SpeechANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Before I commence my speech I would like to just acknowledge—this is the first opportunity I have to acknowledge you in the chair as the Deputy Speaker. Congratulations sir.I'm here to speak quite briefly on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and I'd just like to acknowledge the previous speaker Maureen Pugh who spoke quite sensitively about this matter. I think it is one that is serious and important. I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister Kelvin Davis first and foremost for bringing this bill to the House and for the Minister Nanaia Mahuta who took his place and presented his speech and statement. We did only have 24 submissions and we heard from 12 submitters via video conference during a time where most work was online. I want to also acknowledge how much more complex that made the work process for the officials—parliamentary counsel the Office of the Clerk but also for the Social Services and Community Committee who by and large do work very collaboratively together. I'm quite pleased today to be speaking to this bill because I do recall a time in 2016 when this piece of legislation came in and the House may recall that at that time I was the manager of a women's refuge and we recall having the conversation about the work that we did with the mothers who had often had warnings or had children uplifted from them about what hope this piece of legislation gave them. I can tell you it was quite a harsh piece of legislation for those families. Those mothers always wanted their children back. They always always wanted to do the right thing. They had lost their children and they were working very hard and this piece of legislation brought in by the National Party in 2016 changed the onus or burden of proof to actually make these under-resourced these very complex presenting families prove that they were worthy parents and it was a difficult thing for us to work with them about.I want to be really clear that the submissions that we heard were by and large positive and the subsequent child aspect was probably the most complex part of the bill or the most controversial. I do acknowledge that there were differing views at the table.I would just like to go through the wording of the legislation that we changed in regards to the subsequent child. So first and foremost a subsequent child is any child born or unborn"—keep that in mind; unborn also—"who has a parent who has been convicted of the murder manslaughter or infanticide of a child or young person in their care or custody". So that's the first part. That's the part we are not repealing. That is the part that is staying in place.The second part—this is the part that we are repealing: "who has had a previous child or young person removed from their care and there is no realistic prospect that the child or young person will be returned to the person's care." Now the previous speaker said those words but I want this House to sit for a moment in actually what that means. The children or child who has previously been placed with another family has to go to court and that child has to be part of the process that says that their parent—their birth parent—will never ever realistically be their parent again.I would like to ask the House whether that is harmful or not and I believe it is. I certainly understand the concept around why this was put in place. The mechanism and the use and how this occurs to those families and even if it was 19 children or 19 families that this has happened to—this a redundant but it is also a repugnant part of the legislation that we have and I'm very delighted to be removing it. I would like to finally just say there was another large of pile of things that we changed in this bill and so I'm just going to very quickly a read a list and then I'll take my seat. So we changed parts of the Evidence Act the payment of fees and expenses for youth advocates. We clarified and made clear the function for family group conferences and youth justice family group conferences. We clarified restraining orders and when and where they are appropriately applied. We amended transitional provisions and amended the ultimate right of the chief executive or their representative to attend a family group conference at the deliberation point which is not necessarily the best point for that person to be at.So with that I am delighted to stand in this House and to see this piece of repugnant legislation be partially repealed. I commend this bill to the House."