Latest news with #MaureenPugh
RNZ News
a day ago
- Business
- RNZ News
MP Maureen Pugh pitches one-stop-shop for mining consents
MP Maureen Pugh wants a local fast-track system to speed up consent processing times. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone West Coast Tasman MP Maureen Pugh has weighed into the campaign to improve waiting times for miners needing resource consents and other permits. Pugh has suggested a local "mini-version" of the government's fast-track system to speed up consent processing times. Resources Minister Shane Jones gave the West Coast Regional Council a strong serve last week, after it closed down a gold mine site that had waited 17-months for a consent. The council also faced criticised from Cr Brett Cummings, a gold miner himself, whose company had been left waiting six months for consent. Pugh says the Minister is justifiably frustrated at the holdups. "This has been going on for far too long. There are guys that have their mining permits and they're paying up to $20,000 a year to NZ Petroleum and Minerals for the right to mine but they can't even get onto the land because the council hasn't sorted their resource consent or DOC hasn't processed their concession." By comparison, a large-scale miner she knew was able to gain approval to mine in New South Wales in Australia within six weeks, she said. "He's got another one in New Guinea - that took twelve weeks," she said. "[He has] one application active in New Zealand and he's been waiting for two years and he still doesn't know how it's going to go. "The delays are not new but they've just got worse and worse, at a time when we desperately need to grow the economy. It's not how to do business well." In her former career as Westland mayor, Mrs Pugh said she had tried to speed up the bureaucracy by delegating district council land-use consents to the Regional Council to process. "I believe that what we need now is a local fast-track system. A mini-version of the government's one-stop-shop, with one office in the region where every agency involved in a mining application is co-located, and has a staffer. All of these permits should be happening concurrently." Pugh said she had proposed her idea to the Minister (Shane Jones) and he was interested in progressing it. "We've simply got to find a new way of doing this and we can't go on having consultants in the North Island dealing with alluvial goldmining consents down here. "They know nothing about the West Coast so of course they're risk averse about everything and their reports reflect that, and there's the constant for further information and they keep sending applications back and asking for more information, and every time their meters are ticking." The miners' continual outgoings were simply paying the wages of bureaucrats and not generating revenue, Pugh said. "It should all be happening concurrently - as it is you're paying to hold your mining license just in case you can overcome all the other. It's enough to make you tear your hair out." The Regional Council is looking at taking on more consents staff and this week began work on new resource consent templates which it says will simplify and speed up the process for alluvial gold miners. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Oranga Tamariki (Repeal Of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Press Release – Hansard Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill Third Reading – 3 April 2025 Sitting date: 3 Apr 2025 ORANGA TAMARIKI (REPEAL OF SECTION 7AA) AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading Debate resumed from 2 April. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is the third reading of the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. When the debate was interrupted, we were up to call number four, which is a National Party call. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of this bill. This bill is aimed to help Oranga Tamariki focus on its primary duties, which is the care and protection of young people, making sure they are safe from harm. The key point, probably, I would make at the outset of this is that, ideally, the Government would have no role in raising children or taking care of children. But we want children to be in the care and protection of their own families, their own whānau, and their own communities. But, unfortunately, we live in a country where that is not always the case. And— Ricardo Menéndez March: Then why are you cutting funding for front-line organisations? JOSEPH MOONEY: Pardon? We live in a country where that is unfortunately not the case, and there are young people who are not cared for by their families and they are not cared for by their communities. And there is a backstop where the State has to, unfortunately, step in and take care of those children. That is the role that Oranga Tamariki does in very trying circumstances and in a very fraught and difficult area, but it's one that must be done because, at the end of the day, a society that doesn't take care of its children is no society at all. Every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their individual needs, with their safety and wellbeing put first before any other considerations. This is designed to ensure that Oranga Tamariki is entirely child-centric and is making decisions that ensure a child's wellbeing and best interests and that there's no confusion about that. Some concerns were raised about this. I'm going to address those briefly. The biggest concern raised in submissions at the select committee were about the removal of our strategic partnerships in statute as part of the repeal of section 7AA, and there was also a key concern raised by the Waitangi Tribunal when they did an urgent report on this bill. I want to make it clear that the Minister had made it clear throughout, including at the outset, that the strategic partnerships framework would continue with those iwi and Māori organisations that wish to do so. There would be no change to the existing relationship that existed under the legislation and that, if any other wanted to take that opportunity up, they could do so. However, the select committee listened to the concerns that it wasn't going to be encoded in statute and recommended that, in the repeal, that aspect of it be retained. The Minister agreed with that recommendation, and the bill we have before us today incorporates and retains that strategic partnership in the statute to address that concern that was raised by the Waitangi Tribunal and that was raised by submitters. I have to say there was a little bit of disappointing politicking from the Opposition, who voted against retaining that at select committee. They have the opportunity to support the bill, now, but I don't anticipate that they're going to do so, given the things they've been saying, which, unfortunately, haven't been based on fact. I'll just read a little bit of some of the provisions that are incorporated now in the retention of the strategic partnerships for the record. So it includes provisions such as '[providing] opportunities to, and invite innovative proposals from, those organisations to improve outcomes for Māori children, young persons, and their whānau who come to the attention of the department: (ii) set expectations and targets to improve outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department: (iii) enable the robust, regular, and genuine exchange of information between the department and those [iwi and other Māori] organisations:'. I was surprised that the Opposition would be opposed to that. Isn't this what it is all about? This is literally what it's all about. Rawiri Waititi: We should have left it alone. JOSEPH MOONEY: The other thing that has been—well, Rawiri Waititi said, 'We should have left this alone.'. The point here is that the strategic partnerships are being retained and are being kept, and it would be helpful, I think, if the Opposition were clear in their communications that this is something they support. The other thing that's been raised as a concern is a change in the reporting requirements. That was in section 7AA, but I'm going to go through the reporting mechanisms that Oranga Tamariki is subject to. And, actually, if you go through it, there are seven different reports. I'm just going to list those now. The Oranga Tamariki prepares and releases a range of regular reports including: (1), an annual report, which means their performance against standards agreed as part of their annual appropriations; (2), a quarterly report, which gives an overview of the progress Oranga Tamariki is making to talk towards its strategic direction—the report provides measures against the Oranga Tamariki outcomes framework and appropriations, which, among other matters, sets out how the agency is making a difference for children and young people, tamariki and rangatahi Māori, and their families and whānau—(3), safety of children in care annual report, which reviews and measures the findings of harm for tamariki and rangatahi in care; and (4), under section 44(8)(b) of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, the Minister for Children is required to report to Parliament every three years on whether existing legislation, Government policy, and other accountability documents are meeting the needs of children and young people, particularly tamariki and rangitahi Māori. In addition to those four reports, the Independent Children's Monitor is required to report on outcomes for Māori children, young people, and their whānau. So I'll go through those. The first report is that, at least once every three years, a state of the Oranga Tamariki system report must include an assessment of outcomes being achieved for Māori children and young people and their whānau. Secondly, there must be an annual report on compliance with national care standards regulations, which must include specific information relating to the level and degree of compliance with national care standards regulations for Māori children and young people and the impact of this on Māori children and young people and their whānau. Third, there must be an annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau, which must include an assessment of outcomes being achieved by the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki for Māori children and young people and their whānau and the impact of measures taken by the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki in improving outcomes for those Māori children and young people who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. In addition, the report must assess the extent to which practices within the Oranga Tamariki system have regard to mana tamaiti and the whakapapa of our Māori children and young people and the whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū, and iwi and the strategic partnerships Oranga Tamariki has with iwi and Māori organisations. And there is an availability matter for the Independent Children's Monitor to require information from the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki, to which the chief executive must respond. I think it's worth, also, just mentioning section 4 of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which did not change, has not changed, and will not change and includes provisions such as 'The purposes of the [Oranga Tamariki] Act are to promote the well-being of children, young persons, and their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups by—(a) establishing, promoting, or co-ordinating services that—(i) are designed to affirm mana tamaiti (tamariki), are centred on children's and young persons' rights, promote their best interests, advance their well-being, address their needs, and provide for their participation in decision making that affects them: … (iii) are culturally appropriate and competently provided: … (c) assisting families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups' at the earliest opportunity—[ Interruption ] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! It's getting a bit noisy and too often. JOSEPH MOONEY: So I'll go on. Section 4, which sets out the purposes of the Oranga Tamariki Act so that it must assist 'families and whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups, at the earliest opportunity, to fulfil their responsibility to meet the needs of their children and young persons (including their developmental needs, and the need for a safe, stable, and loving home): … (g) recognising mana tamaiti (tamariki), whakapapa, and the practice of whanaungatanga for children and young persons who come to the attention of the department: (h) maintaining and strengthening the relationship between children and young persons who come to the attention of the department and their—(i) family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group; and (ii) siblings:' and 'promotes their … best interests and acknowledges their needs;'. This is a sound, robust set of responsibilities that are encoded in legislation that that have specifically referred to the importance of whakapapa, the importance of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and the importance of strategic partnerships and Māori organisations. I frankly cannot understand the Opposition opposing this. With that, I commend this bill to the House. