Penk Chris; Faafoi KrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm just keen to get from the Minister please in relation to clause 7 which is coincidentally amending section 7 within the Care of Children Act 2004 which is of course legislation that's being amended by this Part 1—I'm just curious to have the Minister's comments on the record in relation to the appointment of the lawyer. The philosophy seems to be that it should be a person who is suitably qualified to represent the child and I think that certainly makes sense as far as it goes and of course a number of criteria are outlined for that—personality cultural background training and experience. Our friend from the ACT Party has stated her view on behalf of ACT that there should be a more general qualification or appropriateness standard applied as opposed to being quite so prescriptive as that.My own concern is really more to place on record I think what certainly I hope we would all agree which is that the representation of the child is the key factor in all of that and I make that comment in reference to the select committee discussion where the select committee members turned their mind I think reasonably to the question of whether there might be discrimination alleged against the lawyer who wasn't appointed to represent a child. I was pleased to see that the select committee ultimately decided first of all that that wouldn't be a breach of the lawyer's rights but I would hope more fundamentally as well that the feelings or the professional opportunities of the lawyer involved are much less important than the child receiving the best possible representation that she or he might have to whatever extent they might have an involvement in that and to whatever degree different qualifications or characteristics might be taken into account. So really placing that on record in my own case and inviting the Minister to state that as well because I feel as though that represents an important philosophical point about the legislation even if it may or may not make a practical distinction in terms of how it's interpreted going forward.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I thank Mr Penk for reinforcing the committee's point. The thinking in and around personality was to ensure that we had someone in a position to represent a child who could build a rapport with that child and a personality to be able to build a rapport with a specific child to be able to represent them as effectively as possible. As Ms Hipango has mentioned I don't come from a legal background but personality does go a long way in building a rapport with individuals especially in situations where they may be under extreme pressure to make sure that we can reflect their views in the Care of Children Act process.So I acknowledge the concerns that were raised in the Supplementary Order Paper from Nicole McKee but in order to make sure we have a full picture of what we're trying to achieve here not only just being trained and suitably qualified to represent the lawyer again also having an understanding of some of their cultural competencies their experience but also that personality and getting the right fit. I think as we can all imagine there would be a range of children in different situations and willingness to be able to partake in a Care of Children Act process. Some may be freer to participate in that and give their views. Some may need a little more sensitivity and coaxing to have their views expressed and I think that's some of the thinking behind why there is such a broad description within clause 7 as it stands.