Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Having heard that speech I do remember the honourable member Ron Mark when he first came into Parliament reconnecting with his whānau. What a significant time and turning point it was to reflect on the past that you have spoken to in the Committee but also strengthening the future opportunities. But if this bill was right—right in a way that it provided the conditions where children at a younger age could reconnect—then what might that prospect afford? I have gone to a lot of youth justice facilities I have helped a lot of children in care and I too believe that children first" matters but the context matters as well. If this bill was right surely there would be supports around the environment to ensure that those children who are identified as vulnerable can be provided for so that there is not mass fallout.I do not know about any other member of the House but I am but one of this House who has been contacted by many grandparents who for whatever reason have had to take on board—not had to but actually felt a deep responsibility that they must take on board—their grandchildren or their mokopuna from the extended whānau who have fallen through the system likely to be picked up by Child Youth and Family (CYF) and they do not want them to get lost. We have had numerous debates in the House Minister Tolley about the lack of support for grandparents who are in this exact situation. If this bill was right we would be recognising that in order to put children first the context and the environment of their family and their whānau relationships would have to be supported and it is not evident in the bill.I have sat very quietly to listen to some very impassioned speeches. In particular I want to speak to clause 12 and the duties delegated to the chief executive in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and I just ask the Minister if she takes a call to give an explanation. I see in the new "Purposes" section inserted by clause 6 that there is reference to the bill needing to provide "a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi … in the way that is described in this Act:". What are those principles as it relates to the bill? In terms of the delegation of those principles to the chief executive are there sufficient checks and balances to ensure at a high level and at a practical level that those obligations are going to be upheld?Let me explain. I listened to the member for the Māori Party Marama Fox—I almost thought that that member was not sitting around the Government table by the way she spoke but let me say this: but for the fact that the iwi leaders have been arguing for concessions in this bill many of them on the back of a number of initiatives that they have taken off their own bat to enter into this space because they know it matters. It is about early intervention making a long-term impact in this space. In terms of the Treaty obligations and those strategic partnerships it is not a two-way approach. That is why I do support Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) No 332 which was tabled by my colleague Louisa Wall. What it will enable is that as iwi innovate in the space of providing services to support whānau and vulnerable children and whānau in particular they are able to innovate and then transfer some of those learnings into improving practices and relationships with the department.From my reading of Louisa Wall's SOP to clause 12 new section 7AA(2)(c) before subparagraph (i) inserting that new subparagraph (ia)—that is a really useful inclusion to the bill. What it will do is ensure that where innovation exists—and let us face it often innovation exists mostly outside of a Government department—in strategic partnerships where iwi are investing into this particular space they are able to then put enough information evidence and learnings into the way that practices can be improved.So I think that is what the intention of this clause is supposed to do. I am concerned and I remained to be convinced Minister that by delegating Treaty of Waitangi obligations to the chief executive there are not sufficient checks and balances especially in so far as policies are determined because ultimately this is where some of the rub is. If there is a fundamental challenge to Government policy in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi the only avenue that Māori have often to challenge this is to go to the Waitangi Tribunal. Minister I know that that is not certainly the intent of many bits of legislation that come through the House but this is where the difficulty is. It is incoherent in my view in terms of those delegated responsibilities. When policies may be challenged by iwi because they are not upholding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi there is no real remedy for iwi to challenge that and it is almost taking the ministerial role right out of the picture altogether. I am really concerned and as I say I remain to be convinced about this particular delegation.The other thing is that it is unclear is if iwi or Māori organisations are inviting the chief executive to enter into strategic partnerships what is envisaged here. Take for example the fact that much of the funding coming out of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has now gone to Whānau Ora commissioning agencies. They are now superseding the space where once MSD was funding at a community level organisations that were supposed to support whānau and fill in gaps where there were vulnerabilities. If this particular clause is intended to create new strategic partnerships between for example a Whānau Ora commissioning agency and the chief executive what does that mean in small communities that do not have the range of services there that can support vulnerable families? I am talking mainly about small communities—communities that have distances to travel to be able to provide the types of support. If we take one service Family Start and if we take how that then rolls out away from a main city centre into a more sort of semi-rural town or smaller communities you can see some of the difficulties that will emerge. The strategic partnership with iwi will still leave significant gaps in the rest of the community.I am here to say that while predominantly many of the children we are speaking about are Māori there are some who are not as well. So what about the 40 percent who will not be captured by a Whānau Ora commissioning agency and may be in a small and remote community where the community-based essential services that are there to support them are not able to be provided because MSD has transferred all that responsibility to iwi? I think that is again another challenge there.I am concerned in terms of the delegations to the chief executive. It is unclear what the level of accountability of the Minister is in terms of maintaining a higher Treaty obligation. I would really like the Minister to take a call on this and to explain it because it has not been something that we have discussed in the House and it is something where certainly if there remain residual concerns of the iwi leaders that the Māori Party were not able to get across the line this is an area where it would benefit the debate and the Committee and the clarity of the intention of these delegations for the Minister to take a call.Finally I want to come back to many a point that was raised. I never heard people attacking foster whānau. In fact we need to commend those courageous whānau who are putting themselves out there and willing to take children who for whatever reason have nowhere else to go. I have not heard members in this Committee criticise foster whānau. What I have heard is that the lack of support given to foster whānau and also the investment given to increase the number of foster whānau so that we can ensure that children are placed safely.The other thing that I have heard certainly in terms of where iwi are participating in this space is that this is the area where there has been the most intensive investment to increase the number of whānau where whānau-based placements can occur. It is not lip service; it is a real thing but you have to invest in it. You have to walk whānau through the process—what there is to support them and who the networks are within their community. One such initiative happens to be within our iwi.Again I will come back to my last comment to the Māori Party. It is unfortunate that in sitting around the Cabinet table you have not managed to achieve all the gains that were necessary—"