Sepuloni CarmelJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I too would like to offer my congratulations to the Speaker for ascension into the Chair and to thank the Minister for this type of engagement on the bill because it is incredibly important and I know there are a lot of people who are deeply worried—as am I. I'm not hopeful but it would be a wonderful outcome if I came out at the end of this being reassured.Having read the material and quite a few substantive reports around this for me nothing in this has explained the why this solution?" I would love to hear from the Minister why we've come up with this splitting of complaints and monitoring and advocacy. The reasons behind that seem opaque to me. And why not the implementation of the Waitangi Tribunal's recommendation for a Māori transitional authority that would have inherently had a monitoring role in it and ensured that the Crown started to move towards meeting the obligations towards honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi which we are clearly in breach of as the Waitangi Tribunal ruled and which we have not fixed? They absolutely said there needed to be an agency that was independent of the Crown and all of its departments. That was part of the Waitangi Tribunal ruling and yet we get this which is more of a tinkering with an existing system and actually a removing and shifting of roles from an agency that has a degree of independence from the Crown which seems to me to be going in exactly the wrong direction.I do just want to point to some of the specific points that the Waitangi Tribunal made. They were saying that that body should be established as a priority and given a wide mandate to consider systems improvement both within and outside of the legislative and policy settings of Oranga Tamariki. Surely when we found we were in breach—when we know pēpi tamariki and rangatahi Māori and whānau are suffering extreme harm in our misnamed "care system"—surely that should have been the legislation that came to this House.Even if we weren't going down that path I still don't understand: why not the proposal that was floated in the Beatie report of yes strengthened monitoring—and I think the Minister's right that there is agreement in this House around the need for strengthening monitoring—and the proposal of that being moved back to the Children's Commissioner? So where did the idea come from that said "No let's not do that; let's put this into a departmental agency."? I'd also like to know from the Minister—who's saying she has listened to a lot of stakeholders and is engaged and has had the conversations—if any of those stakeholders asked for just these small changes and said they were fine with the monitor staying as a departmental agency. I have not spoken to one person who is advocating for change on this who has had that position. So I do think if the Government is listening that is an absolutely core point in the opposition—as well as the timing point. I understand the Minister's saying that's not in scope in this part of the debate at the moment but the fact that we are debating it does mean that the timing when everybody said "Please hold off. Don't do this now. Wait until the royal commission. Ensure that those voices and the experiences of people who have"—and there are almost a quarter of a million of those people—"been hurt in our supposed care who are telling us what we need to do to fix the system can be heard." The advice that's informed this bill which we were told links to the royal commission was at such an early stage before those voices had really been heard.That's a first series of questions to the Minister.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'm not going to speak to the review period that's in the bill that will allow us to be able to down the track consider the report that comes from the royal commission because that would be part of Part 3 of this bill. The member has asked some questions around the Treaty provisions. I think that she may have said—correct me if I'm wrong—that the Waitangi Tribunal has ruled that they are not befitting. Now the Waitangi Tribunal has not ruled on this bill—I need to be very clear. The structure of clause 6 with the Treaty-specific obligations woven throughout the bill were developed with stakeholders who wanted to see specific obligations placed on the oversight bodies. Their view was that a broad Treaty clause can be open to interpretation and its meaning can be diluted. The Ombudsman's unique constitutional status as an Officer of Parliament created additional complexity as they are technically not considered to be part of the Crown. However by providing for specific obligations the bill ensures the Ombudsman is also able to demonstrate a practical commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty provisions in this bill were carefully crafted. We're dealing with the Ombudsman who is not part of the Crown; the Children and Young People's Commission who are independent; and then the departmental agency now that has independence written into the bill as well but is a departmental agency. So it's a very different situation in many regards. I will acknowledge the Kāhui Group who advised on the Treaty provisions specific to this particular context. It may be slightly different to what that member has seen before and I understand that. But I will again articulate that the Waitangi Tribunal has not ruled on this bill—as I've said before going through the clause and why we got to that point.Now there are some other things that were raised by the member that actually also come up in other parts of the bill including I think Part 3 where we talk more about the Independent Children's Monitor and the structure and why it was set up. But I will give a brief statement to that despite the fact that the actual structure and wording is in Part 3 and just say that the Beatie report that the member referred to did not propose a perfect solution. It's really important to note that. The current arrangement in monitoring and advocacy being in the same organisation potentially not working has been an issue that has been raised with us throughout this whole process—and the issue around potential tension between advocacy and monitoring. But we are moving outside of Part 1 by discussing this in too great a detail and so I am going to end it there Mr Chair."