From the general debate in the House on 1 May, a contribution by Te Tai Tokerau MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi attracted some attention. Some MPs have described her words variously as “ignorant”, “offensive”, “inflammatory” and “disgraceful” – although Te Pāti Māori are standing by her.
Speeches in the House are covered by parliamentary privilege, which means an absolute freedom of speech – with reservations for some Speakers’ rulings about unparliamentary language. So the backlash needn’t silence her.
Before looking at the phrase that attracted most attention, what was the substance of Kapa-Kingi’s speech?
Her topic was the government’s plan to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act relating to te Tiriti o Waitangi. This section was inserted in 2019. It requires that the department focus on outcomes for Māori children and young persons, to reduce disparities, and to have regard to the whakapapa of Māori children and young persons and to the whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū, and iwi.
The idea behind this section was neither new nor radical. Indeed, the member for Te Tai Tokerau cited the Puao-te-ata-tu report of 1988 which raised the relevant issues back then.
“Every Government institution has failed to care for our babies,” she said. Fair comment. Once in State care, the outcomes are likely to be poor, and Māori children are over-represented.
“Hoi anō, it was never the Pākehā Government’s job in the first place. That is purely the Hawaiki-derived prerogative of whānau, of hapū, iwi”, she continued. Fair comment. It’s normally better if children are cared for in their own extended families.
“Te Pāti Māori will one day build a mokopuna Māori authority.” Yes that could happen: just think of Whanau Ora. That would be “by Māori for Māori and of Māori” – and hopefully not just another state institution.
For background, here’s something I wrote over 20 years ago, reproduced with minor alterations from my book Society and Politics:
The 1988 ministerial advisory report Puao-te-ata-tu gave a harshly critical appraisal of the institutional racism of welfare policies and practises of the then Department of Social Welfare. The committee’s view was that New Zealand law since 1840 had been “largely inimical to the interests of the Māori people and had defeated the maintenance of the Māori way of life”. This negative impact included a refusal to involve Māori more closely and effectively in social services, especially adoptions, and the committee made many recommendations about reversing the department’s mono-cultural bias. This led to legislative changes to allow for greater involvement of whānau in decision-making concerning children and young persons, namely the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 and its family decision-making model. Unfortunately, the subsequent effects of strict neoliberal fiscal policies and an increasing reliance on the unpaid caring work of whānau members and on community agencies meant that this model was captured by an overriding agenda to reduce expenditure through transferring responsibilities to the community. While much work had been done to implement bi-cultural structures and practises in social services by 2003, the former Department of Child, Youth and Family was still dealing with record levels of reported abuse and neglect of children and a continuing over-representation of Māori among its caseload. Māori children for example have a higher rate of mortality caused by intentional injury than non-Māori children. While the issues of institutional racism raised by Puao-te-ata-tu were taken seriously, the underlying social and economic problems of Māori disadvantage remain unresolved.
A lot has changed since then, but it’s saddening that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi had to make a similar point in 2024, and that the substance of her speech got lost.
People were upset, however, by her opening comment: “No matter my words today, this Government will not waver in its mission to exterminate Māori.” The word “exterminate” can’t be taken literally, in my opinion, and it was always going to be incendiary. It drew attention, but not for best reasons. The substance of her speech (the welfare of children) got lost in the fray. She also said the repeal of section 7AA was about “racism and Pākehā supremacy”.
But the member introducing the amendment bill, Karen Chhour, is herself Māori and grew up in State care. Her view is that, “while well intentioned, section 7AA creates a conflict between protecting the best interests of the child and race-based factors”. That’s also a fair point, if you believe that the community into which a child was born can be detached from judgements about what’s in their best interests. People who’ve adopted, or been adopted, from abroad would have things to say about that. But Karen Chhour is concerned that section 7AA has been used to move Māori children from safe homes because the carers weren’t Māori.
The most vitriolic critic of Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s words was deputy PM Winston Peters – who’s also Māori. On X, Winston attacked TPM’s “separatist hate-filled agenda”.
Prime minister Luxon rightly called for all parties to “calm down”. It would be better if MPs would get back to thinking about the care of children.
No stranger to controversy, Mr Peters is facing a defamation suit from across the Tasman, but he can repeat the offending remark in the debating chamber with impunity anyway. As for Kapa-Kingi’s use of parliamentary privilege, she’d handed Peters some red meat to throw to his base on X.
Electoral matters
On ballot-counting errors in last year’s elections, I had an early-morning chat with Mike Hosking. The errors that have been identified didn’t affect final results and weren’t widespread. But still, this must be taken seriously. It’s vital to have open and independent scrutiny of the electoral process and of any errors, in order to retain public confidence – and not to undermine it. NewstalkZB’s approach to this story was moderate and realistic.
By making it possible to enrol right up to the election day, and underestimating the influx of late enrolees, the polling stations came under pressure, resulting in human error and a failure of some quality assurance measures in some locations. It’s vital that the government spend more on the next election in order to staff it appropriately, and not to cut that particular budget line.
This image was AI-generated on Gencraft, and cropped. Gencraft often creates hands with four or six fingers. Even Michelangelo had to take pains over them. But the point here is that, while politicians argue, the child can’t vote.