Davis KelvinHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Look just to respond to a couple of the points raised. First of all I think we'll all agree with the member Harete Hipango: New Zealand has a terrible record of not looking after our children and not loving our children like we should do. I don't think there's any argument across the committee. We've all heard of the instances the cases of abuse. Not all of them mean that a child passes away but regardless no abuse is acceptable no form of pain inflicted on a child is acceptable.So I've got no problems whatsoever with the subsequent child provisions applying to a child for parents whose previous child has been murdered manslaughter or infanticide. But when it comes down to a parent—such as the hypothetical situation that I explained in my opening remarks—a mother through whatever circumstances maybe as a teen parent her life is not flash something happens a child is removed but 15 years later after education after maybe getting into a new relationship after drug and alcohol counselling after making all these improvements to her life with the help and support of whānau all of these things do happen. We can't just assume because something happened when a person basically was a child themselves a young person themselves that as a 30-something-year-old the behaviour is going to still carry on. So with the support of Oranga Tamariki with the support of agencies and services if they don't see that there is still ongoing concern the question is: why should somebody have to go through the Family Court to prove that they're OK? If there are all these support people all these agencies working with them why should that happen? See one of the things—and maybe just digressing a bit—is the impact that the subsequent child provisions had on the relationship of social workers with a parent. It's really difficult for a parent to want to engage with a social worker—a parent say who is pregnant has had a child removed even if it was 15 years ago—knowing that under the current provisions when that baby's born that baby's going to be taken off that parent. Why would a parent really want to engage and how difficult is it for the social worker to engage with that parent with that whānau knowing that the baby's going to be taken anyway? All of us who are parents just can't even imagine the pain that would be caused by having your babies removed. If after 15 years you've cleaned up your life you've got on with things you've made changes you're educated and all that sort of thing I've got no problems. If a parent doesn't appear to have made those changes in their life—if Oranga Tamariki if social workers if community providers are saying We still have concerns." I've got no problem. But it's when the person has shown that they've made the improvements to their life I think it's—and particularly over a long period of time—not the fairest thing sometime later for their baby to still be taken off them. That's not to excuse any form of abuse that has occurred. I totally take the member's point that some parents can do some horrible things. But in particular an extended period of time where they have proven that they can parent that they've shown that they have made changes in their life I think that there's an opportunity to trust the services and the people and the support that's been wrapped around them."