally been taken into account. So I acknowledge the Minister for the reduction in time but again three years is a significant period of time in a child's life.Although there's no formal Supplementary Order Paper on the table I invite the Minister to take that factor into account. It has been with some of the time frames. I'm grateful for that Minister on behalf of the children—this legislation is framed supposedly in their interests—but again I invite the Minister to reflect and consider. Rather than looking at it from an adult bureaucrat Minister's point of view the whole point of this is time frames as impacts on the children. I'm aware that it takes time in terms of assessing the impact of a system over a period of years but again it needs to be recalibrated in terms of perhaps even looking at an interim report for those initial reviews impacting on children and their lives.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I take the points made by the member. The issue is you do need time for a system to be able to embed to be able to report on it correctly or accurately or to have the information that you need. However this is a minimum review period as well. We took on board the advice that came from members that are in the Social Services and Community Committee as well as submissions with respect to the redress report that is due next year from the royal commission. We have said that it's a minimum of three years because if there is anything that comes out of the royal commission report that may inform potential changes that need to be made to the oversight system then we will certainly be receptive to that happening and the legislation will allow for that to happen. There are other reports that I spoke of that will of course be produced at a much more regular rate than this overall review of the system as a whole and they will be very important for us being able to hold the system to account and to be able to have that transparency and accountability with respect to how it's working.
Sepuloni CarmelPart 3 Information provisions and other mattersCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we now come to Part 3. The question is that Part 3 stand part. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'll just offer some brief opening remarks. This part sets out the information provisions and other matters relating to the monitor and the Ombudsman including the empowering provisions for regulations and review clause. Notable changes from the Government's Supplementary Order Paper 209 for this part include reducing the time for the review of the Act to three years from five years clarifying that the monitor can share non-personal information in specific instances to support effective monitoring and reporting and the insertion of new clause 53A which places an explicit duty on the monitor to notify a person prescribed by regulations if the monitor becomes aware of harm or abuse. Notable changes recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee include adding a new clause that overrides the Ombudsman's secrecy obligation in instances where abuse or harm come to the Ombudsman's attention. I'll leave it there. Questions?
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I just want to speak a little bit more about a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name SOP 195. It's in regards to entering facilities. This amendment would grant the commission entry powers to Oranga Tamariki facilities acting in response to a request or a complaint by or on behalf of a child or young person in order to strengthen its performance as an advocate. Now I speak to this from the point of view of young people that have said they would like to know that when they are in a situation where they feel that something is not right within a facility—they don't feel safe or they feel that there is a chance of something going wrong—their advocate would be able to come in and advocate on their behalf.I appreciate the Minister has spoken to this and said that authorities should be called in that situation and yes I do agree but it's also to do with trust once again with young people. They need to know the person coming to them is somebody they can trust. As a young person that has been let down by the system myself—and I'm speaking now not just as an MP but as a victim of this system and I want my voice heard as well because I feel that my voice and what I went through is being trounced on in this process also. So as a victim of the system and as a victim of the people that were meant to be there to protect me that I called and begged for help—they did not help. What is the incentive to ring those people again who never helped you in the first place? If you're in a facility and you're feeling unsafe and they send in the very people that have let you down before instead of a person that you trust will advocate on your behalf how are we going to get an accurate picture of the safety of these young people within these facilities? Many times we have seen where these facilities have gone wrong within the media. The commission just even recently through monitoring and advocacy side by side found an issue where children were being held in these facilities where they shouldn't have been and they advocated for this to change. That just shows having monitoring and advocacy side by side can work. Thank you Minister.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Jan Logie.
Prime Willow-Jean; Rurawhe AdrianWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I've listened to this debate and it is getting repetitive in some areas. I won't accept the closure motion at this stage but if there's any new discussion then now is the time to bring it out.
Chhour Karen; Sepuloni CarmelKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Just going back to that Official Information Act request and the report that I was speaking to yesterday there's a section in there on the ability to build and maintain the trust and confidence of the public. It states the ability to build and maintain the trust and confidence of the public in particular Māori it is important to ensure the Monitor's findings are robust and well informed. If Māori do not trust or have confidence in the Monitor it will be difficult for the Monitor to freely engage and present an accurate picture of how the system is impacting on Māori." And I think it's the same for all children: if we don't have their trust how can we guarantee that we're going to get an accurate picture of how the system is working?I still don't think the Minister has presented an argument as to why this process could not be done under the commissioner in its current form. We've talked about the Independent Children's Monitor being under the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for a while now; how has that worked has there been any findings on how well that has worked under MSD and is there any particular reason why that could not have been transported into the children's ministry not under error?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We really have traversed the form and I have made it clear in this House that the decisions around form were a Cabinet decision; they are not a matter for this bill let alone this part of this bill.With regards to trust I have already mentioned that clause 16A in Part 2 clearly outlines the independence that is required of the monitor and so without wanting to repeat myself I can't further explain it because I've traversed that quite clearly."
