Fox MaramaMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I have put up a number of Supplementary Order Papers this evening in response to the legislation. Minister Tolley well knows that the Māori Party wants to be supportive wants to work with the Minister and wants to work with her officials to ensure that the new bill for Oranga Tamariki is purpose fit for our tamariki.The Oranga Tamariki reminds us that health is not merely the absence of disease but that oranga is the presence of all those elements that keep us well: spiritually physically emotionally and culturally. Oranga Tamariki conveys the ultimate place-based solution. Home is not only where the heart is; home is about showing us that the most enduring changes occur when they are locally owned. I recognise Louisa Wall's contribution which talked about the marae—a place to stand. The Treaty bills that are coming tomorrow to this House—when your identity and your culture are ripped away from you you flounder and are lost. That is what we have today in this country as a result of that happening and now we have it as a result of it happening with our children.We have built a new ministry called Oranga Tamariki which is supposed to remind us that the social investment is best realised by taking an intergenerational approach—when it is passed down. Unfortunately unwell things are being passed down in some instances and families need support. But taking children from their families and placing them at greater harm has not helped them and it has not helped their families. Yes I understand why we are changing this legislation. We need legislation that is going to improve strengthening families because when the child is in the heart of a safe strong strengthened family they are at their best. That is where they thrive. Just this week we heard from a family whose children had been uplifted because the mother had been in a domestic violence relationship and the father was coming out of jail soon. She had not done anything wrong. The children were uplifted and placed with the other child of the family who had been in whāngai care with another woman because that child had formed a bond with her whāngai parent.Well we will take the two children off this mother who obviously has no bond and give them to this person who has no whakapapa relationship whatsoever and leave them there because they had formed a bond with this other child? It is ridiculous. And they will now be there permanently—for ever—and will never come home despite the fact that this young woman has now had counselling and treatment. She has now undergone all of those things and she has set herself up in a stable environment to try to be a better mother because she has bonded with her own children—funny that. And yet we still continue to take them and now we take them from the birthing table. It is like you are for ever tarnished with your crime and your crime might simply be that you did not have the capacity and the support needed when it was needed.So we cannot support this bill. We have got a number of changes in these Supplementary Order Papers—and many of them have been articulated tonight—around the wording. The words wherever practicable" or "should" should be "must"—we must go back to the family and support those children and put them back there. There are untold stories of children continuing to be sexually abused in the care of their foster parents while there were grandparents begging begging begging—Ria Bond: And within their whānau.MARAMA FOX: And within their whānau yes. But they had parents and grandparents begging the State to "Please give them to us." where they were safe. They were safe there.Ria Bond: Not all children. MARAMA FOX: They were. The children were safe and they went off into foster care for 2 years and an 8-year-old child was put into the Wiri boys' home.Ron Mark: Try 13 years try 14 years.MARAMA FOX: Well I get it. I get it. I get it.Ron Mark: Where was the whānau for me? Where were they? They turned their back.MARAMA FOX: They did not turn their back. Our families who have the capacity and who love their children should be given their children. They are their children. A loving and safe environment and Māori families are not mutually exclusive—they are not. They are not.So yes when you have exhausted all options obviously that makes sense but you have to be able to exhaust all options first and if you have qualifiers that say "wherever practicable"—Ron Mark: Then how can it be a "must" Marama?MARAMA FOX: No I am saying "wherever practicable"—read the Supplementary Order Paper. Read the Supplementary Order Paper. We do not say "must" for everything. We have highlighted the places where we must consult and we must take into account. That is what we are saying. Just take into account—you do not even have to take it into account. "Wherever practicable" says that you do not have to bother if you do not think it is practical to do so. That is what it means. You put qualifiers around it. We are not saying: "You must always put them back here in an abusive home." You must seek out and attempt to find a safe and loving environment where they have a familial connection.Those two babies who were taken from their mother—one of them had their first birthday; there was no contact no phone call. She did not even know where they were. How is that continuing to keep identity and culture and familial relationships alive? It is not.The people who put this into action—they are the issue. It was not the law. It was what goes on and puts it into action. There is no way we would want to see children continue to be abused and to suggest that we would want that to happen is absolutely appalling—absolutely appalling. So qualifiers need to go. Qualifiers need to go and not everywhere "must" you do things but you "must" consult you "must" look and you "must" try to put children with whānau where they are safe.Look the Minister for Social Development genuinely I believe wants to do a good job with this. I recognise that in her when she speaks. And I do not want to be just arbitrarily opposing everything because we actually need this to work—those are our children. All of us all of them—Māori Pasifika and non-Māori; they are all our children and they all deserve the best. If this legislation cannot provide them with the best outcome and the best pathway then we cannot support it because we have put face paint on a building and the same culture exists—take the kids take the kids. Then we cannot go and complain about it because they are before the Family Court—well they are always before the Family Court; they always are.Then strategic partnerships where it says "The chief executive must ensure that—(c) the department must develop"—rather than "seek to develop"—"strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations" to "better reflect a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi." If you leave it as "seek to develop" she may or she may not seek to do it. It will be up to the discretion of the chief executive and we think that is far too much discretion. If you say the strongest possible wording "must develop" then it happens.There are too many outs in this bill. There are too many provisos in this bill. There are too many qualifiers in this bill and it detracts from the importance of the work. Our tamariki are the most important things in our lives but without their whānau or a loving family around them they do not thrive—they do not. We believe that they need to be strengthened. If you take those children off a terrible family and do nothing with this family well that has not fixed anything. It has not fixed the problem. It has kept the child safe—yes it has—but those parents or those young people or those old people may go on to continue to abuse or to continue to have other children in a family that they have not improved. Where do we provide the support? I hear the Minister talk about supporting families—there is nothing in this bill that talks about that. How do we provide for them?The information sharing I will talk to as well. The information sharing—the ministry officials themselves have said there is no mechanism to check the veracity of the information that is being shared. We are just going to trust that they are professionals and that they have got it right. Well I am sorry but how has that gone for us? How has that worked so far? It has not. We cannot trust the information when the system is inherently racist."