Sio Hon Aupito WilliamAUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Of all the issues that we debate in this House when it comes to children I would have thought that the Government of the day—particularly this Government—would have aimed to try to unify all the parties to try to get it right. There is unanimity in this House about ensuring that our children our young people the future generations of our families in this community—our country depends on them. I would have thought that that would be the priority. Yet again when you look at this bill it smacks of cost cutting. It smacks of arrogance because the Government does not recognise that our children have potential. It smacks of negligence because it refuses to recognise that yes we do have some bad kids but these children our children—our collective children—have potential and whether we like it or not they take over from us.You will appreciate that I am not a member of the Social Services Committee but when I skim through the legislation it borders on reaffirming again and again institutional racism. That is how I read this bill. I want to acknowledge Jacinda Ardern the deputy leader of the Labour Party because we are deeply committed to what she said: the fact that it should not be about vulnerable children; it should be about children per se children whom we know and recognise as the future of this country. The fact that the Government has removed the whānau first" principle tells me so much about the arrogance of a Government that believes that one-size-fits-all is going to fix a problem that it cannot fix on its own. It requires united support from the rest of the House.I want to draw attention to clause 4 "Purposes": "The purposes of this Act are to promote the well-being of children"—fine with that—"young persons and their families …". I want to ask the Minister why the word "parents" is missing from that statement. Why is the word "parents" missing from paragraph (c) and paragraph (d)? Why is the word "parents" missing from paragraph (h)? Why is the word "parents" missing from new section 5(1)(c) inserted by clause 8 in subparagraphs (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) and (vi)? Families do not have children; parents bear children. The fundamental unit of a family is parents and children and even if you are removing children from parents and therefore you decide to discard the parents those parents are going to have children. What about their well-being? When a Government agency removes children from parents who may not know what wrong they have done how do they fix their problem? We have an obligation do we not to look after the parents as well to ensure firstly that they recognise they have done some harm and secondly that they are given tools to help prepare them either to receive their child back or at least be prepared to be able to teach and pass on good things to the next crop of children that they have.So I am asking the Minister: why is the word "parent"—I would have thought that it is so fundamental to getting things right that it would be placed in throughout this piece of legislation. I want to ask the Minister also: the legislation refers to "family whānau hapū iwi and family groups" in that section but if we go to new section 5 "Principles to be applied in exercise of powers under this Act" subsection (1)(b)(vi)(D) it makes reference to "cultural identity". The principle of "whānau first" has been removed from this. I would have thought that that was a key principle that should have been retained in this legislation. Doing away with that tells me that this Government does not care about the diversity within our communities.If my youngest son were to be removed from me my greatest fear is that that young son of mine would be raised by another family that does not share my spiritual values that does not share my language values and that does not share my genealogical values. When it comes to Samoa we speak different languages to Māori and other members of the Pacific community. We also belong to different villages. I would have greater confidence that if a son of mine was to be removed—I would prefer first and foremost that he is given to a brother or sister of mine the immediate family before he is offered to the extended family. If nobody in the extended family is able or willing or meets the certain conditions of the department I would prefer that he is given to the extended family that belongs to the village grouping or the district grouping.There is so much that is missing from this legislation by omitting the differences in culture language and spirituality that it tells me that this legislation is going to reaffirm institutional racism and practices that will then mean these kids get to be treated as if one size fits all. It does not recognise that at 16 many of these young people in a Pacific sense will know how to speak Samoan or speak Tongan will know certain values and will know the roles that they play.Young men—for Samoan o le taule'ale'a. Young women—for Samoan o le tausala o le taupou. Ia malamalama le tamaititi i lona gafa—her genealogy; his genealogy. That will not be able to be shared by that young person if placed in a different family. Again by omitting a vast amount of cultural values in this legislation it tells me that this Government is prepared to dump any of these children with any family. It reminds me of what the Palagis did with the Indians: removing families' children. It reminds me of what the Australian Governments did with the Aborigine children. They are trying to make them into something that they are not and yet the problem that we are trying to resolve here is about keeping children safe. That was always in the previous legislation but I think what has happened here is that much much more has been removed because the Government in my view when it does these sorts of things is looking at a shortcut. It is looking at throwing up lines that might seduce some people because it is election year.But I say again this is one matter—this is one issue—where it would be to the benefit of this Government and the benefit of this country if we just worked to try to unify and find the common values and the common intelligence of the whole House rather than depending on one Minister's belief.In clause 4 it says "mana tamaiti". Most Pacific Islands believe in the mana of young people—of mana tamaiti. Whilst Māori also believe in that I would say that Pacific needs to be specified. If this Government believes that it is Māori and Pacific kids who are usually in trouble then why is it that we do not specifically mention recognition of the specific and different languages cultures spirituality and genealogy? That is where these kids will find support and grow a sort of sense of who they are. Simply removing them from their first families—from their parents—and placing them anywhere they choose is not going to give those children confidence. It is not going to give those children a better understanding in terms of who they are and their place in this world and certainly in their place in the future of Aotearoa New Zealand."