Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. This is obviously a very difficult and sensitive topic. You know there can be no more important work for this House and its representatives and policy makers than considering the protection of children—I mean I'm tempted to say vulnerable children" but of course children are by their very nature vulnerable—and it's important that we turn our mind with the utmost clarity and concern to protecting those who are in a particularly vulnerable situation a situation of even greater concern than merely a situation where there has been some sort of breakdown or difficulty and the processes must be followed. We're talking no less than the importance of life and death decision-making actually—just to be blunt about it—in the cases of the fate of these young people and the care in which they're placed. I use the term "care" perhaps loosely in some cases.We will all be aware in this country and in this House—and I'm sure it goes without saying that we would all deplore the idea of violence against children. Nevertheless that has been the experience sadly of far too many of our young people entrusted either with the default arrangement which is to say that they've been growing up in a household and problems have developed or maybe have been there from the very start or else problems have developed by some other care arrangement—whether that's organic in the sense of being a family or a blood relation or some other kind of family arrangement or indeed the intervention of the State. All the well-meaning words in the world will not protect those who are most vulnerable and in a situation of experiencing violence if we do not set in place the right systems.Now I don't pretend to know the right systems myself—I don't know if anyone in this House does entirely—but I can say for those who are concerned to ensure that barriers for the protection of children are not taken down that have been erected in the first place. To those who would say that we need to be careful about putting up barriers between the State and the family I say that I understand exactly where you're coming from; I acknowledge that concern. We in the National Party understand of course that wherever possible it should be family and whānau who are able to raise their own children. But at the same time we recognise the sad reality that sometimes and regrettably too often—and of course one child injured or killed in this way would be one too many—it's been the case that in care a child whether a subsequent child or otherwise has been failed by the State primarily of course by those who actively perpetrate such violence but when the State does not make the right decisions or the best decisions or the least worst decisions in the circumstances then that's something we should all take very seriously.So as far as the bill goes I haven't had the benefit of involvement at a select committee level but I've listened carefully to the contributions of those who have. I understand that effectively it's a repeal of that subsequent child provision or regime that the National Party had introduced in 2014. The previous contributor to this debate Dr Emily Henderson has said that it was not working as it had been intended. Well that may or may not be true and I'm not particularly in a position to know one way or the other but I would say that we should indeed be very careful to replace a system without being extremely confident that we're replacing it with one that is at least as good if not better. And of course the concern here is that we will remove a layer of protection that's so badly needed by children who are in particularly vulnerable situations.I will acknowledge the point that has been made in documents associated with the bill that additional Family Court proceedings for older siblings in care can be damaging—that's a fair enough point to make whichever way one addresses or considers the bill. Extending disputes between families entrenching the positions—particularly of the parents or the would-be caregivers—and expanding the scope of disagreement by airing those in a way that's not likely to lead to resolution is of course harmful to the child and that's another form of harm that we should be anxious to avoid. So like others on this side of the House we the National Party say that we cannot support the bill."