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. It's a Government bill—part of the National-ACT coalition agreement—which New Zealand First will support. Now, as per the general policy statement, the intent of the bill is to enable Oranga Tamariki to renew its focus and to focus on the safety of the child above all other considerations. The Government is concerned that the introduction of section 7AA has led Oranga Tamariki to prioritise cultural factors over the safety and stability of children; hence, this bill was introduced into the House last year—in May 2024—so we've had about a year of this process. I was on the Social Services and Community Committee. There were a lot of passionate and emotional submissions, and it was quite an emotional time to sit through it—I'm not shy to say that. During the submissions process, there were a number of things which were summarised by the officials, and the themes that they summarised these submissions under were wellbeing and safety, Treaty obligations, evidence, legislation and practice, equality and equity. With those key messages, the focus of putting duty first and the safety and wellness of the child first is what has led to this bill. On behalf of New Zealand First, I will commend it to the House. Tākuta Ferris: Brilliant—two minutes. TANYA UNKOVICH: Yeah—good, eh? MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stand to address the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Culture, Repeal of Custom, Repeal of Safety, and Repeal of Protections and Prosperity) Bill, soon to be lorded over all mokopuna and their whānau by a Government and their spokesperson who knows nothing about Māori culture. Culture not only keeps mokopuna safe; culture enables mokopuna to thrive, to flourish, and to grow and into fully expressed indigenous Māori individuals, exactly like the thousands that gathered peacefully and powerfully on the steps of Parliament to remind us that they are here and they are not going away. In August of 1840, just seven months after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our very first tupuna was removed as a baby by colonial hands. The justification of this—listen up, people—to save a Māori baby from the so-called evils of the pā, the evils of our people. This is your and our shared history. This act that has set the tone for generations was at that time summarised by one simple term: uplift—a word coined by the coloniser to mask their statutory act of thievery. That word still stains Māori lives 184 years later—no surprises. The coloniser continues to use it to describe their theft of our children—a term that absolves them of accountability and then allows them to maintain the presumption that Māori are so inferior that we can simply be taken. This repeal affirms exactly that: our children can be uplifted from their whānau without legislative accountability of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki. I'll say the words 'Oranga Tamariki'—because I keep hearing it pronounced so poorly—to ensure these Māori children— Laura McClure: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I don't believe that this is relevant to the bill that's at hand. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That's my call. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Speaking to the point of order—this is my speech—[ Interruption ] Blah, blah. Right. This respect affirms exactly that our children can be uplifted, they can be removed; the legislated accountability of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki can be removed. These Māori children remain within the safety of their Māoritanga, a safety that was recognised under section 7AA. Through the committee of the whole House stage, the Minister for Children volunteered her own story as if that would sanction this outcome. Sadly, all that showed us was how deep internalised racism runs and the harm it can cause. I offer that she do some work to get well. This racist rhetoric—this racist rhetoric—is destructive, unhealed trauma masquerading as care and protection. Clearly, the apology and crocodile tears from the Minister to the survivors of abuse in care— Hon Chris Penk: Point of order. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —was more fake news, and within the same week— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, the Hon Chris Penk. Hon Chris Penk: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the member, but it's a clear breach of Standing Orders, apart from anything else, to imply, or actually suggest in outright terms, crocodile tears and fake news, as though to bring into question the integrity and the honesty of the member the Hon Karen Chhour in bringing forward her policy. And that's before we even consider the offensiveness of a diagnosis on a medical basis— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I understand the point of order. The member is correct, so I'll ask the member to resume but to tone it down, please. Rawiri Waititi: Madam Speaker, every day we hear that coming from the Government, and the Deputy Prime Minister in particular, where he talks about other members having their tongues flapping around in the wind and all of that type of stuff. That has never been pulled up. It's double standards and it's hypocrisy. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We we're going to resume, and we're going to treat each other with respect. Thank you, member. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Clearly, the apology and tears to the survivors of abuse in care is more fake news. Because, at the same time, of course, the same bill— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I just warned the member. We have just been through this. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Oh, I didn't—sorry, Madam Speaker— Hon Member: Point of— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —I didn't name a particular individual. I was just making it a generic statement. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I'm just warning the member, we're getting very close to being disorderly. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: This is nothing more or less than a direct attack and direct assault on our mokopuna and on us all for being Māori. As was stated back in 1840—and here we again in 2025, referring to the evils of our people. I have chosen to take this bill very personally. How could I not? I challenge every Māori in this Whare and every non-Māori—and part Māori, because I've heard that recently—that is responsible to and for mokopuna tamariki Māori, to check your privilege, to check your fragility, to check your white tears, to check your racism, and to check your sexism and misogyny and get some counselling and education and free your mind. This is what happens when you internalise the racism and thank the oppressor for the experience. All that's missing in this bill is a clause saying, 'Thank you, massa.' Te Pāti Māori condemns this bill—[ Interruption ] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! Order! MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —and all its intent. Tēnā tātou. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I think it's far more outrageous that the Government feels so much offence at the truth than the harm that they're causing to our communities out there on the streets who are bearing the brunt of this Government's policies. It's really, really telling that we're seeing a level of outrage here that is not manifested when we are seeing tamariki Māori sleeping on the streets— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt the member. When members are in the House, they are to be seated and not to conduct a separate conversation, apart from the member who is speaking. My apologies to the member—please resume. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: That's OK. I go back to the main issue, which is that I think the Government members tend to feel far more outraged at Opposition members pointing out the truth than, actually, kids sleeping rough on the streets, keeping them stripped away from the communities that they belong to, and the gutting of funding to the prevention services that are actually supposed to help keep kids in their communities and in their families. To me, it's so telling because they have nothing but bumper stickers and vitriol to throw at us, when, instead, they could make an attempt to provide empirical evidence for why we need the repeal of section 7AA, something that has not been able to be produced by the Minister in charge of this bill, despite calls from the Opposition and from submitters for the Minister to front up with her so-called evidence to justify this bill. This bill is nothing but a dog whistle that aims to attack tamariki Māori and to not pay attention to the bridge that has been created by the Crown that has led to so many tamariki Māori being split from and detached from the communities that they belong to. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] We have a responsibility to stand against the attacks against Māori from this Government. We are here by virtue of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We have a responsibility to fight back against policies such as this one, that do not serve and do not recognise the history of this country. Joseph Mooney: Then why did you vote against the strategic partnerships? Why did you vote against it. Oh, is the Green Party against strategic partnerships? RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I keep hearing the Government member to my left, Joseph Mooney, talking about strategic partnerships. But at the same time, if this Government cared so much about strategic partnerships, they wouldn't be gutting funding for these very same strategic partnerships. It is absolutely distasteful for the member on my left to be talking about the very same thing they're undermining. They're undermining provisional services, they're undermining State housing, the very same thing that can help keep a family together if they have been in hardship. They're undermining benefit increases, the very same thing that gives families a livelihood and allows them to stay in a safe and stable home—things that have been spoken to us about by survivors of abuse in State care. These members just seem to have the report on their bedside table and not give a damn about it, or read it and simply ignore it. Because the things that this piece of legislation is doing is actually a disservice to the very same voices who came to our select committee and presented to the inquiries that led to reports that paint a harrowing picture of the realities that tamariki Māori have faced under our care system, that is supposed to keep them safe. This repeal of section 7AA, all it will do is invisibilise the very same gap that exists between Māori and the rest of us in the care system that is supposed to keep them safe. Joseph Mooney: That's completely wrong. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It's absolutely right. I'd like for the member to my left to try and take a call, and I'd be happy to yield my time if the member was able to actually produce any evidence in relationship to this bill, because all that we have heard is rhetorical commentary that does not justify this bill. And I think, to me, it says a lot when the Government members are so happy to brush sides with the likes of Hobson's Pledge, to the likes of campaigners who have been running a strident anti-Māori campaign—it says a lot that they're now pushing ahead with anti-Māori legislation that is not based on evidence, when, actually, their so-called anecdotal evidence that the Minister produced is not even in relationship to section 7AA. It's disgusting that we have a Government that, rather than address things like homelessness, rather than addressing things like income support—all the things that keep people in their communities—they're wasting our time in the House to repeal a piece of legislation that helps address the gap between Māori and the rest of us. This is a Government that cares nothing about inequities, nothing about outcomes, because even if they say they do, members of the public can see the papers that this Government produces, when it comes to their budget, when it comes to the figures that they're putting in and the support that they're giving to organisations. And it is the organisations on the ground that are calling out for help because they're having to close when there's no other option available—they're the very organisations that keep our tamariki safe. I am not going to buy the rhetoric from the Government's members, who are claiming that they actually care for tamariki Māori to be safe, when they're underfunding and under-resourcing the organisations that are supposed to do so. This bill is a disservice to the very same people doing the most to help our communities, and the Government is not on their side. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Madam Speaker, thank you. The children that we are speaking about in this debate in this House this afternoon are children who have had to be brought into the care of Government because of the dire situation that they faced where they were. They are victims themselves, and suffered trauma in the environments where they have been. Children start off their lives with their families, and in the spaces where they live, they have had to be removed and put into the care of Government. It is sad that we speak so many words and we can say we are disgusted and we can play a lot of blaming each other across the House, but the fact remains that these children have had to be taken into the care of Government. The Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill seeks to improve the service that the Government provides in this very difficult situation for all children that come into Government's care. The repeal does take away section 7AA. However, the cultural considerations which are the focus of section 7AA, the methodology for maintaining the respect for cultural considerations in 7AA, have been retained in the Act. The bill does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from continuing and developing these relationships that they have already had and want to have with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. The object of that is clear: to make sure that the children get to stay connected with the greater family that they may be connected to. That is not repealed. The Independent Children's Monitor will have the opportunity to check on that and report on that. The reporting duties of the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki remain. It had gone through select committee consideration, and, by majority, the decision was to retain the requirement of the chief executive to report. The object of all of this is to protect the children who are already victims and who are already traumatised. We want them not to be continually victimised by the politics of the appearance of this situation. I commend this bill to the House. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am really saddened to talk about this kaupapa. I regard it as one of the saddest bills that this Government has ever put through—this repeal of section 7AA. I want to mihi, though, to our lead, Willow-Jean Prime, who has done a great job, and also some of the kōrero that has come Te Pāti Māori and the Greens, who give the right view in terms of identity, because that's what people are talking about here: the loss of identity. The great civil rights activist Maya Angelou once said, 'There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.' That's what survivors talk about—they talk about culture and being lost and not knowing the language. They look at people like Peeni Henare over here, 'Doc' Ferris over there, and they see beautiful Māori language speakers, people who are well in tune with their culture, and there's something missing in them. There is something that they crave for. That was the genesis of this kaupapa. Survivors talk about their kuia passing and the refusal of caregivers to allow them to attend tangi. The inability to connect with other siblings because their caregivers wanted their privacy. And the perpetual questions in their mind were: 'What is their name?', 'What is their mārae?', 'What is their hapū?', and 'What is their iwi?' This is what has driven this kaupapa from the start. This is what, I suppose, has driven te ao Māori into, at times, hysteria—because we have seen survivors sacrificed, in terms of Government legislation. In 1986, we even had Pūao-te-Āta-tū, which was a ministerial advisory group led by the great John Rangihau, talk about this—talk about this—and plead with Government that there had to be a different way, in terms of treating our culture, in terms of treating kids. They said: 'The Maori child is not to be viewed in isolation, or even as part of nuclear family, but as a member of a wider kin group or hapu community that has traditionally exercised responsibility for the child's care and placement.' It was incredible work by the group, led by, as I said, the great John Rangihau, my uncle Tamati Reedy, my other whanaunga uncle Neville Baker, and my wife's relation Donna Hall, who all talked about why things had to change in terms of the system, and why babies had to be placed in the right families. I want to say to the Minister over there—Karen Chhour—I respect what happened to her, in terms of her upbringing. She brings her experiences to the table. I do respect that, Minister, in terms of what you have revealed—I'm not here to mock you today. But I am here to ask you to listen to what te ao Māori have been saying. The Minister has had some excellent advice, but it's hard to sort of work outside her own experience, which was not a fortunate experience at all. I hear her. I've heard her tears. I've watched her cry with regards to this kaupapa. I am, as I said, not here to mock you, Minister—I'm asking you to listen to what our people have said. Great people like Rangihau. Great people like Naida Glavish— Laura McClure: I think she did listen. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I wish that member would just shush for a minute. Great people like June Mariu; my mother, June Jackson; the great Titewhai Harawira. These were incredibly important people who said—and this Minister has had this advice—that we had to tie our babies back towards their whakapapa. I want to say to the House, 25 years ago, I was probably of the same view as the Minister—I was probably of the same view as the Minister—that first and foremost we had to make these babies safe. That is still my view—absolutely. There are a number of us who had not seen the research, who had not seen what our experts were saying in terms of the importance of whakapapa, the importance of te reo. We hadn't seen that. When we saw that, we all came in behind. So I want to mihi to those kuia who that woman over there rubbishes—and rubbishes me. I'm trying to put on the table today how important this is to Māori. Why we had the June Marius, the Naida Glaviches, the Titewhai Harawiras, and the June Jacksons say that you had to tie these babies back—back to their whakapapa—so they're not lost, so they do not become statistics in terms of the nation. And I ask that Minister to not just bring her anecdotal stuff forward, which was incredibly important to her but is not in line with what te ao Māori is saying. That was recognised by the National Party and by the Māori Party, which was a kaupapa driven by Whaea Tariana Turia and accepted by the National Party— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Back to the bill? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is all part of the bill, Madam Speaker. Because this is what is being repealed. This is what is being repealed: an agreement between Te Pāti Māori and National Party that talked about the importance of whakapapa and identity, all repealed because of the ignorance of this Government—all repealed. The fear in our communities is that we could go back to where we were. The statistics show us that that once these babies are tied back to their marae, they're tied back to their whānau, tied back to their identity, they have a much better future and better opportunity. We all oppose this bill on this side of the House because of the risk of harm, the breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the lack of evidence for repeal, a breach of children's rights, and the removal of the objective of reducing disparities and reporting on efforts to do so. The Waitangi Tribunal was absolutely clear that this was a breach of the Treaty and it posed serious harm to Māori tamariki. Repeal will destroy the trust that is being restored through partnerships based on Te Tiriti and undermine the ability for the Crown to continue to repair and improve relationships— Joseph Mooney: And the partnerships are in the bill. Try reading the bill, maybe—it might help. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I'm not sure what the other side understands here. But we know that the ACT Party has no respect for the Tribunal and has no respect in terms of te ao Māori. But it has been clearly outlined by our people this is a breach of tikanga Māori—[ Interruption ] Sit down, you fool. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! That was unnecessary, Mr Jackson. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Madam Speaker, I'm getting sick of these clowns on the other side. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): You will withdraw and apologise. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: An apology is going to be tough, Madam Speaker, but I'll do that for you. I withdraw and apologise. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, it was quite clear in that instance, whilst I make no comment on your ruling then, that a member was interjecting whilst they weren't in their seat, which is clearly against Speakers' Rulings. If you are going to pull members up, quite rightly, for making commentary in response to that, you probably should have pulled the other member up for doing that. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Understood. I did not see the member standing, and my apologies for that, but I did hear a direct inference to an individual, which is different. Simon Court: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I don't think there's any need to, Mr Court. Simon Court: Well, Madam Speaker, if I may, the member has made the assertion that I was on my feet while interjecting. I was— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): There's no need to continue, thank you. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I'll go back to the Tribunal and the clear breaches in terms of this kaupapa—article 2, tino rangatiratanga. They've made it very clear it's an absolute breach of the Treaty. In terms of where we go, we're about to see a real change in terms of what's happening in terms of te ao Māori. Solutions to deep problems have been worked out between State departments and the Māori population. They've failed to serve by resourcing community groups to step up and solve these problems for themselves. Section 7AA obliged Oranga Tamariki to work with those community iwi, and removing it allows the State to seek the cheapest option. Now, I know they're saying that it's still there. It is still there— Joseph Mooney: It's still there, Willie. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It is still there, Joseph, but it's not a priority anymore—it's not a priority anymore. There are other options. And that's the worry, I think, from so many of our people and so many of our community: that the Government has taken away the Māori priority and the Māori option. So I implore the Minister to continue with those relationships with iwi, to continue with those relationships with Māori organisations, and to reflect on what's happened with this, because it has so upset the Māori nation, te iwi Māori, Māori organisations. They don't know where they're going now. They don't know what the Government is going to do next, because something that has been thought about since 1986—that was put in by a National Party – Māori Party coalition Government—is now being removed. That was something significant that even people like John Key, Bill English, and Anne Tolley saw as incredibly significant. It's a sad day for this Government and for this country, to see something so important be removed, and I ask that Minister to reflect on what she's done. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I think we've heard a lot of different speeches from different parties. Obviously, none of us agree with each other, but I think there's one thing we all agree on across the whole House: we are here to fight for the best interests of our children—for our children in care. For me, as an immigrant, I understand that cultural identity is very important. I also want my daughter to learn Chinese as well, to get her to understand my culture as well. But I need to think about it: what is the most important thing for my daughter? I think it's love and care. I think this is the love and care I received when I first came to this county, and I received it from different backgrounds of people—people with different ethnic backgrounds. I think love and care is what every single child needs. We are talking about the best interests for children. I think love is without borders. It is unfair to label all Māori families that they can't provide love and care to Māori children. I think that is very unfair. So, with love, I commend this bill to the House. GLEN BENNETT (Labour): It's with rage that I rise to my feet this afternoon. In fact, to hear from a Government MP to say that they do this in love, I cannot fathom that—I cannot fathom that. This piece of legislation is not loving. This piece of legislation causes anger, causes strife, and causes more division. Carl Bates: Stop scaremongering. GLEN BENNETT: From across the floor, I hear that this is scaremongering. This is not scaremongering. It's like—what is it?—spare the rod, spoil the child. It's just outrageous that people would say this is something loving we're doing on behalf of this Government for Māori whānau throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. That is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. I think and I listen as I've participated over recent days on this piece of legislation. I think of the First Nations activist from North America, bell hooks, who sadly passed away. She said, 'Love is profoundly political.'—Love is profoundly political—'Our deepest revolution will come when we understand this truth.' Love is profoundly political. To be political today and to show love is to stand up, to cross the floor, and to reject this piece of legislation. I challenge the member Dr Carlos Cheung, if he believes in love—as he just said—then he will cross the floor and vote with this side of the House to be political and to show love. Because this legislation is not loving. I find it fascinating as we hear the Government talk and speak on their laser focus on the cost of living; their laser focus on getting tough on crime. And what have we had in the House this week? We've had the repeal of the Plain Language Act and we had this, the repeal of section 7AA. To me, is this laser-focused on the cost of living? No, it is not. All legislation in this House has to be debated within the context of the legislation in front of us. But we also always need to look beyond it in terms of what is going on in the context of the timing; the context of what is going on in our society. That's why we have to consider the fact of the royal commission and the survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care. And if you read those 138, I think it is, recommendations—if you do nothing else, I challenge and ask people to read the whole of the document. But if you can't, that's fine. Read the 138 recommendations and what they say. Time after time you'll see in terms of cultural capacity, cultural understanding. We need to look at this piece of legislation with what else is going on, and that is one of them. Within that, I think it was recommendation 2, that was for the Prime Minister to make an official apology—and, thank you, he did. Part of that—and I was looking it up earlier—recommendation was the apology should acknowledge all survivors with specific mention of Māori survivors and their whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. It goes on to say—and that's why the context is important as we debate this this afternoon—that it emphasises the need for culturally responsive care systems that recognise and incorporate Māori perspectives and practices. Now, this piece of legislation is taking away a tool from the toolbox. And I think and believe if we are looking at our most vulnerable; if we're looking at the challenges of those who are on the margins; if we're looking at the fact of our tamariki, our rangatahi, we need to consider every single tool we have in the toolbox to ensure their care, their protection, and their wellbeing. And the cultural understanding, a cultural lens, is key to that understanding. People might say, 'Oh, he's just banging on again, doing his old thing.' And yes, I will bang on again and do my old thing. But I know this well because I have been in this space as a caregiver, I have worked for many years and continue to live my life with young people who've been through the State care system. I was there at a time when this was not in legislation. I was there at a time when this wasn't even a factor that we really considered or even paid attention to. And I've seen the effects and implications of that. So this is a terrible day, and I challenge Government MPs to choose love, to cross the floor, and to vote against this bill. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This afternoon, we have heard from across the floor an attempt to say that this is doing something which it is not. The speaker prior to me, Glen Bennett, literally said to be political and cross the floor, because that's what the Opposition is trying to do; they're trying to play politics with our children. This Government wants to put children at the centre of the decision making, and not politics. As a father, as an uncle, and as a community member, I commend this bill to the House. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Madam Speaker, if you'll indulge me, I'll speak Māori in this part. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I want to acknowledge the emotion in this debate and in this topic, and, rightly so, because we are speaking of the most precious taonga and the most precious part of Aotearoa New Zealand, and they are our children, our mokopuna. And I know members right across this House have quoted people like Dame Whina Cooper, who talks about the way that we raise our tamariki, for they will be the future of Aotearoa. I know that many in this House have spoken words, in particular the words of my ancestor Meri Ngāroto, who said: [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It is with those in mind that I heard the passion throughout the longevity of the passing of this bill. I want to acknowledge each and everyone for their perspectives. For my part, in the Opposition and as a proud member of the Labour Party, we stand by our opposition to this bill. We stand by it on the premise that was led by our wahine toa, Willow-Jean Prime, who made it clear and continued to come back to the evidence justifying why we continue to oppose this particular bill. I said in Māori that as a father and as a grandfather and as a matua who proudly calls himself a Ngā Puhi man, each and every one of us must continue to make their commitment in this House that we will protect our tamariki and our mokopuna regardless—regardless of what happens in this House and outside of the walls of this House. It's hard not to get so emotional. And if I'm honest with you, Madam Speaker, I've only ever cried one other time in this House. But this is one of those times where it feels like, you know, the dam might just break out of frustration, out of love, out of care, out of an acknowledgment that for much of the voice and debate in this House on this bill, I couldn't help but feel that sometimes our children's voices weren't being heard simply over the voices of adults in this Parliament. So I want to bring our attention back to that, that our tamariki and our mokopuna must continue to be at the forefront of everything that we do, not just this bill but every bill, because it impacts them and their future. In this, the third, reading of this bill, we've heard the evidence that's been presented to the Waitangi Tribunal, we heard the evidence that was presented to the select committee, and I want to remind New Zealanders that this particular bill can't be seen in isolation from the royal inquiry—and my colleague Mr Bennett and other colleagues from the House have referenced that inquiry—into the abuse that took place in State care. That is part of the platform of the opposition to this particular bill, because of what happened to so many tamariki, Māori and Pākehā, right across the country. We all sat in here and we heard at the release of the report the speeches made. That's the same emotion I feel today. It was the same emotion I felt on that same day. This can't be seen in isolation. And it's with that institutional memory of a whole generation that have been treated the way they had been treated is what continues to inform our debate on this particular matter and of course, our opposition. I'm proud to stand alongside members of the Opposition here today to continue to oppose this bill. I've heard members from the Government benches say that parts of it are still in the bill and there's still scope here for strategic partnership. I'm not going to relitigate those matters, but I will say this. For every kaimahi out there, whether you work for an iwi organisation, a community organisation, we say, 'Kia kaha. We thank you for your mahi. We're here to continue to support you in your important mahi in our communities.' And we say to each and every one of our tamariki who need these services, firstly, an apology—an apology because we can do better. And when I say 'we', not just the members in this House, but our communities can do better, can do better by our tamariki. So I know this debate has got heated, and I hope that in my contribution, the last from the Opposition benches on this matter through the third reading of this bill, that I took the opportunity to remind my colleagues, all colleagues around this House, of the importance and the passion that we all express around this bill, and bring us back in my final two minutes to the importance of our tamariki. When I grew up, I was fortunate—and the Hon Willie Jackson made mention of it—to have had the cultural connection to my people, to my family, and to my language. As the first kohanga reo baby to become a member of Parliament and as the first kohanga reo baby to become a member of the executive, I carry that burden of the privilege that I was honoured to have. There's a song that reminds me of my upbringing, an upbringing that I enjoyed and loved in the caring arms of an entire family and community. And the song goes like this: [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It's a beautiful waiata. It's simple. It speaks of saying that despite my child and my mokopuna being playful, cheeky, I ask that you never lay a hand in anger on our mokopuna. That's the same plea I leave on the floor of the House here today for reflection for all members across the House, but more importantly for Aotearoa. We oppose this bill. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would just like to acknowledge that this bill has been a very emotive one, and I understand that, because it is about our most vulnerable—it's about our children. And as a parent and a father myself, the safety of a child in need should always be the priority. This bill will help Oranga Tamariki focus on its primary duties, which is the care and protection of those who are vulnerable, making sure they are safe from harm because every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their needs, and their safety and wellbeing put first before any other consideration. And this bill does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from retaining its current strategic partnerships or from entering into new partnerships with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. I commend this bill. New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Health
- Scoop
Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading
Press Release – Hansard Medicines Amendment Bill First Reading – 8 April 2025 Sitting date: 8 Apr 2025 MEDICINES AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Medicines Amendment Bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move the bill be reported to the House four months and one day after it has received its first reading. The purpose of the bill is to help more Kiwis to be able to access the medicines they need to live a fulfilling life. The bill contains two main parts: one is a verification pathway, and the second is a number of changes to prescribing rights. Both of these changes are designed to make it easier for New Zealanders to get timely access to medicines so that they can live longer, happier, healthier lives. Both of these initiatives remove red tape and regulation that stop people from doing beneficial things, but that red tape and regulation doesn't actually protect them from any harm. To start with the bill's verification pathway, it will be an expedited alternative to the pathways currently available for pharmaceutical companies seeking consent to market their medicines in New Zealand. It will mean that, if a medicine has already been approved by two recognised overseas regulators, then Medsafe—the Government's agency for consenting medicines to be allowed to be marketed in New Zealand—will not need to carry out its usual full assessment. I want to acknowledge that this idea is one that all three parties—the ACT Party, New Zealand First, and the National Party—all campaigned on in the lead-up to the election, and it is a commitment in the coalition agreements of all three parties. It comes from the fact that, in recent years, many global medicine regulators have adopted what are called 'reliance models' for approving medicines, and these models rely, partially, on an approval and assessment report by another recognised regulatory authority overseas. Now, Medsafe first adopted a reliance pathway 15 years ago and was one of—we're actually one of the first countries to do this. But, in New Zealand, our time frames for medicine approval are still slower than Australia's target. They are far too slow, in fact, for many New Zealanders to receive the medicines that they need. The new verification pathway will mean that any applicants that can demonstrate their products have approval from two recognised overseas regulators can have their products approved for marketing in New Zealand much, much quicker. At the moment, it can take 400 days for a new medicine that's allowed to be used elsewhere—and I'm talking 400 working days, so two years—to be allowed in New Zealand. Under this rule, if it's approved in two other countries, it'll be allowed in New Zealand after only 30 days. I'd just make the point that I think this occurred to many of us during the time of COVID, when so many new treatments, new devices, were being created in order to battle COVID-19 and all its different variants. And oftentimes, things that were available and being used in other countries were not available here. Those of us who were in Opposition at the time would ask the Government, 'Why is it good enough for Australians but not good enough for New Zealanders? Or good enough for Americans or Canadians but not good enough for New Zealanders?' And the answer was, 'Oh, well, Medsafe has to approve it first.' And we asked, 'Why would we wait for Medsafe to prove that the rest of the world got it right?' Because Medsafe has never found something that's been approved overseas and not allowed it to be used here. The facts are— Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Didn't we amend the Medicines Act over urgency when it came to the vaccines? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We've got Ayesha Verrall heckling, saying, 'Oh, we made amendments in the Medicines Act.' Well, that's right, because even the previous Government found it so frustrating to have to do a separate approval when it was approved overseas, and of course, if the previous Government had fixed the problem, we wouldn't be here. In fact, if the previous Government had fixed more problems like this, they might be over here, but they're not; they're over there, because they were hopeless at fixing problems. But that's enough from Ayesha Verrall—she's had a go. She's had her chance. Now, this verification pathway is actually part of the Government's wider work programme to streamline Medsafe's processes, find efficiencies, and speed up the public's access to medicines while maintaining appropriate safety measures and Medsafe's credibility as a trusted regulator, which I think is important. In this case, we have less red tape, more speed, and more access to medicines while maintaining the same level of safety, because we'll be asking ourselves: have any two of Australia, the United States, Japan, Switzerland, Great Britain, Canada, the European Union—you know, if any two of those jurisdictions have approved a medicine, the chances are that they didn't both get it wrong and it's safe to use here within 30 days, and I think that that's a wonderful improvement. We're also going to be making changes to prescribing. This bill will help make medicine processes more efficient by expanding the ability for more types of prescribers to prescribe unapproved medicines for their patients where those are necessary for their care, and I want to acknowledge the role that the former Minister of Health Dr Shane Reti played in this change. Medicines that are unapproved in New Zealand are sometimes necessary for a patient's care as a last resort, and that particularly happens during a shortage, where the thing that's gone through the consenting process in New Zealand, even with the new faster process, may not be available because, often, there are shortages, especially in recent years with supply chain troubles. At the moment, only medical practitioners can prescribe what they call off label: give a different medicine—a substitute—while the usual medicine is unavailable. This bill expands that ability to nurse practitioners. Nurse practitioners have advanced education in clinical training to practice, they can work autonomously, and they're often involved in innovative service provision. It's time to give them a bigger role. Especially in rural and other communities which have difficulties in accessing GP services, nurse practitioners are hugely important—not to mention in aged residential care. Now, nurse practitioners can currently prescribe a range of medicines for their patients, but enabling them to prescribe unapproved medicines within their scope of practice, I think that's appropriate for their patients—in the scope where these are appropriate for the patient's care, it means that the patients can access medicines faster and will not be required to seek a prescription from a medical practitioner. Finally, in further changes to prescribing, the bill goes further and enables all authorised prescribers to prescribe unapproved but funded medicines in situations where there's a supply shortage. For example, in 2020, Pharmac funded an alternative oral contraceptive because there was a supply shortage, and with increasing supply chain issues, as I've mentioned, it's important that we have that flexibility. When there's a supply shortage of approved medicines, Pharmac can fund unapproved medicines as a temporary alternative, and yet not have to go through a consenting process all the while. It means that for patients that may not be able to get a prescription filled when they take it to a pharmacy, they can get another prescription from a GP because the only medicine available is that unapproved alternative. The proposed changes will mean that pharmacists, prescribers, registered midwives, dentists, nurse practitioners, dieticians, and optometrists will be able to prescribe these medicines within their scope of practice, and this is going to save time for patients, doctors, pharmacists, and other health practitioners, and it will improve the continuity of care. All of our authorised prescribers are trained professionals, and this Government wants to make the best use of our health workforce. As I was thinking about this bill coming to the House and the work that's gone into preparing it, I was thinking about the challenge that we face in healthcare. We have an ageing population, we have increasing amounts of medical technology, and we have enormous challenges affording the standards of healthcare that people want. I'm reminded of one of the greatest New Zealanders—that is, Sir Ernest Rutherford—who once said that we didn't have much money, so we had to think, and this is a small contribution to that culture. We don't have much money, so we've got to think. If a medicine is already approved in two other countries, let's make it available to New Zealanders, because we ain't going to find anything that two other advanced countries that are already using the medicine haven't found. Other countries are already relying on each other; we should rely on them, too. If there's a medical shortage and there's a person who is qualified and capable, such as a nurse practitioner, of issuing a prescription of something off label, then let's let them do it, because if you don't have much money, you've got to think. We're going to have to do a lot more of this in healthcare: remove red tape, enable people and empower them, and let them make a bigger difference. If we do all of that, then I think we can overcome the severe challenges that we face in healthcare in this country and across the developed world, and with that, I commend this bill to the House very much. