Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you Minister for the explanation on the bill. As we've heard in previous readings on this there weren't very many submissions because of the timing of this bill and there's just a couple of questions throughout this bill that I just wanted to clarify the intent and the meaning behind some of the things here.But I'd just like to first of all speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name on clauses 5 and 6 and just explain the rationale behind what I was trying to do with these two changes within this SOP. So the first one I was quite concerned to see the language change by taking the words ill treatment" and "neglect" out and putting in the words "concerns about safety or wellbeing". It's very clear what the words "ill treatment" and "neglect" mean. It's very defined and people understand those words. But the words "concerns about safety or wellbeing" not so much; they're a little bit open to interpretation. They haven't really been defined of what that actually means.Maybe we didn't have time or enough submissions to talk about that but I was very concerned about that. So I thought of coming to a compromise—instead of removing the words "ill treatment" and "neglect" just adding them in so that both of those definitions are in there. So you're not losing the "concerns about safety and wellbeing"; we're just adding to it. So that's the first proposed amendment.The second one is around the subsequent child. And I agree: the way it is right now is not fair. Natural justice is not done well the way it is currently written. Parents should have an opportunity to be able to turn their life around and have a second chance but there are some circumstances where I feel we're not really reflecting the seriousness of the offending when it comes to how our young people are being treated in some homes.And I've wanted to add into the definition of the person described in this section "somebody who has been convicted under the Crimes Act of assault or injury of a child or a young person who was in the person's care or custody at the time." An example that I could use is an article last month about a young four-year-old boy that was injured so badly by his caregivers that he was left permanently disabled with so many injuries that his life will never be the same again. Now I mean are we reflecting the seriousness of that by not including that under this provision? Because I feel manslaughter infanticide and murder yes are very serious. But so is abusing a child to the point where they are disabled or they are left with permanent injuries that affect them for the rest of their life. So that was the purpose of that change to this bill. It would include anyone that is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least three months in relation to that offence so that's not for minor injuries but this is lifetime injuries on a child; this is enough for a person to be sent to jail for their crimes. This is a person that would have attacked a child—a defenceless innocent child—that cannot defend themselves. In my mind a person who could do that should have to prove that they are capable of looking after another child that comes along. So thank you."