Oranga Tamariki officials have delivered a scathing rebuke of the Government’s upcoming law change, saying it could cripple the trust built up with Māori communities and put vulnerable children at greater risk.
“A repeal of
Oranga Tamariki officials have delivered a scathing rebuke of the Government’s upcoming law change, saying it could cripple the trust built up with Māori communities and put vulnerable children at greater risk.
“A repeal of section 7AA [of the Oranga Tamariki Act] may undo some of the progress that Oranga Tamariki has made in building trust, relationships, and accountability in the communities we work with. This may worsen the safety, stability, and well-being of our children with the greatest needs,” the agency said in its regulatory impact analysis (RIA).
Section 7AA was added to the law in 2019 as a response to over-representation of Māori children in state care. It requires the chief executive “to ensure that policies, practices and services of Oranga Tamariki have regard to mana tamaiti [a child’s mana] and the whakapapa of Māori children and young persons and the whanaungatanga [kinship] responsibilities of their whānau, hapū and iwi”.
Repealing the section - a commitment in the National-Act coalition agreement - has been one of the Government’s more controversial policies. An urgent inquiry from the Waitangi Tribunal found repealing the clause would “cause actual harm”, and was “not based on an empirical public policy case”.
Minister for Children Karen Chhour refused to appear before the tribunal to give evidence, a stance that was backed in the High Court but then overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Last week the Government introduced a bill to repeal the section, which it said had created “a divisive system”.
“Over successive years, Oranga Tamariki has failed our most vulnerable children, and in part that has been because of s7AA,” said Chhour, who grew up in state care system and has previously said repealing the clause would make Oranga Tamariki “colour-blind”.
The RIA, dated March 2024, noted time constraints and uncertainty about what a repeal would lead to, adding that it probably wouldn’t lead to significant changes and could even be “redundant in practice”, given the overarching principle of prioritising the well-being of the child will remain unchanged.
There were a small number of high-profile cases that had “deviated significantly from best practice”, where tamariki Māori were taken from stable long-term care and placed with groups they whakapapa to.
“We have heard anecdotal concerns from a small number of caregivers that care decisions are more strongly influenced by cultural factors, than by the immediate safety of children. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that these concerns are related to the duties outlined in section 7AA,” the RIA said.
“Some concerned stakeholders and advocates have expressed the view that section 7AA was responsible for previous, high-profile changes to care arrangements. Again, we do not have evidence as to whether section 7AA explicitly influenced these care decisions, but internal evaluation suggests that it did not.”
The report said a repeal could lead to worse outcomes than the status quo across several areas:
“Changes introduced in Oranga Tamariki that resulted from the introduction of 7AA have been effective at reducing some of the disparities and inequities experienced by tamariki, rangatahi, and whanau Maori,” the RIA said.
Since it came into effect, there had been “incremental improvements” across its objectives including:
“In our view, it is more likely that non-regulatory changes, such as further strengthening of practice guidelines, would better address the problem” the RIA said. “However, due to ministerial commissioning, the identification and assessment of these options falls outside the scope of this analysis.”
Chhour has said repealing s7AA “reinforces the need to put the safety of the child first” without halting any consideration of cultural well-being of those in state care.
“I believe section 7AA has placed some duties on the chief executive that are at odds with the agency’s primary purpose, which is to support the wellbeing of our most vulnerable and at-risk children.”
Derek Cheng is a senior journalist who started at the Herald in 2004. He has worked several stints in the press gallery team and is a former deputy political editor.
The final commission of inquiry report is to be released on Wednesday.