Davis KelvinHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm now turning to Part 1 of the bill and the critical clause of concern is clause 6 which is to replace new section 18B which is the partial repeal of section 18B of the Oranga Tamariki Act and that is in relation to A person described in this section is a person who—(a) has been convicted under the Crimes Act of the murder manslaughter or infanticide of a child or young person who was in the person's care or custody at the time of the child's or young person's death: (b) has been—(i) convicted under any of sections 188 to 204 of the Crimes Act of an offence involving the assault or injury of a child or young person who was in the person's care or custody at the time of the offence;". Now I'm speaking to Supplementary Order Paper 275 which has been tabled in the name of ACT MP Karen Chhour. The SOP proposes to replace clause 6 and the partial repeal of section 18B.So to put it into context Madam Chair and Minister Kelvin Davis seated beside you when we were last debating this issue in the committee this Supplementary Order Paper was to appeal to the Minister and appeal to this Government that the partial repeal factor in the importance the relevance the timeliness and the significance related to the most serious child abuse case leading to the death of Malachi Subecz—so this Supplementary Order Paper has been very much driven and motivated by the tragic death of this little one. It states that the partial repeal of section 18B is to not only factor in that a person described who should be accountable and held under the spotlight and the magnification or the lens of Oranga Tamariki but that when it comes to investigating a subsequent child—which means a child who was born after a previous child has been taken into the care of Oranga Tamariki—the partial repeal focus importantly on a person who has been convicted of serious abuse against a child and also another person. So Karen Chhour's Supplementary Order Paper 275 is appealing to the Minister is appealing to the Government and is appealing to parliamentarians that the partial repeal of section 18B is amended to note that a conviction of a person who has caused a grievous assault or abuse on another is on record as a person who should come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki in relation to any subsequent child in their care automatically.I say to Madam Chair and to the Minister seated beside you that the timing is so critical. I have repeated in this House and I have repeated before the select committee that in relation to a child and in relation to any notification and subsequent follow-up of an investigation into a report of child abuse a report of concern about a child in care the timing of that is so relevant significant and important. In this House today the timing is relevant significant and important because the Government and the Minister are in receipt of findings of a review from Dame Karen Poutasi in relation to an investigation and finding that Malachi Subecz became a child invisible to the system. This Supplementary Order Paper will magnify will highlight and will intensify the importance that any subsequent child who comes to the notice of Oranga Tamariki and is in the care of a person convicted of assault should as a result automatically come into the care of Oranga Tamariki.Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you Madam Chair. The member Harete Hipango is quite wrong. Malachi Subecz's situation has nothing to do with a subsequent child as the person who harmed him was not the child's mother.But I'd like to talk to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 311 in my name. I've tabled this. It seeks to address a technical error that has been identified in the current drafting of section 198 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. Section 198 applies when the Family Court is asked to make a care or protection order on the grounds that a child's offending behaviour is significant enough to cause serious concern for their wellbeing. The current drafting of section 198 means that before any care and protection order can be made on the ground of the child's offending the court needs to be satisfied of the guilt of the child beyond a reasonable doubt and that the child knew that their actions were wrong against the law. This means that section 198 applies to all care or protection orders including interim orders where children are placed in the interim custody of the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki. This does not reflect the original intention of the section which was that it applied substantive care and protection orders—or declarations under the old terminology—rather than interim orders. This drafting error is an unintended consequence of changes made through the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017. Prior to that Act there were different processes for declarations and interim orders. However that 2017 Act repealed the declaration process and made consequential amendments to provisions that mentioned that process such as section 198. This has had the unintended consequence in relation the scope of section 198 because now care or protection orders under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 include interim orders. The SOP seeks to address this issue by clarifying that section 198 should not apply to interim orders."