Williams PotoORANGA TAMARIKI AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingHon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister for Children: I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I move that the Oranga Tamariki Bill be now read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh it's the amendment bill.Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Amendment bill—apologies. I move That the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.This Government is committed to ensuring that Aotearoa New Zealand is the best place in the world to be a child. Recently I released Hipokingia ki te Kahu Aroha Hipokingia ki te Katoa the Oranga Tamariki Ministerial Advisory Board's report. I noticed that the system was broken but that this Government was committed to fixing the care and protection system for children and young people. I also know that the people working inside the system were not broken. They care for the children and young people they protect and their work should be truly valued. I have been clear that things need to change at Oranga Tamariki. Some of the changes will be big—fundamental even—and some will be small. Together these changes will add up to a better path for our most at-risk children and young people.The Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill makes a number of changes to the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. By far the most important is to partially repeal the subsequent child provisions. The subsequent child provisions were enacted by the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Vulnerable Children) Amendment Act 2014 and came into force on 30 June 2016. The subsequent child provisions were introduced with the aim of improving the safety of the subsequent child. However the provisions ended up being used in only a small number of cases.In 2019 Oranga Tamariki reviewed the provisions and found they were not promoting the best interests of children. Rather the provisions caused harm particularly for children with an older sibling already in care. This is because the court is required to determine that there is no realistic prospect that an older sibling who has already been removed from the parents' care would be returned to their parents' care a process that results in additional and potentially traumatic court proceedings for that sibling. The provisions also placed social workers in a difficult position. The provisions created conditions for hostility with parents families and whānau and undermined the ability of social workers to work meaningfully with whānau with hapū with iwi and with communities.Moreover as Judge Becroft the previous Children's Commissioner indicated while only a small number of removals were made under the provisions they have likely significantly influenced Oranga Tamariki practice. The commissioner noticed that the provisions including its underlying assumptions about a mother who had already had a child removed may have created a default starting point for Oranga Tamariki assessments for any subsequent baby regardless of whether a parent meets the criteria.The partial repeal will therefore support the new strategic direction for Oranga Tamariki as it will support effective and professional social work practice. Social workers do their best to support our most vulnerable children young people and their families and whānau. The partial repeal will support them to use their skills their experience and their professional knowledge as appropriate in an area of work that requires significant sensitivity and skill.Another issue with the subsequent child provisions is that they have been drawn to damage the relationships Oranga Tamariki holds with families whānau hapū and iwi especially because of the requirement for Family Court oversight. The partial repeal therefore is necessary to ensure that when children come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki the agency can make family- and whānau-centred decisions regarding appropriate next steps and can promote practices that recognise mana tamaiti and the whakapapa of tamariki and rangatahi Māori and the whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau hapū and iwi.The Waitangi Tribunal recently found that the provisions cause prejudice to Māori and will be a continuing breach of the Treaty until they are partially repealed. The partial repeal therefore will support the rebuilding of relationships with Māori and support the broader work needed to empower communities and Māori to help children and their families and whānau in a way that suits them.The bill sets out a partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions as they apply to subsequent children where a parent has had the care of a previous child removed and it has been determined that there is no realistic prospect of return to their parent. The provisions will however be retained where they relate to parents who have been convicted for the death of a child in their care. This reflects the seriousness of those offences.The partial repeal of the subsequent child provision signals the start of a change of direction for Oranga Tamariki. What is really important about the future direction of Oranga Tamariki is that it empowers communities it empowers iwi and it empowers Māori to help their own to help the parents the whānau who live in their communities. We need communities iwi and Māori to support families and whānau so that they can be kind loving caring parents that every child and young person deserves. I want Oranga Tamariki and Oranga Tamariki social workers to be able to gain the trust of families by being able to exercise their own professional judgment and not be hindered by undue or unhelpful processes that impact on their ability to work more closely with families and whānau and with officials from other Government agencies providing support to children.Secondly the bill repeals a data set of information-sharing provision that is now redundant. The provision section 66D of the Act was intended to increase public accountability and transparency in relation to child welfare and protection agencies using information related to a child or young person. At the time the provisions were originally introduced there were concerns about the use of large amounts of data collected by welfare and health agencies about people and their interactions with them. However the provisions placed an additional administrative burden on child welfare and protection agencies without achieving the level of public accountability envisaged.Further child welfare and protection agencies can now access a growing body of knowledge and evidence to assess wellbeing for strategic policy and operational purposes through the integrated data infrastructure. Most importantly alternative safeguards and protections exist for when information is shared. These include the Statistics New Zealand and Privacy Commissioner's principles for safe and effective use of data and analytics as well as the Social Wellbeing Agency's data protection and use policy. These initiatives are less administratively burdensome and allow for safe sharing of information while still ensuring that protections are in place when information is shared. These changes mean that section 66D is no longer needed.Finally the bill makes a number of minor and technical changes to the Act. These changes are part of work to tidy up an Act that is over 30 years old and has been subjected to a number of significant legislative amendments. These technical amendments are aimed at improving clarity addressing omissions and ambiguous language in the Act. This bill is an important step to improve outcomes for children and young people. It signals the change in direction I want Oranga Tamariki to travel to create a better path for our most at-risk children and young people. I wish to acknowledge the work of the former Minister for Children the Hon Tracey Martin who began the work on the partial repeal of subsequent child provisions. I commend the bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Members this debate is interrupted and set down for continuation next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 14 December 2021.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m.