O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Fantastic. I was worried—not because of Parmjeet Parmar; I thought she might get three calls before I even had a chance. Look I'm really pleased to return here to Part 3. I know we've spent a bit of time on it but there's quite a lot of substance in this part. So I just want to address two particular issues in Subpart 1 of Part 3 and then at least attempt to talk to two of my tabled amendments. The first two points are to do with clause 91 in Subpart 1 of Part 3. It's just once again—well I'll raise an issue which I'd like the Minister to provide an answer to because in clause 91 it talks about the failure to comply without a good or sufficient reason. I've raised the question before: the difference between good in the moral sense or good in the ethical sense. In other words is the reason that's been given something that the case manager deems as good or bad or deems as right or wrong? So I wouldn't mind an answer to that.Then in clause 92 I'd also raised the issue around Map. That's the acronym—Map. The Minister will know that's manual and processes or rather the acronym which stands for the manual and processes—how available that is to the public. The long and the short in terms of the Ministry for Social Development's (MSD's) obligations is noted in clause 92 MSD must make people affected aware of their obligations consequences of non-compliance and their review and appeal rights". I completely understand that that's done in voice and there's various fliers and documentations but having worked in MSD in a variety of roles I know that Map is a fantastic resource certainly for those on the front line or those of us in management too. I'm just really keen to know how accessible Map is going to be because while I know how to find it on the MSD or the Work and Income website it takes quite a bit of effort. So it would be great if the Minister can address those two points.But I'd like if I might now to turn to my tabled amendment. Granted it was tabled almost a month ago at the very end of the last discussion. It's a suggestion to the Minister—and I would really welcome her feedback—to insert new clause 91A. This is to go of course just above clause 92 and inserts the heading "Obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child". The importance of this—again Subpart 1 is about the obligations that people have. I think quite rightly the Minister and those who have worked on this document have put in a goodly number of obligations and I think one is missing and that's particularly to do with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's frequently told to us here that the child must be at the centre of all that we do. In fact that's an excellent notion. In fact it's a notion shared by all cultures. I say that because often it's just sort of put out there that one or two cultures in the world have that notion; it's shared by all cultures in the world. We always want our children to be at the centre. One the great expressions of that is the UN convention and charter around the rights of the child. In particular I'm asking that the Ministry of Social Development takes appropriate steps to ensure—well that the convention is understood but in particular on top of that I want to be really clear to the Minister in the chair the Hon Carmel Sepuloni that I'm not suggesting that we incorporate the entire Convention on the Rights of the Child. That would be absurd. So being the minimalist that I am except in words I'm suggesting that we indicate Article 8 which says "States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity including nationality name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference". I think the particular context here is that it is very clear in UN law and in this convention—one that this country has signed up to—that a child needs to understand who they are. It is very clear that they have a nationality; in this case they're New Zealanders. And what's really fundamental to me is those family relations and the context—and we have had some discussions in this Chamber around this bill—but wider than that; actually acknowledging who one's mother or father is somewhat under challenge and in particular there is the suggestion that a father doesn't need to be named. I'm not going to go into a full biology lesson but fathers are relative—I know there are some people who could be quite excited by these things. The key is that I think it is an important right that a child does know who their mother and father are and particularly the latter because obviously they don't always have to be involved at the last. What's important is that efforts should be made. I think I really want to stress that in suggesting this tabled amendment it's not suggesting that it must—[Time expired]"