Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): That member Terisa Ngobi just made the point; that is exactly what the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill is about. It should be about protecting children. But no this is an ideological piece of legislation because Labour has decided they want fewer children in State care. Well no apologies from this side: I want fewer New Zealand children harmed. When we live in a country where one child is killed every five weeks actually their interests should come first. And who is accountable? The Minister for Children. So yep social workers do incredible work but the accountability sits with the Minister.I want to draw your attention to the comment that talked about a first principles review of the provisions in 2019 that found they were not operating in a way that promoted the best interests of children nor as originally intended. That's not a fault with the law; that's a fault in how it's being implemented. And fundamentally when this legislation was introduced it was the vulnerable children's legislation. It was aimed and targeted at vulnerable children and it was all about the prevention of harm. So why on earth—why on earth—if it wasn't for an ideological reason would Labour change it? Because on this side of the House we do not want to sit back and watch yet another child be harmed or killed.Let's face facts. It's not a pleasant reality but the reality is that for a parent who has had a child removed or a parent who has been responsible for the manslaughter or murder of a child of theirs or of a child in their care unfortunately that past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour. So we are very clear on this side: we are not willing to risk additional harm to that child and we absolutely must ensure that they are protected first and foremost. Oh no no. We'll give it a go." says Labour. "We'll let the parents have the subsequent child and we'll keep an eye on them." Really? No matter how hard a social worker works to support that family there is a risk. And it is naive to suggest to think or to ideologically think it's anything other than that. So the child should be the first the second the third and every other priority in this legislation. But unfortunately they are not.I want to put on record that National believes in the ability of families no matter how broken no matter how dysfunctional no matter what has happened in the past to get back up to heal to improve and to learn and develop and grow. So we are not saying we are writing those parents off. We're just saying: do not put a child at risk of harm. So absolutely work intensively with that family get them to a place where they can have children in their care but do not—do not—place that child in a place of harm or risk.National has a very clear social investment approach and Nicola Willis gave a fantastic speech recently about "doing good better". One of the elements of social investment is early identification—actually making sure that we are targeting our investment in areas that get the best results. I firmly believe—I firmly believe—that many of the families that these children belong to can rebuild and can have children returned but the first priority must be keeping those children safe and then allowing over time a safe managed return.This is about reversing this onus of proof. I don't think it's too onerous for a parent who's had a child permanently removed from their care a child that has been murdered or has died through manslaughter or infanticide—that any subsequent children their priority and their safety is put first. I don't think that is too onerous. I would have thought that makes complete and utter sense. And to this side that's what we believe—we firmly believe. And actually I'm still staggered as we debate this in the final reading that others in this House don't think that the child's rights and safety are paramount. I accept like many in this debate that Oranga Tamariki has a lot of work to do but don't just keep changing the law; help them with their practice ensure they are complying with the law. And I don't want to labour the point with Karen Poutasi's report but it was heartbreaking to read that.You know we have a law; they're well designed for a reason. There is a risk to a child based on their parent's previous behaviour that it's likely to be repeated. If it's not repeated that's great; that's a bonus. But can we not put an innocent child as the kind of experiment: "Well let's just see shall we? Shall we just see if those parents have reformed? We'll just put the child in their care even though we know there have been some horrendous things that have happened in the past. Oh no no no we'll just leave the next child there. We're sure it'll be all good." Well unfortunately history tells us that it's not. That's why this provision was put into the bill in the first place in 2014. That's why it was put into what was then the vulnerable children's legislation—"vulnerable". They are vulnerable—that's why they need protection—and this bill strips away fundamental protections and the ability to prevent harm.I'm proud to be part of a party that focuses on children and reducing harm not one that is just talking about the numbers of children in State care—as if that's the measure that counts. No because when I come to work I want to know that the work we do in this House not only improves the lives of vulnerable New Zealanders but protects them. And who are the most vulnerable? These children. We've seen with other pieces of legislation that we have been involved with that Labour's not listening. As Karen Chhour the ACT member quite rightly said this bill didn't get the attention it needed because there was such a furore on the oversight of Oranga Tamariki legislation that I don't think enough submitters paid attention to this. They know how important it is that we get this right—that a lot of the work still to occur is with Oranga Tamariki and their systems and processes and care practices; it's not with the law. It is with the oversight to ensure that they are doing what they're meant to be doing and that they're doing it in the best way possible.We want to see through prevention and early intervention through a social investment approach that we can do good better because our children—every single one of them—deserve it. So it is with no pleasure that I stand in this House to debate this piece of legislation because I know it will go through. I find it disgusting. I find it disgusting that members in this House are willing to put vulnerable children in the firing line in the line of harm. National vehemently opposes this legislation to put subsequent children of parents adults who have killed their children—it's just simply not right."