New Zealand Parliament Debates Repeal of Section 7AA: Child Welfare and Cultural Considerations Take Center Stage

In an emotionally charged session at the New Zealand House on [Date], lawmakers engaged in fervent debate over the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. The discussions were centered around child welfare, cultural considerations for Māori children, and political implications, reflecting significant societal tensions.

Cultural Considerations: A Core Concern

The repeal of Section 7AA sparked considerable concern among Māori lawmakers who argued it would sever vital cultural connections for Māori children in State care. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi from Te Pāti Māori voiced strong opposition, likening the potential impact to historical injustices faced by Māori communities since 1975. She emphasized the importance of culture as a protective factor and criticized the government's approach as dismissive.

Shanan Halbert of Labour echoed these concerns, emphasizing the need for cultural identity under Te Tiriti and tino rangatiratanga, particularly for takatāpui (Māori LGBTQ+ community). She highlighted historical abuse faced by Māori in State care, citing a 2019 statement from Moana Jackson at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in [State] Care. He noted that 44 out of 600 survivors identified as Takatāpui and had been abused in care.

Child Safety and Wellbeing: A National Priority

National Party members like Joseph Mooney and Mike Butterick argued for prioritizing children's safety and wellbeing. Mooney emphasized Oranga Tamariki’s primary duty to ensure these priorities, asserting the bill refocuses efforts towards them. He acknowledged concerns about removing obligations for strategic partnerships with iwi but noted that they will remain as per committee recommendations.

Butterick reinforced this stance, clarifying that while Section 7AA is repealed, cultural considerations are still embedded within other parts of the Act. Both lawmakers urged a clear distinction between political rhetoric and the bill's intended outcomes.

Strategic Partnerships: A Point of Contention

Deputy Leader Carmel Sepuloni criticized the bill for undermining strategic partnerships with iwi, crucial for Māori children’s wellbeing and connections to whakapapa (genealogy). She reflected on past bipartisan efforts by leaders like Anne Tolley to establish these protections.

Suze Redmayne from National countered this perspective, arguing that the bill allows Oranga Tamariki to focus on child welfare without conflicting cultural obligations. She reassured stakeholders about ongoing collaboration through strategic partnerships with iwi as part of the chief executive’s responsibilities.

Political Motivations and Public Sentiment

Shanan Halbert suggested the bill is driven more by political motivations than genuine concern for child welfare, particularly criticizing ACT's influence on government policy. She referenced public opposition at events like Waitangi, where New Zealanders expressed disapproval of the Government's actions.

This legislative debate encapsulates a critical juncture in New Zealand politics, where the intersection of child welfare and Māori rights remains contentious. As lawmakers grapple with these complex dynamics, the implications for Māori communities and State care practices continue to unfold.

Ultimately, the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill passed its second reading in Parliament, reflecting deep divisions but ongoing commitments to child safety and cultural considerations. The vote resulted in 68 Ayes, with New Zealand National at 49, ACT New Zealand at 11, and New Zealand First at 8, against 55 Noes from New Zealand Labour at 34, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand at 15, and Te Pāti Māori at 6.