Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. I want to commend Jo Hayes as the chair of the Social Services Committee. It was an intense process. I sat in on the committee a couple of times. So I want to acknowledge the 314 submissions and the 98 oral submissions and also just highlight from the Children's Commissioner's submission that the relevance of this bill is to over 60000 children who are captured within our care and protection and youth justice systems every year. Sixty-one percent of the children in the care and protection system are Māori and unfortunately 71 percent of the youth justice residency clients are Māori. So this bill is incredibly relevant to Māori and I will explain our continued opposition to this legislation.But before I do that I just want to highlight some positives. I agree with the Minister for Children that the name change of this bill to the Oranga Tamariki Act or the Children's and Young People's Well-being Act is fantastic and so I am hoping there will be no more references to the Ministry for Vulnerable Children. I also want to acknowledge the gender-neutral language within this bill that along with that highlights and recognises a child or young person's sexual orientation and gender identity. Finally I do want to commend the Minister and the committee for the references to whānau hapū and iwi that are in the bill because they had been removed and presumably that is the basis on which the iwi leaders are now supporting it.However I will read you the first sentence of Labour's minority report under Consideration of whānau iwi and hapū". We said: "Labour made it very clear from the outset that we could not support a bill that removed the 'whanau first' principle as set out in section 13(2)(g) of the principal Act." And I am going to read it because it is relevant—section 13(2)(g) says: "where a child or young person cannot remain with or be returned to … family whanau hapu iwi and family group the principle that in determining the person in whose care the child or young person should be placed priority should where practicable be given to a person—(i) who is a member of the child's or young person's hapu or iwi (with preference being given to hapu members) or if that is not possible who has the same tribal racial ethnic or cultural background as the child or young person;". And that is the relevance of our opposition to this bill.I have tried to find out where this particular prioritisation of children being returned to hapū and iwi if their family for whatever reason cannot care for them is in this piece of legislation and I cannot find it. I am sorry but I cannot find it. And I would like to highlight new section 4(1)(e) inserted by clause 6: "ensuring that where children and young persons require care under the Act they have—(i) a safe stable and loving home from the earliest opportunity; and (ii) support to address their needs:". Where is the reference to—and this is where I would put it in (e)(i)—a safe stable and loving home within whanaunga and hapū and iwi from the earliest opportunity? If that was in this piece of legislation we possibly would support it but it is not there.Why is this a huge issue for us? Actually it is an issue because the Government has a duty of care. And what is that duty of care? That duty of care which is a legal obligation and responsibility is to safeguard children and young people from harm while they are in the care of Oranga Tamariki or Child Youth and Family—whatever we are going to call it.I want to highlight the Canadian experience and it is incredibly relevant. So in February this year the Canadian court after an 8-year class action suit had given $1.3 billion to 16000 Ontario aboriginal children who were placed in non-aboriginal homes between 1965 and 1984. It was under federal provincial agreement. And what the court has said is that the federal Government breached its duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the children from losing their aboriginal identity.One of the quotes from a plaintiff in the case—"We were black kids with the intention by the Government to make us white." The findings were that these children lost their identity which led to mental disorders substance abuse and drug and alcohol abuse which led to cycles of incarceration and suicide. So the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs in Canada Carolyn Bennett said that the Government will not appeal that decision. It really is highlighting that in Canada it was called the "60s swoop". In Australia it is called "the stolen generation" and so I think that our Minister and our Government given 61 percent of the children in care are Māori do have a duty to ensure that our Māori children do not lose their Māori identity by being placed in the system.It also corresponds from my perspective to new section 5(1)(b) inserted by clause 8: "the well-being of a child or young person must be at the centre of decision making that affects that child or young person". And then it references the child or young person's rights according to UNCROC which is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 8 of that convention is that the child has the right to the preservation of their identity and State parties must preserve their nationality their name and their family relations which as defined in this bill is their whakapapa and their kinship. The State also has a duty to help children regain any identity that has been taken away from them.There is hope in this bill because under new section 7AA(1) inserted by clause 12 which outlines the duties of the chief executive in relation to Tiriti o Waitangi there is an opportunity for the preservation of identity in that part of the legislation. It is specifically in new section 7AA (2)(c) where "the department seeks to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations including iwi authorities in order to—". And here is where it gets really interesting. Nowhere in that list of relationships does it commit the Minister and the CEO of Oranga Tamariki to explore the relationship with hapū and iwi and our rights and responsibilities in the development of the polices the practices and the services that Oranga Tamariki will deliver. That is the guts of the issue because as has been highlighted by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services in its submission: "At the heart of the contention of this bill is the assumption that the 1989 Act … it represented has failed Māori tamariki. In contrast our members tell us the 1989 legislation is not the issue but rather its application in practice".What it says is that the practice—the institutional racism of Child Youth and Family—has failed to honour the bicultural intent of the legislation. That continues to remain the big challenge for our support of this legislation and we will continue to fight against the system that erodes and strips Māori children's identities away from them because what happened in Canada—children ending up in prison—is exactly what has happened in Aotearoa New Zealand. There are high rates of mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction. A lot of the people who are living on our streets who are homeless—the most vulnerable members of our society—have been a product of this racist system and this legislation does not address that issue. That is why we will not support this bill. We are not shameful as the Minister said when she left this House. She said shame on us. Well I actually say shame on you because you have not addressed the issues that have created so much disorder."