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): It's nice to hear that speech by David Seymour—a man who has many bad ideas, but I'm not convinced this is one of them. At the heart of the issue of medicines regulation lies the issue of patient safety, and it is important to recognise how important it is to New Zealanders that Medsafe and international regulatory organisations focus on that: ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy of our medicines. Medsafe has a rigorous assessment process that protects public health by preventing the entry of unsafe and ineffective medicines to New Zealand. I am not as rosy on the look of the history of medicines regulation as the Associate Minister of Health was. When I look at New Zealand's history and around the world, there certainly are examples where medicines regulators have not got it right. We should never forget that. The example that was important in the early part of my career was formoterol, asthma medication that caused children's death. However, in New Zealand and around the world, there are regulatory bodies that do a good job of assessing the science, the data, and making sure that medicines that are available in markets are safe. Medsafe New Zealand has achieved that, but so have many others around the around the world. For that reason, Labour will support this legislation at its first reading so that these important issues can be considered at select committee. The Minister was right to point out that the verification pathway is the focus of this bill, but also already exists to some extent the ability to use data from overseas medicines regulators—that's section 23 of the current Medicines Act 1981. This bill introduces a new pathway based on recognition of full authorisations from two trusted overseas regulators. It could represent an improvement by reducing the duplication of regulatory effort and potentially speeding up the availability of medicines in New Zealand. Of course, we commit to taking the time in select committee to checking that there are adequate safeguards and particularly mechanisms for Medsafe responding promptly if safety concerns arise overseas. It's important that detailed requirements and conditions attached to medicines approved by this pathway are clearly set out in secondary legislation and regularly reviewed. I'm thrilled by the Minister's enthusiasm for alternative prescribers, including nurse practitioners, but many others. It is a shame that the Therapeutic Products Act is not there to give effect to those, but never mind—we'll move on to the next point. Why are we doing this? The stated benefits of this ares that—and they're well outlined in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), I think it's paragraphs 14 and 16—the proposed changes emerged in the context of discussion around improving access to medicines. That is a very helpful discussion our country has had. The intent behind the verification pathway is to facilitate faster public access to medicines. However, as the RIS notes, the actual impact on medicines availability and access may be limited because, in practice, after Medsafe approval, Pharmac funding is often required for this to be available at scale in our communities. And, of course, this bill doesn't address that. So while it may speed up part of the process and reduce costs for pharmaceutical companies, it may not have a big impact on patients. I guess we won't know until we see how it goes. It's critical that the Government clearly articulates the expected and tangible benefits of these changes, including which patient groups will be benefited. We look forward to having those conversations. One area where we do have concerns is the change of a technical advisory group into one where the appointees are appointed by the Minister of Health. That is an area where we will be focusing our scrutiny in select committee because that appears to create some possibility of conflicts of interest as well. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the Green Party, I rise to speak on this piece of legislation that, strangely, we support as well. We have many things that we have concerns about, but, for this, we do agree that access to medicines is important. When I think about the challenges for Māori in access to vaccinations during COVID and the fact that inequalities did exist and the inequities were there, because we couldn't access the relevant medications. These types of changes will help all of us to benefit as Aotearoa New Zealand. I want to labour the point of support around how we can look at a multidisciplinary approach to the administration of medicines, and having nurse practitioners be able to work at top of scope for the delivery of medicines into community is important. With this legislation, we are looking forward to what the select committee process will bring, as we will be encouraging iwi Māori, Māori providers, and the various stakeholders to bring their voice into the select committee and inform the way which we will move forward as the Health Committee, cautious, as always, in terms of the way that we will look to analyse submissions as they come forward, because we are taking a safety approach in making sure that we do have the relevant safeguards in place. Patient access to medicines is important, but so is looking at the wider health system. We do have current barriers and challenges in the way that we need to take a population-based approach across the entire system. And so while we are looking at medicines in this part of the system, let's look at the entire system and the very deep challenges that we have within Health New Zealand and within primary care and in the way which we deliver secondary care as well. Now, medicines are only one part of that. Accessing medicines in a timely way is important, but if we can pull the ambulance back from the edge or the bottom of the cliff, then we can actually look to improve the lives of all New Zealanders across Aotearoa. Kia ora to my colleague Francisco. I want to recognise the workforce that is coming from overseas to support us in this time of crisis. Our Filipino nurses and those who are clinicians that come from overseas, because those skills that we have from overseas are kaimahi that come to Aotearoa to support us—whether it's in hospitals, primary care, or in aged care as well. Now, when we think about this legislation and safeguards, the Minister does have a lot of power in this space, and our forming of committees just through ministerial appointment also needs to be looked at through the select committee process. But the flexibility to be able to prescribe and to find medicines that have already been approved into other jurisdictions does provide some comfort and safety for us at the stage of the process. We do look forward to hearing from across the board in terms of community and patient voice—those who have been impacted on both the access issues and concerns as families and those who have sought care, but also those who are the prescribers. Can we find, across the workforce, their voice to come forward into the select committee process? Because we want to have regulations that safeguard patient care and also safeguard the workforce and those who are the prescribers to ensure that there are relevant protections in place but also open up access to a broad range of medicines that, maybe, we have not had access to here in Aotearoa New Zealand. On behalf of iwi Māori, we think that we are heavy users in the system of health, whether it's Health NZ services and whether it is out in community healthcare spaces and primary care. And so, of course, we need access to timely medicines that this legislation can bring forth. So, on behalf of the Green Party, we do stand in support and look forward to seeing what we can bring out in the Health Committee process. Kia ora. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. This is a good, pragmatic bill that creates a new verification pathway, a faster option for getting approvals here in New Zealand. We've got two overseas trusted regulators who have approved it. Medsafe will not need to do a full assessment. The decision must be made within 30 days. It meets the promise in the coalition agreements. It'll help New Zealanders get faster access to medicines while keeping safety in place. I commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: I call the Hon Jenny Marcroft. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you for the promotion as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Under-Secretary. JENNY MARCROFT: I appreciate that. The Medicines Amendment Bill: I stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this piece of legislation, and I am very privileged to do so as well. The purpose of this bill is to increase patients' access to medicine. It does this by reducing some of the barriers to access currently that we see in the Medicines Act 1981. We have commitments with our coalition agreements, and it is a pleasure that all this side of the House is in agreement that this is a really vital piece of legislation to make that pathway to wellness so much easier for so many patients in New Zealand. We campaigned for the last two elections on tidying up the processes in Pharmac to make sure that there's increased funding but also that the pathway of procuring medicines and having them approved in this country is much quicker. This verification pathway that comes through this bill: the streamlined approach under which the medicines can be approved for distribution in New Zealand if they've been approved by two recognised overseas jurisdictions. New Zealand First recognises health as a critical and essential investment that reflects how New Zealand values its people. We see this as an investment in our people as opposed to a cost on society. So this bill will actually enable that increase in access to medicines for New Zealanders through that streamlined verification pathway for medicines. Why do we need this? We've had so many stories we've heard over the last number of years of people having to go overseas to get their medicines because they just weren't able to access them here in New Zealand, whether it's go to Australia or Malaysia or various countries around the world; people who have not been able to get well, who may have passed away because the whole process of getting access to modern medicines has not been available for them. This legislation will ensure that health and wellness is at the forefront in being able to access these medicines. Introducing a verification pathway for medicines approval in New Zealand is the purpose of this bill; updating prescribing settings as well to enable wider prescribing, enabling those in the health force workforce to actually work at top of scope. I think that's a very important change that this bill will make as well. Studies have shown that for every dollar spent on modern drugs, $3 to $19 is saved in the health system via things like reduced hospitalisation, so this is very sensible legislation. I'd just like to conclude my contribution with a quote from Malcolm Mulholland, who many in this House will know. He's advocated for patient voice in terms of getting access to medicines, and this is what he has said: 'There can be no greater legacy in politics than improving the health of our citizens.' On that note, I'd like to commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call the Hon—no, not the honourable—Dr Hamish Campbell. Hon Member: Everyone's got a promotion tonight! ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I know; everyone's honourable. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you for the promotion. It is a great honour to stand and speak in support of the Medicines Amendment Bill in this first reading. It's great that we actually have agreement across the House on this piece of legislation, because I think this is just common sense. It creates a new verification pathway for medicines in in New Zealand. We've already traversed that a number of times in the House, but what are we going to find different that these other major countries haven't found? We're often using the same data that the pharmaceutical companies have submitted to the overseas regulators. They're resubmitting it here. It's unlikely that we're going to find any difference. Also it's great to be able to make sure we can empower our healthcare workers to be able to deliver medicines that everyday Kiwis need, so therefore I am happy to commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Debate interrupted.
