Davis KelvinHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you Mr Chair and good evening to everyone. Look I'm pleased to be here today—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before you do—I'm sorry. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 43 Amendments to [the] principal Act". The question is that Part 1 stand part. Now I'll give you the call Minister.Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Thank you Mr Chair. So I'm pleased to be here for the committee stage of this bill the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. It has been going through the House process for some time. It started under the previous Minister Tracey Martin. This bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 by partially repealing the subsequent child provision so that the subsequent child provisions will only apply in respect to parents with a conviction relating to the murder manslaughter or infanticide of a child in their care; by repealing a redundant provision relating to data sets; and by making a number of minor and technical amendments aimed at improving clarity and addressing omissions and ambiguity in the Act—tidying up an Act that is over 30 years old. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their examination of the bill during the select committee stage and all the submitters for their time and contribution to the bill. So the main change proposed in this bill is the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions. The subsequent child provisions were enacted by the previous Government and currently apply where a parent has previously had a child permanently removed from their care or has a murder manslaughter or infanticide conviction for the death of a child in their care.The bill proposes to partially repeal those provisions as they apply to subsequent children where a parent has had the care of a previous child removed and it has been determined that there is no realistic prospect of return to the parents. The proposed change reflects a first principles review of the subsequent child provisions which found that the provisions were not promoting the best interests of children and rather the provisions were causing harm particularly for children with an older sibling already in care.The court is required to determine that there is no realistic prospect that an older sibling would be returned to their parents' care and this results in additional and potentially traumatic court proceedings for the tamariki and the whānau. Additionally these provisions predetermine risk in a manner that is contrary to modern social work practices. This is clause 6. There is a presumption that any parent who may have ever had a child removed from care is therefore unable to care for any subsequent children regardless of any changes that may have occurred in that parent's life.So if I can talk through a hypothetical example just so people understand exactly what's happening here. So if a young woman say at the age of 18 becomes a parent and as a result of circumstances at that time the child is removed from their care this may have been because of safety concerns or there's been an assessment that the child needs care and protection. But then if the same woman turns her life around—they pursue further education get a full-time job and sort their living situation out—but later she falls pregnant again 15 years after the first child was removed from her care under the current legislation there is no way for a subsequent child to remain with the parent or caregiver despite all the positive changes in that mum's life unless it's decided by the courts. And this is where the courts get to interfere in the lives of the family. If the subsequent child provisions apply then the Family Court must consider the matter even when Oranga Tamariki has no care or protection concerns for that subsequent child. So of course if an assessment is made and there are care and protection concerns or that it is unsafe or unsuitable for the child to be in the parent's care then there are still options for alternate care. It would be entirely inappropriate for social workers to consider if that person is going to be a safe and suitable parent. The partial repeals mean that the assessment can be made rather than be considered a foregone conclusion. The partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions will also strengthen the ability of Oranga Tamariki to work in partnership with the whānau hapū and iwi to look for solutions that address the collective and longer-term wellbeing of the child and the whānau. The ability for this to happen is currently limited by the provisions that are in the Act.Also the subsequent child provisions have significantly damaged the relationship between Oranga Tamariki and Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal itself found that the provisions caused prejudice to Māori and would be a continuing breach of the Treaty until they are partially repealed. Partial repeal therefore supports the rebuilding of relationships with Māori. The subsequent child provisions will be retained where they relate to parents who have been convicted for the death of a child in their care. This does reflect the seriousness of those offences. The partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions will not diminish the ability of Oranga Tamariki to respond when there are concerns about the safety and wellbeing of a subsequent child. So I look forward to the views of others as we debate the bill and the Supplementary Order Papers that have been submitted. I believe that this bill is an important step to improving outcomes for tamariki rangatahi parents and whānau and I'm very happy to answer questions on this bill."