A social investment consultant is calling for Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act to remain, saying its removal will lead to higher social impacts on Māori and Pākehā, and higher costs to the state.
Submissions on the legislation to repeal Section 7AA, part of the National and Act coalition agreement, have been heard this week at Parliament, the overwhelming majority of them in opposition to the bill.
Habilis managing director Kent Duston told the select committee that 7AA had been a success in terms of keeping more Māori children out of care.
“If we look at it purely from an economic standpoint, the retention of 7AA will result in fiscal and economic benefit,” Duston said.
“The cost of remediating damaged adults is significantly higher than the cost of not causing the damage in the first place with children.”
Habilis managing director Kent Duston.
Many submitters pointed to the bill as a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and many referred to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care as evidence against the removal of the legislation.
Abuse survivor and advocate Ken Clearwater went so far as to say the hearings should not have gone ahead.
“I thought today’s committee would either be abandoned or cancelled after last Wednesday, presentation of the royal commission report in Parliament.”
Another submitter added: “The Government can’t apologise to survivors with one breath while choosing to make the same mistakes that led to that abuse in the first place.”
Duston said the move was ideological symbolism driven by the Act Party, explaining this by using three possible scenarios to ask what the impact would be to remove 7AA.
“The first [option] is that it’s symbolic only,” he said, “the clause disappears but essentially the policy interventions continue much as they do today.”
If that is the case, “we’ve all wasted a bunch of time and money over this thing for a bit of empty symbolism”.
“The two other alternatives, is that it would have a chilling effect.”
In this scenario, it would “cause a partial wind back of interventions simply because of the perception around it”, he said.
“And that would have negative social investment impacts, because things would get worse, and we would see at least a partial return to what happened before 7AA in terms of the numbers of mokopuna coming through the system.”
The third option was a “complete reversion” where things returned to the way they were pre-2018, and prior to the introduction of 7AA, he said.
“That has very negative impacts and then this becomes a case of how many billions of dollars do we wish to expend as a nation on something that is, at best, a piece of ideological symbolism.”
But Act Party leader David Seymour said it was about safety.
“Our ideology is that we don’t like racial discrimination. This government is in favour of universal human rights.
“Yes, it is certainly true that if you have better outcomes for children then it can save money for them as adults, but that is different from claiming that section 7AA leads to that outcome.”
Other submitters made the point 7AA does not overrule Section 4 of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which states the “best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also weighed in, saying the Government was “focusing on the wellbeing of the child first and foremost”.
“We want the safety and the care and the love around that child to be the primary consideration.
“It doesn’t preclude us continuing to work with, for example, iwi-based organisations in order to actually place those children in good places.”
Act’s policy to remove 7AA claimed the legislation has been used to justify reverse uplifts, that is removing a child from a placement and returning them to whānau.
But the regulatory impact statement for the legislation stated there was no empirical evidence to support that.
Submissions will continue with the committee expected to report back in November.