Scoop
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Oranga Tamariki (Repeal Of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Sitting date: 3 Apr 2025 ORANGA TAMARIKI (REPEAL OF SECTION 7AA) AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading Debate resumed from 2 April. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is the third reading of the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. When the debate was interrupted, we were up to call number four, which is a National Party call. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of this bill. This bill is aimed to help Oranga Tamariki focus on its primary duties, which is the care and protection of young people, making sure they are safe from harm. The key point, probably, I would make at the outset of this is that, ideally, the Government would have no role in raising children or taking care of children. But we want children to be in the care and protection of their own families, their own whānau, and their own communities. But, unfortunately, we live in a country where that is not always the case. And— Ricardo Menéndez March: Then why are you cutting funding for front-line organisations? JOSEPH MOONEY: Pardon? We live in a country where that is unfortunately not the case, and there are young people who are not cared for by their families and they are not cared for by their communities. And there is a backstop where the State has to, unfortunately, step in and take care of those children. That is the role that Oranga Tamariki does in very trying circumstances and in a very fraught and difficult area, but it's one that must be done because, at the end of the day, a society that doesn't take care of its children is no society at all. Every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their individual needs, with their safety and wellbeing put first before any other considerations. This is designed to ensure that Oranga Tamariki is entirely child-centric and is making decisions that ensure a child's wellbeing and best interests and that there's no confusion about that. Some concerns were raised about this. I'm going to address those briefly. The biggest concern raised in submissions at the select committee were about the removal of our strategic partnerships in statute as part of the repeal of section 7AA, and there was also a key concern raised by the Waitangi Tribunal when they did an urgent report on this bill. I want to make it clear that the Minister had made it clear throughout, including at the outset, that the strategic partnerships framework would continue with those iwi and Māori organisations that wish to do so. There would be no change to the existing relationship that existed under the legislation and that, if any other wanted to take that opportunity up, they could do so. However, the select committee listened to the concerns that it wasn't going to be encoded in statute and recommended that, in the repeal, that aspect of it be retained. The Minister agreed with that recommendation, and the bill we have before us today incorporates and retains that strategic partnership in the statute to address that concern that was raised by the Waitangi Tribunal and that was raised by submitters. I have to say there was a little bit of disappointing politicking from the Opposition, who voted against retaining that at select committee. They have the opportunity to support the bill, now, but I don't anticipate that they're going to do so, given the things they've been saying, which, unfortunately, haven't been based on fact. I'll just read a little bit of some of the provisions that are incorporated now in the retention of the strategic partnerships for the record. So it includes provisions such as "[providing] opportunities to, and invite innovative proposals from, those organisations to improve outcomes for Māori children, young persons, and their whānau who come to the attention of the department: (ii) set expectations and targets to improve outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department: (iii) enable the robust, regular, and genuine exchange of information between the department and those [iwi and other Māori] organisations:". I was surprised that the Opposition would be opposed to that. Isn't this what it is all about? This is literally what it's all about. Rawiri Waititi: We should have left it alone. JOSEPH MOONEY: The other thing that has been—well, Rawiri Waititi said, "We should have left this alone.". The point here is that the strategic partnerships are being retained and are being kept, and it would be helpful, I think, if the Opposition were clear in their communications that this is something they support. The other thing that's been raised as a concern is a change in the reporting requirements. That was in section 7AA, but I'm going to go through the reporting mechanisms that Oranga Tamariki is subject to. And, actually, if you go through it, there are seven different reports. I'm just going to list those now. The Oranga Tamariki prepares and releases a range of regular reports including: (1), an annual report, which means their performance against standards agreed as part of their annual appropriations; (2), a quarterly report, which gives an overview of the progress Oranga Tamariki is making to talk towards its strategic direction—the report provides measures against the Oranga Tamariki outcomes framework and appropriations, which, among other matters, sets out how the agency is making a difference for children and young people, tamariki and rangatahi Māori, and their families and whānau—(3), safety of children in care annual report, which reviews and measures the findings of harm for tamariki and rangatahi in care; and (4), under section 44(8)(b) of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, the Minister for Children is required to report to Parliament every three years on whether existing legislation, Government policy, and other accountability documents are meeting the needs of children and young people, particularly tamariki and rangitahi Māori. In addition to those four reports, the Independent Children's Monitor is required to report on outcomes for Māori children, young people, and their whānau. So I'll go through those. The first report is that, at least once every three years, a state of the Oranga Tamariki system report must include an assessment of outcomes being achieved for Māori children and young people and their whānau. Secondly, there must be an annual report on compliance with national care standards regulations, which must include specific information relating to the level and degree of compliance with national care standards regulations for Māori children and young people and the impact of this on Māori children and young people and their whānau. Third, there must be an annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau, which must include an assessment of outcomes being achieved by the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki for Māori children and young people and their whānau and the impact of measures taken by the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki in improving outcomes for those Māori children and young people who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. In addition, the report must assess the extent to which practices within the Oranga Tamariki system have regard to mana tamaiti and the whakapapa of our Māori children and young people and the whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū, and iwi and the strategic partnerships Oranga Tamariki has with iwi and Māori organisations. And there is an availability matter for the Independent Children's Monitor to require information from the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki, to which the chief executive must respond. I think it's worth, also, just mentioning section 4 of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which did not change, has not changed, and will not change and includes provisions such as "The purposes of the [Oranga Tamariki] Act are to promote the well-being of children, young persons, and their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups by—(a) establishing, promoting, or co-ordinating services that—(i) are designed to affirm mana tamaiti (tamariki), are centred on children's and young persons' rights, promote their best interests, advance their well-being, address their needs, and provide for their participation in decision making that affects them: … (iii) are culturally appropriate and competently provided: … (c) assisting families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups" at the earliest opportunity—[ Interruption ] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! It's getting a bit noisy and too often. JOSEPH MOONEY: So I'll go on. Section 4, which sets out the purposes of the Oranga Tamariki Act so that it must assist "families and whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups, at the earliest opportunity, to fulfil their responsibility to meet the needs of their children and young persons (including their developmental needs, and the need for a safe, stable, and loving home): … (g) recognising mana tamaiti (tamariki), whakapapa, and the practice of whanaungatanga for children and young persons who come to the attention of the department: (h) maintaining and strengthening the relationship between children and young persons who come to the attention of the department and their—(i) family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group; and (ii) siblings:" and "promotes their … best interests and acknowledges their needs;". This is a sound, robust set of responsibilities that are encoded in legislation that that have specifically referred to the importance of whakapapa, the importance of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and the importance of strategic partnerships and Māori organisations. I frankly cannot understand the Opposition opposing this. With that, I commend this bill to the House. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. It's a Government bill—part of the National-ACT coalition agreement—which New Zealand First will support. Now, as per the general policy statement, the intent of the bill is to enable Oranga Tamariki to renew its focus and to focus on the safety of the child above all other considerations. The Government is concerned that the introduction of section 7AA has led Oranga Tamariki to prioritise cultural factors over the safety and stability of children; hence, this bill was introduced into the House last year—in May 2024—so we've had about a year of this process. I was on the Social Services and Community Committee. There were a lot of passionate and emotional submissions, and it was quite an emotional time to sit through it—I'm not shy to say that. During the submissions process, there were a number of things which were summarised by the officials, and the themes that they summarised these submissions under were wellbeing and safety, Treaty obligations, evidence, legislation and practice, equality and equity. With those key messages, the focus of putting duty first and the safety and wellness of the child first is what has led to this bill. On behalf of New Zealand First, I will commend it to the House. Tākuta Ferris: Brilliant—two minutes. TANYA UNKOVICH: Yeah—good, eh? MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stand to address the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Culture, Repeal of Custom, Repeal of Safety, and Repeal of Protections and Prosperity) Bill, soon to be lorded over all mokopuna and their whānau by a Government and their spokesperson who knows nothing about Māori culture. Culture not only keeps mokopuna safe; culture enables mokopuna to thrive, to flourish, and to grow and into fully expressed indigenous Māori individuals, exactly like the thousands that gathered peacefully and powerfully on the steps of Parliament to remind us that they are here and they are not going away. In August of 1840, just seven months after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our very first tupuna was removed as a baby by colonial hands. The justification of this—listen up, people—to save a Māori baby from the so-called evils of the pā, the evils of our people. This is your and our shared history. This act that has set the tone for generations was at that time summarised by one simple term: uplift—a word coined by the coloniser to mask their statutory act of thievery. That word still stains Māori lives 184 years later—no surprises. The coloniser continues to use it to describe their theft of our children—a term that absolves them of accountability and then allows them to maintain the presumption that Māori are so inferior that we can simply be taken. This repeal affirms exactly that: our children can be uplifted from their whānau without legislative accountability of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki. I'll say the words "Oranga Tamariki"—because I keep hearing it pronounced so poorly—to ensure these Māori children— Laura McClure: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I don't believe that this is relevant to the bill that's at hand. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That's my call. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Speaking to the point of order—this is my speech—[ Interruption ] Blah, blah. Right. This respect affirms exactly that our children can be uplifted, they can be removed; the legislated accountability of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki can be removed. These Māori children remain within the safety of their Māoritanga, a safety that was recognised under section 7AA. Through the committee of the whole House stage, the Minister for Children volunteered her own story as if that would sanction this outcome. Sadly, all that showed us was how deep internalised racism runs and the harm it can cause. I offer that she do some work to get well. This racist rhetoric—this racist rhetoric—is destructive, unhealed trauma masquerading as care and protection. Clearly, the apology and crocodile tears from the Minister to the survivors of abuse in care— Hon Chris Penk: Point of order. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, the Hon Chris Penk. Hon Chris Penk: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the member, but it's a clear breach of Standing Orders, apart from anything else, to imply, or actually suggest in outright terms, crocodile tears and fake news, as though to bring into question the integrity and the honesty of the member the Hon Karen Chhour in bringing forward her policy. And that's before we even consider the offensiveness of a diagnosis on a medical basis— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I understand the point of order. The member is correct, so I'll ask the member to resume but to tone it down, please. Rawiri Waititi: Madam Speaker, every day we hear that coming from the Government, and the Deputy Prime Minister in particular, where he talks about other members having their tongues flapping around in the wind and all of that type of stuff. That has never been pulled up. It's double standards and it's hypocrisy. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We we're going to resume, and we're going to treat each other with respect. Thank you, member. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Clearly, the apology and tears to the survivors of abuse in care is more fake news. Because, at the same time, of course, the same bill— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I just warned the member. We have just been through this. