11. Question No. 11—Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based InstitutionsMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based InstitutionsQuestion No. 11—Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions11. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: How many of the 138 recommendations from the Whanaketia report on historical abuse in State care and faith-based institutions will the Government commit to adopting if any?Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Firstly I'd just like to acknowledge all of the survivors of abuse in State care and faith-based care. As I said in the House yesterday their courage in the face of appalling abuse and their determination to bring truth to light about this dark chapter in New Zealand's history is tremendous. And I want to thank the seven survivors of Lake Alice that I spent time with last night for their bravery and vulnerability in sharing their stories with me. It's clear from our conversations that torture that happened to them at Lake Alice has caused lifelong harm from which they can never fully recover. This Government has already adopted recommendation 2—that the Prime Minister will give a national apology for abuse and neglect in State care in the House of Representatives. That apology will take place on Tuesday 12 November. We've also adopted recommendation 113—that the Government publicise and disseminate this report as widely as possible. Of the remaining 136 recommendations 11 relate to redress 100 relate to wider matters for the Government and 25 relate to faith-based institutions. As recommended by the commission we are prioritising working through the recommendations around redress at pace and expect to have more to say on this in November. Work on recommendations about significant organisational change and legislation will progress in 2025. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree with the report's findings that depriving tamariki Māori of their 'hakapapa was a significant source of harm and trauma which has led to much larger social problems such as declining health higher rates of incarceration family harm unemployment homelessness mental distress and substance harm and reduced educational opportunities"? That's a bunch; that's a whole lot.Hon ERICA STANFORD: Point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question is around the recommendations of the report; the member's question is relating to the findings of the report—two completely different things and I don't believe it's in scope.Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order?Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Yes. Sorry your response was that you thought it was too far apart. I can't see how much—well I don't agree that it's that far apart Mr Speaker. I think it's close enough. I think the issue is poignant enough. I think it is palpable in the House and therefore I think deserves at least a go at it. Thank you Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well look the "near enough is good enough" argument is probably not all that strong. But I think the Minister might make some response to the general thrust of the question as it relates to the report. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.SPEAKER: A new point of order?Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes it is a new point of order. Thank you e te Pika. The point of order is that the findings and the recommendations in Te Ao Māori are one and the same as are those who are the survivors and the community of survivors.SPEAKER: Well that's a piece of information not necessarily a point of order that this is a matter that should be taken seriously by the House. The Minister may respond.Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker could I ask the member to repeat her question?Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Yes happy to. Does she agree with the report's findings that depriving tamariki Māori of their 'hakapapa was a significant source of harm and trauma which has "led to much larger social problems such as declining health higher rates of incarceration family harm unemployment homelessness mental distress and substance harm and reduced educational opportunities"? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker I will as per your ruling answer the question. Of course many times the many stories that I read in the royal commission's report related to children who were taken from their families and their whānau and had that relationship severed. And for many of them they never had that reconnection. So of course it is a significant source of harm for many tamariki Māori and any other child that was taken into care.Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How then does she reconcile the repeal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act with the recommendations of this report—for example recommendation 39 on the need to empower whānau hapū iwi and Māori to care for our tamariki in accordance with our tikanga or recommendation 126 which calls on the State to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by allowing tangata whenua to design our solutions in State care?Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker I'm going to answer the second part of that question—Laura Trask: Point of order. I think as referred to earlier this is out of scope from the original question to discuss 7AA.SPEAKER: With due respect I decide what's in scope or not. It is in scope. It relates to two recommendations inside the royal commission's report or can be related to those. I think the Minister is well capable of answering that particular question.Hon ERICA STANFORD: I'm happy to answer the second question the member put around the Treaty of Waitangi and the answer to that question is that we will be considering all of the recommendations in the report in due course in the context of the entire report which I have read and many of my other Ministers have read. The second part of the question was about the Treaty of Waitangi and that particular recommendation and my answer is that we will consider all of the recommendations in due course.Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will she then consider scrapping the Oranga Tamariki repeal of section 7AA amendment bill given that it contradicts the majority of the inquiry's recommendations? And can I also just acknowledge Mr Speaker and mihi to the Minister for "though near is not enough" type of—and I understand that too but just to mihi to her for actually just taking the question and doing the best to respond. Tēnā rā hoki koe tēnā tātou. [Thanks to you in particular greetings to us all.]SPEAKER: Well that's very good of you but the last question you asked is not in her responsibility. Do you have another question?Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I think this is highlighting the reason why the Minister raised a point of order initially in terms of the question being very tight in regards to the recommendations from the report. It is a sensitive issue and when you ask a specific question that does have an impact as to what flow-on supplementary questions can be asked. I think the Minister has been generous but I do think actually we are needing to have specific questions that flow from the primary question which we haven't been getting.SPEAKER: Well thank you for your assertion and your opinion. You're wrong. Where a primary leads into other questions or as a result of what might have been said by a Minister it does become open for the House to discuss.Hon ERICA STANFORD: Speaking to the point of order—SPEAKER: No I'm ruling. You might have a new point of order but at the moment I'm ruling that so far we have been totally in scope. I've just ruled one question out of scope.Hon ERICA STANFORD: Point of order Mr Speaker. I think that the second question that came was out of scope. It was about a finding not a recommendation. You requested that I answer the question in good faith but my point of order at that point was that it was not in scope because it was not relating to a recommendation.SPEAKER: Are you going back over old ground?Hon ERICA STANFORD: No it's a new point of order.SPEAKER: But is it on a past ruling?Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker I answered that question which has now led to opening up a whole lot of other areas that are out of scope but the second question wasn't in scope which has now put me in a position where all of these questions flowing from that are out of scope.SPEAKER: Well with respect you've had two questions since then.Simon Court: Point of order.SPEAKER: I've just ruled the next one out. So I won't be taking any more discussion on this matter thank you Mr Court.Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: No further questions; thank you Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Thank you very much. We'll move to question No. 12 in the name of Arena Williams."