Sepuloni CarmelJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. I just wonder if the Minister then could speak to the information the points around the information in the Official Information Act request that indicated that the independence and the monitoring was really meant to be within the scope of existing policy as opposed to critiquing the policy which is—and this is where the public concern is had. We've seen the Children's Commissioner speak out and challenge the institution and call for radical change because the policy settings are causing our children harm. And this is in our name right? So we need to know—the public needs to know—that we are going to have somebody to stand up and do that. I know that the Minister might say Well the Children's Commissioner will still have the ability to advocate." but that will be advocated severed from the ability to shape the information that is being monitored—to be able to get the full range of information to be able to have the strongest possible advocacy. That's a real concern for the public. We're just not getting that this system is going to enable the truth to be told as opposed to providing a voice that will say how we can make this a little bit better and progress things which is I would argue not in the fundamental interests of our children.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We're going down the route about the difference between advocacy and monitoring again. It is important that we have objective monitoring. The Children's Commission or the Children and Young People's Commission will still have the power to take that information and to use it to advocate. One of the tensions between advocacy and monitoring is that advocacy can shape the monitoring information. It is not then objective. We need the advocate to be strong but we need the monitoring to be objective to provide the Government the Children and Young People's Commission and also the public the information that they need. The advocate can then take that and then the advocate can advocate on behalf of the children if they see something that is of concern to them. They can still undertake the level of inquiries that they have to date too—for instance the uplifts inquiry that the Children's Commission in recent years has undertaken. No one is taking that power away. We're deviating a little bit from exactly what's in here but I thought I would give the member a response to her question."
SpeechASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill.
Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I'm actually not going to speak for too long with the primary purpose being as we've heard in the House and those in the gallery know you've waited 30 years and having this little Pālagi speak for far too long doesn't actually help. This is actually a claim settlement that I have followed quite closely because amongst other things my wife whakapapas to Maniapoto so I've read all the documents. I won't say whether or not I've given her advice on the voting or otherwise—that could get me into trouble in a whole lot of ways.But one thing I just want to pull out of this—and look the document is significant the bill obviously is significant. But one aspect—I want to stress there's only one aspect—is around reparation. So utu or moni whakaea that's only a small part of it—the place of reparation. In English obviously reparation" but also I often think in Latin for a variety of reasons is "reparatio" and the original meaning of "reparatio" is to make ready or to begin again. The fundamental challenge here—and I think it was Minister Jackson who touched on it—is that no settlement can ever fully settle or pay back. There's no way it ever can I would suggest even with the best of intentions. So reparatio says we still have to make ready and making ready is to start again start afresh from both sides and that's not from—I don't speak for the Crown but from the parliamentary side that doesn't mean that we want to cover over what's happened. Despite any political parliamentary debates the reparation that reparatio that utu that moni whakaea side comes with a massive opportunity but also I'd suggest a massive burden to say that we are going to make ready and start again together and—to finish on that—I find that a challenge as much to myself to make ready to make reparation to be prepared to start again with all the imperfection that exists. So as I said—and I try to be a politician who's honest—I said it would be short so I've only taken half the time. There we go—thanks very much."
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill. We believe that when people are wronged that it should be righted and it should acknowledged when people are wronged.I can't stand here and claim to understand the whole settlement process because I haven't been involved in one myself. But what I can do is speak to people who sometimes sit there and say What's the point of these settlements? You know it's in the past. Why do we keep dragging this through the settlement process?" I was reading through this and some of the points that are made are actually very pertinent so that we don't repeat history.So I was reading and I was wondering what happened. I saw the Crown did not uphold its promises between 1890 and 1905 and Māori lost ownership of more than 250000 hectares of land or one-third of their district. Now let's just bring that into this time and think about it: if you're a family and you own a home and that's your piece of land that's what you call home and somebody comes along and just takes that from you and your family is now displaced with nowhere to go and with no acknowledgment of that wrong. I think people need to understand that and think about it in that context. What would you do if your family was suddenly displaced through your land being taken in an aggressive manner by the Crown? Would you sit back and say "Oh well so sad. Let's not worry about that."?I want to acknowledge those who are here today who are seeing through this process that has taken a long time. Now I heard this has taken over 30 years from the beginning of the process—I was still in primary school. When I think about that that hurts. I was lucky enough to be raised by my grandmother. She may not have spoken to me about stories about land and issues like that but she spoke of the pain of the things she went through when she was younger growing up as a Māori that felt displaced in this world not really knowing where she belonged in this world. Those stories are important so that we don't forget.I want to acknowledge the courage it has taken where this has happened between 1890 and 1905 and this has been passed down through generation to generation to make sure that this wrong is acknowledged. Now no money can take away the fact that you've been wronged. As victims I think sometimes the pain that we spend every day fighting fighting fighting and fighting can take it from us and I hope that the acknowledgement of the wrong helps heal some of that pain and helps with the process of moving forward and seeing a better future for tomorrow for your people and the next generation. So with that I would just like to commend this bill. I hope that the people of Ngāti Maniapoto feel that their voices have been heard feel that their pain has been acknowledged and hopefully understand that we all just want to see a better future for tomorrow for everybody in this country especially people who have been wronged in the past and that needs to be acknowledged."
SpeechWEDNESDAY 10 AUGUST 2022(continued on 11 August 2022)ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Good morning members. The House is resumed for the extended sitting. I call on Government order of the day No.5.
Wednesday 10 August 2022 - Volume 761