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Oh, I didn't—sorry, Madam Speaker— Hon Member: Point of— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —I didn't name a particular individual. I was just making it a generic statement. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I'm just warning the member, we're getting very close to being disorderly. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: This is nothing more or less than a direct attack and direct assault on our mokopuna and on us all for being Māori. As was stated back in 1840—and here we again in 2025, referring to the evils of our people. I have chosen to take this bill very personally. How could I not? I challenge every Māori in this Whare and every non-Māori—and part Māori, because I've heard that recently—that is responsible to and for mokopuna tamariki Māori, to check your privilege, to check your fragility, to check your white tears, to check your racism, and to check your sexism and misogyny and get some counselling and education and free your mind. This is what happens when you internalise the racism and thank the oppressor for the experience. All that's missing in this bill is a clause saying, "Thank you, massa." Te Pāti Māori condemns this bill—[ Interruption ] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! Order! MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —and all its intent. Tēnā tātou. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I think it's far more outrageous that the Government feels so much offence at the truth than the harm that they're causing to our communities out there on the streets who are bearing the brunt of this Government's policies. It's really, really telling that we're seeing a level of outrage here that is not manifested when we are seeing tamariki Māori sleeping on the streets— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt the member. When members are in the House, they are to be seated and not to conduct a separate conversation, apart from the member who is speaking. My apologies to the member—please resume. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: That's OK. I go back to the main issue, which is that I think the Government members tend to feel far more outraged at Opposition members pointing out the truth than, actually, kids sleeping rough on the streets, keeping them stripped away from the communities that they belong to, and the gutting of funding to the prevention services that are actually supposed to help keep kids in their communities and in their families. To me, it's so telling because they have nothing but bumper stickers and vitriol to throw at us, when, instead, they could make an attempt to provide empirical evidence for why we need the repeal of section 7AA, something that has not been able to be produced by the Minister in charge of this bill, despite calls from the Opposition and from submitters for the Minister to front up with her so-called evidence to justify this bill. This bill is nothing but a dog whistle that aims to attack tamariki Māori and to not pay attention to the bridge that has been created by the Crown that has led to so many tamariki Māori being split from and detached from the communities that they belong to. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] We have a responsibility to stand against the attacks against Māori from this Government. We are here by virtue of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We have a responsibility to fight back against policies such as this one, that do not serve and do not recognise the history of this country. Joseph Mooney: Then why did you vote against the strategic partnerships? Why did you vote against it. Oh, is the Green Party against strategic partnerships? RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I keep hearing the Government member to my left, Joseph Mooney, talking about strategic partnerships. But at the same time, if this Government cared so much about strategic partnerships, they wouldn't be gutting funding for these very same strategic partnerships. It is absolutely distasteful for the member on my left to be talking about the very same thing they're undermining. They're undermining provisional services, they're undermining State housing, the very same thing that can help keep a family together if they have been in hardship. They're undermining benefit increases, the very same thing that gives families a livelihood and allows them to stay in a safe and stable home—things that have been spoken to us about by survivors of abuse in State care. These members just seem to have the report on their bedside table and not give a damn about it, or read it and simply ignore it. Because the things that this piece of legislation is doing is actually a disservice to the very same voices who came to our select committee and presented to the inquiries that led to reports that paint a harrowing picture of the realities that tamariki Māori have faced under our care system, that is supposed to keep them safe. This repeal of section 7AA, all it will do is invisibilise the very same gap that exists between Māori and the rest of us in the care system that is supposed to keep them safe. Joseph Mooney: That's completely wrong. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It's absolutely right. I'd like for the member to my left to try and take a call, and I'd be happy to yield my time if the member was able to actually produce any evidence in relationship to this bill, because all that we have heard is rhetorical commentary that does not justify this bill. And I think, to me, it says a lot when the Government members are so happy to brush sides with the likes of Hobson's Pledge, to the likes of campaigners who have been running a strident anti-Māori campaign—it says a lot that they're now pushing ahead with anti-Māori legislation that is not based on evidence, when, actually, their so-called anecdotal evidence that the Minister produced is not even in relationship to section 7AA. It's disgusting that we have a Government that, rather than address things like homelessness, rather than addressing things like income support—all the things that keep people in their communities—they're wasting our time in the House to repeal a piece of legislation that helps address the gap between Māori and the rest of us. This is a Government that cares nothing about inequities, nothing about outcomes, because even if they say they do, members of the public can see the papers that this Government produces, when it comes to their budget, when it comes to the figures that they're putting in and the support that they're giving to organisations. And it is the organisations on the ground that are calling out for help because they're having to close when there's no other option available—they're the very organisations that keep our tamariki safe. I am not going to buy the rhetoric from the Government's members, who are claiming that they actually care for tamariki Māori to be safe, when they're underfunding and under-resourcing the organisations that are supposed to do so. This bill is a disservice to the very same people doing the most to help our communities, and the Government is not on their side. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Madam Speaker, thank you. The children that we are speaking about in this debate in this House this afternoon are children who have had to be brought into the care of Government because of the dire situation that they faced where they were. They are victims themselves, and suffered trauma in the environments where they have been. Children start off their lives with their families, and in the spaces where they live, they have had to be removed and put into the care of Government. It is sad that we speak so many words and we can say we are disgusted and we can play a lot of blaming each other across the House, but the fact remains that these children have had to be taken into the care of Government. The Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill seeks to improve the service that the Government provides in this very difficult situation for all children that come into Government's care. The repeal does take away section 7AA. However, the cultural considerations which are the focus of section 7AA, the methodology for maintaining the respect for cultural considerations in 7AA, have been retained in the Act. The bill does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from continuing and developing these relationships that they have already had and want to have with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. The object of that is clear: to make sure that the children get to stay connected with the greater family that they may be connected to. That is not repealed. The Independent Children's Monitor will have the opportunity to check on that and report on that. The reporting duties of the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki remain. It had gone through select committee consideration, and, by majority, the decision was to retain the requirement of the chief executive to report. The object of all of this is to protect the children who are already victims and who are already traumatised. We want them not to be continually victimised by the politics of the appearance of this situation. I commend this bill to the House. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am really saddened to talk about this kaupapa. I regard it as one of the saddest bills that this Government has ever put through—this repeal of section 7AA. I want to mihi, though, to our lead, Willow-Jean Prime, who has done a great job, and also some of the kōrero that has come Te Pāti Māori and the Greens, who give the right view in terms of identity, because that's what people are talking about here: the loss of identity. The great civil rights activist Maya Angelou once said, "There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you." That's what survivors talk about—they talk about culture and being lost and not knowing the language. They look at people like Peeni Henare over here, "Doc" Ferris over there, and they see beautiful Māori language speakers, people who are well in tune with their culture, and there's something missing in them. There is something that they crave for. That was the genesis of this kaupapa. Survivors talk about their kuia passing and the refusal of caregivers to allow them to attend tangi. The inability to connect with other siblings because their caregivers wanted their privacy. And the perpetual questions in their mind were: "What is their name?", "What is their mārae?", "What is their hapū?", and "What is their iwi?" This is what has driven this kaupapa from the start. This is what, I suppose, has driven te ao Māori into, at times, hysteria—because we have seen survivors sacrificed, in terms of Government legislation. In 1986, we even had Pūao-te-Āta-tū, which was a ministerial advisory group led by the great John Rangihau, talk about this—talk about this—and plead with Government that there had to be a different way, in terms of treating our culture, in terms of treating kids. They said: "The Maori child is not to be viewed in isolation, or even as part of nuclear family, but as a member of a wider kin group or hapu community that has traditionally exercised responsibility for the child's care and placement." It was incredible work by the group, led by, as I said, the great John Rangihau, my uncle Tamati Reedy, my other whanaunga uncle Neville Baker, and my wife's relation Donna Hall, who all talked about why things had to change in terms of the system, and why babies had to be placed in the right families. I want to say to the Minister over there—Karen Chhour—I respect what happened to her, in terms of her upbringing. She brings her experiences to the table. I do respect that, Minister, in terms of what you have revealed—I'm not here to mock you today. But I am here to ask you to listen to what te ao Māori have been saying. The Minister has had some excellent advice, but it's hard to sort of work outside her own experience, which was not a fortunate experience at all. I hear her. I've heard her tears. I've watched her cry with regards to this kaupapa. I am, as I said, not here to mock you, Minister—I'm asking you to listen to what our people have said. Great people like Rangihau. Great people like Naida Glavish— : I think she did listen. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I wish that member would just shush for a minute. Great people like June Mariu; my mother, June Jackson; the great Titewhai Harawira. These were incredibly important people who said—and this Minister has had this advice—that we had to tie our babies back towards their whakapapa. I want to say to the House, 25 years ago, I was probably of the same view as the Minister—I was probably of the same view as the Minister—that first and foremost we had to make these babies safe. That is still my view—absolutely. There are a number of us who had not seen the research, who had not seen what our experts were saying in terms of the importance of whakapapa, the importance of te reo. We hadn't seen that. When we saw that, we all came in behind. So I want to mihi to those kuia who that woman over there rubbishes—and rubbishes me. I'm trying to put on the table today how important this is to Māori. Why we had the June Marius, the Naida Glaviches, the Titewhai Harawiras, and the June Jacksons say that you had to tie these babies back—back to their whakapapa—so they're not lost, so they do not become statistics in terms of the nation. And I ask that Minister to not just bring her anecdotal stuff forward, which was incredibly important to her but is not in line with what te ao Māori is saying. That was recognised by the National Party and by the Māori Party, which was a kaupapa driven by Whaea Tariana Turia and accepted by the National Party— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Back to the bill? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is all part of the bill, Madam Speaker. Because this is what is being repealed. This is what is being repealed: an agreement between Te Pāti Māori and National Party that talked about the importance of whakapapa and identity, all repealed because of the ignorance of this Government—all repealed. The fear in our communities is that we could go back to where we were. The statistics show us that that once these babies are tied back to their marae, they're tied back to their whānau, tied back to their identity, they have a much better future and better opportunity. We all oppose this bill on this side of the House because of the risk of harm, the breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the lack of evidence for repeal, a breach of children's rights, and the removal of the objective of reducing disparities and reporting on efforts to do so. The Waitangi Tribunal was absolutely clear that this was a breach of the Treaty and it posed serious harm to Māori tamariki. Repeal will destroy the trust that is being restored through partnerships based on Te Tiriti and undermine the ability for the Crown to continue to repair and improve relationships— Joseph Mooney: And the partnerships are in the bill. Try reading the bill, maybe—it might help. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I'm not sure what the other side understands here. But we know that the ACT Party has no respect for the Tribunal and has no respect in terms of te ao Māori. But it has been clearly outlined by our people this is a breach of tikanga Māori—[ Interruption ] Sit down, you fool. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! That was unnecessary, Mr Jackson. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Madam Speaker, I'm getting sick of these clowns on the other side. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): You will withdraw and apologise. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: An apology is going to be tough, Madam Speaker, but I'll do that for you. I withdraw and apologise. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, it was quite clear in that instance, whilst I make no comment on your ruling then, that a member was interjecting whilst they weren't in their seat, which is clearly against Speakers' Rulings. If you are going to pull members up, quite rightly, for making commentary in response to that, you probably should have pulled the other member up for doing that. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Understood. I did not see the member standing, and my apologies for that, but I did hear a direct inference to an individual, which is different. Simon Court: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I don't think there's any need to, Mr Court. Simon Court: Well, Madam Speaker, if I may, the member has made the assertion that I was on my feet while interjecting. I was— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): There's no need to continue, thank you. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I'll go back to the Tribunal and the clear breaches in terms of this kaupapa—article 2, tino rangatiratanga. They've made it very clear it's an absolute breach of the Treaty. In terms of where we go, we're about to see a real change in terms of what's happening in terms of te ao Māori. Solutions to deep problems have been worked out between State departments and the Māori population. They've failed to serve by resourcing community groups to step up and solve these problems for themselves. Section 7AA obliged Oranga Tamariki to work with those community iwi, and removing it allows the State to seek the cheapest option. Now, I know they're saying that it's still there. It is still there— Joseph Mooney: It's still there, Willie. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It is still there, Joseph, but it's not a priority anymore—it's not a priority anymore. There are other options. And that's the worry, I think, from so many of our people and so many of our community: that the Government has taken away the Māori priority and the Māori option. So I implore the Minister to continue with those relationships with iwi, to continue with those relationships with Māori organisations, and to reflect on what's happened with this, because it has so upset the Māori nation, te iwi Māori, Māori organisations. They don't know where they're going now. They don't know what the Government is going to do next, because something that has been thought about since 1986—that was put in by a National Party - Māori Party coalition Government—is now being removed. That was something significant that even people like John Key, Bill English, and Anne Tolley saw as incredibly significant. It's a sad day for this Government and for this country, to see something so important be removed, and I ask that Minister to reflect on what she's done. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I think we've heard a lot of different speeches from different parties. Obviously, none of us agree with each other, but I think there's one thing we all agree on across the whole House: we are here to fight for the best interests of our children—for our children in care. For me, as an immigrant, I understand that cultural identity is very important. I also want my daughter to learn Chinese as well, to get her to understand my culture as well. But I need to think about it: what is the most important thing for my daughter? I think it's love and care. I think this is the love and care I received when I first came to this county, and I received it from different backgrounds of people—people with different ethnic backgrounds. I think love and care is what every single child needs. We are talking about the best interests for children. I think love is without borders. It is unfair to label all Māori families that they can't provide love and care to Māori children. I think that is very unfair. So, with love, I commend this bill to the House. GLEN BENNETT (Labour): It's with rage that I rise to my feet this afternoon. In fact, to hear from a Government MP to say that they do this in love, I cannot fathom that—I cannot fathom that. This piece of legislation is not loving. This piece of legislation causes anger, causes strife, and causes more division. Carl Bates: Stop scaremongering. GLEN BENNETT: From across the floor, I hear that this is scaremongering. This is not scaremongering. It's like—what is it?—spare the rod, spoil the child. It's just outrageous that people would say this is something loving we're doing on behalf of this Government for Māori whānau throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. That is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. I think and I listen as I've participated over recent days on this piece of legislation. I think of the First Nations activist from North America, bell hooks, who sadly passed away. She said, "Love is profoundly political."—Love is profoundly political—"Our deepest revolution will come when we understand this truth." Love is profoundly political. To be political today and to show love is to stand up, to cross the floor, and to reject this piece of legislation. I challenge the member Dr Carlos Cheung, if he believes in love—as he just said—then he will cross the floor and vote with this side of the House to be political and to show love. Because this legislation is not loving. I find it fascinating as we hear the Government talk and speak on their laser focus on the cost of living; their laser focus on getting tough on crime. And what have we had in the House this week? We've had the repeal of the Plain Language Act and we had this, the repeal of section 7AA. To me, is this laser-focused on the cost of living? No, it is not. All legislation in this House has to be debated within the context of the legislation in front of us. But we also always need to look beyond it in terms of what is going on in the context of the timing; the context of what is going on in our society. That's why we have to consider the fact of the royal commission and the survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care. And if you read those 138, I think it is, recommendations—if you do nothing else, I challenge and ask people to read the whole of the document. But if you can't, that's fine. Read the 138 recommendations and what they say. Time after time you'll see in terms of cultural capacity, cultural understanding. We need to look at this piece of legislation with what else is going on, and that is one of them. Within that, I think it was recommendation 2, that was for the Prime Minister to make an official apology—and, thank you, he did. Part of that—and I was looking it up earlier—recommendation was the apology should acknowledge all survivors with specific mention of Māori survivors and their whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. It goes on to say—and that's why the context is important as we debate this this afternoon—that it emphasises the need for culturally responsive care systems that recognise and incorporate Māori perspectives and practices. Now, this piece of legislation is taking away a tool from the toolbox. And I think and believe if we are looking at our most vulnerable; if we're looking at the challenges of those who are on the margins; if we're looking at the fact of our tamariki, our rangatahi, we need to consider every single tool we have in the toolbox to ensure their care, their protection, and their wellbeing. And the cultural understanding, a cultural lens, is key to that understanding. People might say, "Oh, he's just banging on again, doing his old thing." And yes, I will bang on again and do my old thing. But I know this well because I have been in this space as a caregiver, I have worked for many years and continue to live my life with young people who've been through the State care system. I was there at a time when this was not in legislation. I was there at a time when this wasn't even a factor that we really considered or even paid attention to. And I've seen the effects and implications of that. So this is a terrible day, and I challenge Government MPs to choose love, to cross the floor, and to vote against this bill. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This afternoon, we have heard from across the floor an attempt to say that this is doing something which it is not. The speaker prior to me, Glen Bennett, literally said to be political and cross the floor, because that's what the Opposition is trying to do; they're trying to play politics with our children. This Government wants to put children at the centre of the decision making, and not politics. As a father, as an uncle, and as a community member, I commend this bill to the House. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Madam Speaker, if you'll indulge me, I'll speak Māori in this part. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I want to acknowledge the emotion in this debate and in this topic, and, rightly so, because we are speaking of the most precious taonga and the most precious part of Aotearoa New Zealand, and they are our children, our mokopuna. And I know members right across this House have quoted people like Dame Whina Cooper, who talks about the way that we raise our tamariki, for they will be the future of Aotearoa. I know that many in this House have spoken words, in particular the words of my ancestor Meri Ngāroto, who said: [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It is with those in mind that I heard the passion throughout the longevity of the passing of this bill. I want to acknowledge each and everyone for their perspectives. For my part, in the Opposition and as a proud member of the Labour Party, we stand by our opposition to this bill. We stand by it on the premise that was led by our wahine toa, Willow-Jean Prime, who made it clear and continued to come back to the evidence justifying why we continue to oppose this particular bill. I said in Māori that as a father and as a grandfather and as a matua who proudly calls himself a Ngā Puhi man, each and every one of us must continue to make their commitment in this House that we will protect our tamariki and our mokopuna regardless—regardless of what happens in this House and outside of the walls of this House. It's hard not to get so emotional. And if I'm honest with you, Madam Speaker, I've only ever cried one other time in this House. But this is one of those times where it feels like, you know, the dam might just break out of frustration, out of love, out of care, out of an acknowledgment that for much of the voice and debate in this House on this bill, I couldn't help but feel that sometimes our children's voices weren't being heard simply over the voices of adults in this Parliament. So I want to bring our attention back to that, that our tamariki and our mokopuna must continue to be at the forefront of everything that we do, not just this bill but every bill, because it impacts them and their future. In this, the third, reading of this bill, we've heard the evidence that's been presented to the Waitangi Tribunal, we heard the evidence that was presented to the select committee, and I want to remind New Zealanders that this particular bill can't be seen in isolation from the royal inquiry—and my colleague Mr Bennett and other colleagues from the House have referenced that inquiry—into the abuse that took place in State care. That is part of the platform of the opposition to this particular bill, because of what happened to so many tamariki, Māori and Pākehā, right across the country. We all sat in here and we heard at the release of the report the speeches made. That's the same emotion I feel today. It was the same emotion I felt on that same day. This can't be seen in isolation. And it's with that institutional memory of a whole generation that have been treated the way they had been treated is what continues to inform our debate on this particular matter and of course, our opposition. I'm proud to stand alongside members of the Opposition here today to continue to oppose this bill. I've heard members from the Government benches say that parts of it are still in the bill and there's still scope here for strategic partnership. I'm not going to relitigate those matters, but I will say this. For every kaimahi out there, whether you work for an iwi organisation, a community organisation, we say, "Kia kaha. We thank you for your mahi. We're here to continue to support you in your important mahi in our communities." And we say to each and every one of our tamariki who need these services, firstly, an apology—an apology because we can do better. And when I say "we", not just the members in this House, but our communities can do better, can do better by our tamariki. So I know this debate has got heated, and I hope that in my contribution, the last from the Opposition benches on this matter through the third reading of this bill, that I took the opportunity to remind my colleagues, all colleagues around this House, of the importance and the passion that we all express around this bill, and bring us back in my final two minutes to the importance of our tamariki. When I grew up, I was fortunate—and the Hon Willie Jackson made mention of it—to have had the cultural connection to my people, to my family, and to my language. As the first kohanga reo baby to become a member of Parliament and as the first kohanga reo baby to become a member of the executive, I carry that burden of the privilege that I was honoured to have. There's a song that reminds me of my upbringing, an upbringing that I enjoyed and loved in the caring arms of an entire family and community. And the song goes like this: [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It's a beautiful waiata. It's simple. It speaks of saying that despite my child and my mokopuna being playful, cheeky, I ask that you never lay a hand in anger on our mokopuna. That's the same plea I leave on the floor of the House here today for reflection for all members across the House, but more importantly for Aotearoa. We oppose this bill. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would just like to acknowledge that this bill has been a very emotive one, and I understand that, because it is about our most vulnerable—it's about our children. And as a parent and a father myself, the safety of a child in need should always be the priority. This bill will help Oranga Tamariki focus on its primary duties, which is the care and protection of those who are vulnerable, making sure they are safe from harm because every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their needs, and their safety and wellbeing put first before any other consideration. And this bill does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from retaining its current strategic partnerships or from entering into new partnerships with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. I commend this bill. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.
