Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. As has already been commented National will be opposing this to the first reading for a number of reasons. Fundamentally I think we're all agreeing that where there is increased risk there needs to be increased care. It just seems to us that what this bill does is acknowledge the increased risk but actually reduces the care that we should be bringing around cases of the sort. And if we look at several parts of the bill—everyone recognises the risk-care relationship by saying Look if a child has been killed there's absolutely increased risk and subsequent care should proceed as it's detailed in the legislation." Part of the question though is that if a child has been taken into care is there that same degree of risk and is this the way to manage? But that's really what we're talking about here.To answer the first question: I think the risk impact assessment—table 7 section 2—answers the first question that if a child has been taken and placed into care the subsequent children are at risk. It quite nicely points out that in the general population there is only a 2 percent risk of a child needing to be taken into care but 7 percent if an older sibling has already been placed in a home for life placement. So no disagreement that there's increased risk if a previous child has been placed. What seem to be some of the issues though are more around the implementation rather than the policy intent. That comment that—and I correctly heard—the difficulties in requiring Family Court involvement to establish a determination those are implementation. The core policy intent is still good. Focus on the implementation would seem to be where we should be looking. So these are but some of the reasons why we'll be pleased if in select committee we can address some of these issues. I heard some suggestions to my side here a moment ago that will be useful to discuss in select committee. But I'd have to say looking for support from us in a bill of the sort should also come with some degree of transparency and I'm afraid I don't see that in the risk impact analysis—clause 11 Part 1—where some of these solutions are proposed. The first one is implementing tailored support for parents. That's a good idea but then why are solutions 2 and 3 redacted? What is the secrecy around some of the solutions and the remedies to this bill? It then goes on: clauses 17 18 19—where do the costs fall?—completely redacted. Look we're happy to—I think we've all got agreement here: increased risk needs increased care. But if you want our support really you need to be a bit more transparent around some of these things in really core documents like this.We understand the intent. We're supportive of the intent. We may well be able to figure some of these things out in select committee but where some of the solutions are hidden—why would you do that?—and where the whole section on where do the costs fall are redacted you know you just start wondering if there's any transparency in other parts of this bill. When you start adding it all together it sort of leads us reluctantly to a position of needing to oppose it at this reading anyway.So what we're putting on the table here is: there may be some things in select committee that can help us change that position but coming at first blush to a first reading when you're seeing redactions in the risk impact assessment—it's not a good start. I just want to lay on the table again: we understand the relationship between risk and care. I think most of the House does. I don't think that's a point in question. Where we're questioning here is it seems to us that this bill is reducing the care imperative—acknowledging the risk and reducing the care imperative and that will be a challenge for the select committee to see if they can persuade our minds because here today this morning we're not persuaded but we'll see what select committee can do with it. So happy to pass this through select committee. We will be opposing it as it stands today. Thank you."