Rurawhe Adrian; Sepuloni CarmelOVERSIGHT OF ORANGA TAMARIKI SYSTEM AND CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S COMMISSION BILLIn CommitteePart 2 Oversight of Oranga Tamariki system (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to further consideration of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill. I'll remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you are on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" in the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I will advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge of the bill during their call.We are on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 12 to 42 "Oversight of Oranga Tamariki system". I will take the next call on Part 2.JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I just would like to speak to in this contribution Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 215 in my name that seeks to make an amendment to clause 16A and I specifically want to speak a bit of a context to this and I'll acknowledge the author of the report that I've mentioned quite extensively in this debate David King one of the co-authors to Improving a System When Young Lives are at Stake who wrote to me with a suggestion for an SOP based on information he had gained through an Official Information Act inquiry trying to understand the independence that we're hearing about of this organisation and what it meant for those who were drafting the bill. What he found out through that Official Information Act inquiry that he received from the Public Service Commission—and I will note that what he received was a draft document. The final document is held by the Ministry of Social Development who as he wrote earlier this week and I will quote "is refusing to provide me with any information in a timely manner." But what we do have in draft form clearly shows that the independence of the monitor is not what we would normally understand by the term "independence". It is "appropriate independence which allows the monitor to work in a trusted manner with the Minister". In public sector speak that means the monitor doesn't advise or advocate as the report puts it in favour of any changes to policy only improvements to practice within current policy. Now this is a really really critical point for the public because there are such strong concerns around the practices and the policies of Oranga Tamariki. Since the initial policy work started on this piece of legislation we've had a Waitangi Tribunal hearing we've had a lot more submissions through the royal commission we've had the Children's Commissioner doing two very in-depth investigative reports we've had the Ombudsman that has also had a really scathing report into the functioning of Oranga Tamariki and there are very strong views that question whether it can be fixed as it is at the moment. So to hear that this is being set up to provide advice accepting that we will not move from or challenge the existing policies actually goes to the heart of our concern of needing to know: can this model be fixed? Many of us actually we're not convinced that it can be fixed in those existing policy settings at the moment. The Waitangi Tribunal very clearly said that actually they were on the side of "No it can't." and that a Māori transitional authority needed to be set up to deliver for Māori because harm had been caused and disproportionate harm to Māori by the Crown incursion on the rights of tino rangatiratanga over kāinga. That was done through this existing model.So my SOP 215 makes an amendment to be able to just give us some more confidence that actually that monitor will have the ability to critique the Crown policy as well as providing increasing trust for the Government which we've had so much debate and concern about. We've heard from the Minister earlier that this amendment isn't necessary and I've heard that but this has come from somebody who knows legislation who knows Government departments who has said this is a provision that would give us a little bit more confidence that this could possibly have a degree of independence that we could have confidence in. I really encourage the Minister to consider it because she's told us she's doing other things just to give us confidence even though they're not really needed. So why not this point?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We've discussed this but I will go into a little bit more detail on this. I know that what the member is seeking is the assurance around independence and I do understand that. I want to refer the member to clause 16A of Part 2 which is about the duty to act independently which says "The Monitor must act independently when (a) carrying out their monitoring function under section 14; and (b) developing tools and monitoring approaches under section 16. (2) A Minister of the Crown must not direct the Monitor to stop carrying out an activity or prevent the Monitor from carrying out an activity that the Monitor considers is necessary to enable them to perform or exercise their functions duties or powers under this Act." The objectives are derived from the functions so we don't need to then specify the independence of the objectives. In many ways it doesn't make sense given the strength of provision around the monitor's requirement to act independently. With regard to the objectives though it's very clear in clause 13(1) that the objectives of the monitor are to carry out objective impartial and evidence-based monitoring and then it goes on. That paired with the explicit wording in clause 16 of this part absolutely—absolutely—can provide assurance that the independence is there."