SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Every child's life matters. That's where my focus and attention is for this debate and has been right throughout the series of debates on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.I have no pleasure or delight in taking this call because what I've heard consistently coming from the other side the Government who is charged responsibility the Minister for Children charged responsibility for the welfare the best interests the wellbeing the paramountcy of our New Zealand children's lives has not been the priority in this debate. What I'm hearing what New Zealanders are hearing is that the subsequent child provision is being amended to satisfy and suit social work practice and parental rights. The whole point and focus of this debate has been charged and focused wrongly.Prior to coming into public service here in this House since 2017 like one of my colleagues across the House I've dedicated my professional life in service to child welfare—a child specialist lawyer. The subsequent child provision partial repeal of this law which is the controversial and contentious point of the amendments some 40 amendments now 41 with the Supplementary Order Paper supported by the Minister for Children going through not one of those focuses primarily on protecting the child. The subsequent children's provision was specifically about that. I have heard—this is highly charged and there has been emotional debate and contribution. I'm speaking with clarity and experience of the law. I know that the subsequent child provision has been controversial but the whole point of it is to be proactive not react to a child who has been seriously harmed or abused. And I have repeatedly reiterated in this House the number of reviews the number of reports the number of recommendations most recently from Dame Karen Poutasi stating as a result of review and findings of Malachi Subecz's life—death. That child is dead because there was not the blanket of protection provided by the State. There were notifications of his abuse and there was no reaction. This subsequent child provision is about being proactive not having to react to harm already caused. I've heard that it's repugnant it is repugnant that the onus of proof is on the parent or is reversed. Actually look and read the law. The assessment requirement is on the State welfare agency to do its job properly. I have heard repeatedly in this House and I acknowledge social workers have a very difficult job and they know it going into it but they have a high burden of responsibility and that burden of responsibility under the subsequent child provision section 18A through to C—and this is a partial repeal about who satisfies and is a parent that meets the subsequent provision of their child taken into care and what should happen. What hasn't happened and it's been mentioned that only 19 cases have been activated under this provision. Part of that is because of social work policy and practice. The provision under the law quite clearly states the onus—we talk about the reverse onus and it's been reiterated and repeated and stated that that burden is on the parent actually in part but it's on the social worker. Section 18A(2): If the chief executive believes on reasonable grounds that a person is a person to whom this section applies" that is the person described as a parent of a child who has been previously taken into care and permanent placement—the subsequent child the burden the onus is on Oranga Tamariki to do the checks and the assessments. Not on the parent. There has been so much misinformation. I do not commend the bill to the House."