Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill in this its third reading. As we've heard the bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 by partially repealing the subsequent child provisions. It has other matters of repealing the information-sharing provision and amending the technical errors and ambiguities but I speak mainly to the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions. They were introduced back in 2014 by the National Party and came into effect in 2016. The subsequent child provisions only apply when Oranga Tamariki receives a report of concern about a child and the parent has previously had a child permanently removed from their care or has a conviction for the death of a child in their care. The provisions are intended to introduce an automatic mandatory response to ensure greater oversight over the safety of the subsequent child.National continues to oppose this bill. We stand by our policy of the legislation that we bought in back in 2014. We stand by the policy because we believe that it does provide that automatic that mandatory response to ensure greater oversight of the safety of subsequent children. We are concerned that the partial repeal of the provisions will increase subsequent children's likelihood of being exposed to neglect and abuse by a parent. Sometimes people do change; there is absolutely no doubt about that. People turn their lives around. The previous speaker Angie Warren-Clark talked about the onus being on the parent to have to prove that they are a good parent. Well they should have to. If they have seriously harmed a child they should have to prove that they are a good and fit parent for their subsequent child. I don't think we should be making excuses or saying that's a bad thing. So sometimes people do turn themselves around their lives around but the benefit of doubt must always be with the child. It may disadvantage a parent; that's quite right. It may but we must always balance the risk to the child rather than the disadvantage to the parent.Let's be really clear: the subsequent child provision applies when Oranga Tamariki receives a report of concern and when the parent has already previously had a child permanently removed from their care and that child has no likelihood at all of returning to that parent. It's entirely possible that the 19 times that this has been used since it was introduced has saved 19 children from serious harm or worse from being killed.I regularly have a young boy coming to visit us with his caregiver. He was shaken as a baby and was taken from his mother. He now lives his life in a wheelchair non-verbal and unable to eat by mouth. I wish that young child had been taken from his mother earlier. I wish the intervention had been earlier because that dear little boy doesn't get a second chance to prove himself. So our feeling is that the benefit of doubt must always always always be with the child because there are no second chances for them. There is no opportunity for them to prove themselves. They have been the victims. The National Party prioritises and I hope that all New Zealanders would prioritise protecting children. We have a shameful record of not protecting children from serious harm and being killed. It is a national shame to us all. We must concentrate on protecting children their welfare and wellbeing and enhancing families whānau and communities to care for and protect our children. Of course that is what we want to happen but we must first and foremost protect those children. We must do everything possible to make our young children and our babies safer. If we don't protect them if we are constantly looking for ways to make it easier for the parent to retain the care of those children then we put them at risk. I don't know how anyone in this Parliament could live with putting children at greater risk. For some reason we have strayed into the thinking that the parent has to always be given the benefit of doubt. We have strayed into thinking we've got to be constantly looking for second chances. But so often we have let babies and young children down. As I keep saying they don't get a second chance. Every time I look at that young boy who visits us in a wheelchair non-verbal not able to eat—he didn't get a second chance. So I'm not sure that this legislation giving the benefit of the doubt back to the parent taking away the onus on the parent to prove that they are a fit and responsible person to have the care of that young child I don't consider it is the right direction for us to be moving to. We are not talking about insignificant matters. We are talking about serious harm to our babies and young children. Because of that we certainly oppose this legislation.