Oranga Tamariki say repeal of section 7AA could cripple trust built up with Māori communities, put vulnerable children at greater risk

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”.

Minister for Children Karen Chhour. Photo / Mark Mitchell

‘No evidence’ of bad outcomes due to section 7AA

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:

• Potential for decisions where cultural factors are not assessed. Given family connection is associated with better outcomes, “a shift toward placing children with non-kin caregivers may worsen safety and stability outcomes”;
• No more 7AA reporting obligations would “likely” lead to less resources for capturing “the voice, rights, and needs of tamariki Māori in care”;
• 7AA was key to partnerships with Māori organisations to support young Māori leaving state care. Changes to these services “could affect the ability of young people to flourish as adults”. The RIA notes that a commitment to retain these partnerships. but “a full repeal may remove oversight and potentially affect the level of resourcing that these processes receive”;
• Trust and confidence might increase among those who think section 7AA has led to a flawed practice, but would have the opposite effect among those with whom Oranga Tamariki have the most contact. “The overall impact of a full repeal will be detrimental to the reputation of Oranga Tamariki and further alienate the communities with which we work”, risking greater “long-term mistrust and disengagement in our services”;
• A repeal would mean no requirement to set measures to reduce inequities; if not replaced, “this could have a material impact on the safety, stability, rights, needs and long-term well-being of children with whom we interact”.

Oranga Tamariki has pushed back strongly on the Government's plans to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Photo / Jason Oxenham

“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:

• more participation in decision-making;
• “a reduction in the number of tamariki and rangatahi Māori that have entered state care”;
• “over 75 per cent of tamariki and rangatahi Māori living with caregivers have been placed with whanau consistently over the last few years”;
• young Māori in care taking “greater pride in their cultural identity and sense of belonging than other groups in care”;
• more Māori organisations supporting the transition of young Māori out of state care.

“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.