Pugh Maureen; Salesa JennyMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the National Party in opposition to this bill the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill in its third and final reading tonight. This bill did not attract a huge amount of submissions during the select committee process. The Minister has just said that he thanks those submitters but unfortunately many of them were distracted by the change to the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Bill. So having two bills happening at very similar times meant that we probably didn't get the number of submissions that we would have liked. But that has not meant that the select committee did not scrutinise this bill in its entirety.But there are a couple of main provisions in this amendment bill and I'll start with probably the smaller impact which was the section 66D dataset provision which is repealing that provision out of the existing Act. This provision only really came into effect in July 2019 so it really hasn't had a lot of time to become embedded. But as we found out there were—so just as a matter of explanation this is about information-sharing provisions and creating datasets and publicising where those datasets came from so that the public was made aware of them. But it turns out that this hadn't been enacted or implemented so we now find ourselves changing the law because it hasn't been implemented. The excuse is that there have been no reports of these data sets when in actual fact if we looked at implementation rather than the inaction that we've seen with this provision it would seem logical to ensure that OT—Oranga Tamariki—was actually using that provision rather than changing the law to cover up the inaction. So it just seems a little bit odd that we are even considering that rather than using it for the purpose it was intended.But the main part of this bill that has seen the Opposition oppose this bill is as it relates to the subsequent child provision. So I just note that the purpose of this is to enable women and families who have had a child who has been previously removed and there is no likelihood—not possible likelihood" but "no likelihood"—realistically possible that that child or young person will be returned to that person's care. That seems on the face of it quite innocuous but what we find is that by virtue of the fact that this bill is removing the provision for an automatic response to the family to remove that child until there is clear proof that that child is going to be safe and will not be subject to the types of harm that the previous child had been exposed to.So this is where we part our ways in terms of our view of this bill because if we look at the main provision of new section 18B in the bill it's that Oranga Tamariki can continue to inquire into the safety of any subsequent children and provide supports for that child and their whānau and hold a family group conference. But we have heard throughout other readings on this bill that it is streamlining the process. We know that mums and dads in some cases do require absolute intense wraparound support to enable them to provide a home and security for subsequent children but in the meantime there is still a risk that some children face. And that is why we think on this side of the House that the main purpose is to protect our children.Now the bill talks about the safety and wellbeing of these children but sadly there is no definition of "safety" or "wellbeing" in this bill. So we also have a lot of concern from the people that did find concerns with this bill that there is no oversight then from Oranga Tamariki around safety and wellbeing and then support. So without confined definitions Oranga Tamariki and the social workers become very subjective—and we don't want subjectivity when it comes to the protection of our children.So unfortunately if this provision goes through and this bill will be enacted tonight it means that if Oranga Tamariki receives a report of concern about a child or young person and that child or young person's care and protection needs to be assessed sadly this is already after the fact which means that we already have a report of concern which is as we've seen with some of the children that have been subject to abuse in their family already too late. And the reason the subsequent child provision was put in place in the first place was because of the potential risk—and it may not be real but it may be potential risk. When we put children at the heart of legislation it means that we are making sure that there is no risk to these children. Now the reason it's called a partial repeal is because there is one part of that clause that is staying in there and that is if there has been a murder infanticide or manslaughter—which is quite realistic and we support that. But unfortunately it does not extend into other forms of abuse that children can be subject to which are serious physical abuses that leaves a child with permanent injuries or disabilities. We know how vulnerable they are to beating broken bones even the psychological damage and that is now not taken into consideration. So unfortunately the partial repeal only applies to those who have killed children; not to those who have permanently disabled or harmed children in a psychological or physical way.So I think before the Government passes this legislation they need to give some thought to those children that we are talking about. Look there is less than 20 times this provision has been used—this subsequent child provision—in this country since it came in. That tells you that it is not commonplace to have used it but in those cases where there is extreme concern for the safety of subsequent children it has been used.So I'd like to end my contribution by reminding the Government members of the children that we have heard about that have been publicly on display for the harm that has come to them and to pay tribute and remember them: James Whakaruru the Kahui twins Nia Glassie Tahani Mahomed Duwayne Pailegutu and most recently Malachi Subecz. These children needed the support of the State to protect them. We have now exposed some very vulnerable children to some serious consequences and I'm really disappointed that we've come to this because if the Government was serious about putting children at the heart of their legislation thinking of them first without thinking about streamlining a process maybe using another Family Court hearing to assess the suitability of parents to continue to—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member's time is up."