Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I join others to comment on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I start by giving credit to our colleague and friend Karen Chhour a woman of not only lived experience in this space but considerable passion advocacy and skills in speaking up for the most vulnerable and I congratulate and I thank her for doing so. There's been a lot of passion in the House tonight discussing and debating the proposal that is before us. I think that is a good thing. It would be sad if we were not concerned enough about the issue that is at hand such that we were indifferent and passionless regarding the situation of some of the most vulnerable members of our society. So if I may take a moment to congratulate those who have spoken with such passion albeit approaching the subject perhaps from different angles at times then I do wish to place that on record. I think that there is notwithstanding the passion in the debate and the discussion a need to understand in a very clear-headed way exactly how the law—the legal framework as a whole including this particular piece of law the Oranga Tamariki Act—would operate. So as I understand it the basis of the proposal from Ms Chhour is that we want to emphasise and clarify and confirm in the law the paramount consideration that is the welfare of the child. Now I don't say that to suggest that members who are taking a different view on the bill don't want what is best for the child but the fact of the matter is our law is already structured in such a way as to make the welfare of the child and the wellbeing of the child the paramount consideration and of course we can and should consider different factors that would lead to promoting such wellbeing and an aspect of that would be cultural considerations. But in the hierarchy of how these things are considered at the top of the tree or at the centre of the circle and hence the child-centred approach or the primary purpose—to use another different expression of the same idea—the key to it all must be the welfare of the child. I think what we have ended up doing is discussing this from different angles and we're in danger I think of losing sight of the fundamental point that there are different possible harms involved to the young person. I believe—as I think colleagues across the House would also say they believe—that there is an element of harm in removing someone from their cultural context. That's not an ideal situation. There are no good options when we are contemplating how best to place a child other than in their natural family situation in which they were once living. But the reality is that we are asked as policy makers and we ask those who execute policy to make difficult decisions to balance harm and to choose the least bad option. So if we allow our calculus to be quite simply that the best interests of the child must be paramount and take that as a starting point and from underneath that flow all the other considerations rather than regarding conceptually a series of pillars of all equal standing then I think we will come closer to achieving the aim that I hope and expect we all share which is to reduce the possibility of harm to a child in her or his family environment. To this extent I think we're arguing over how best policy may be reflected in practice. Obviously there's been a good deal of publicity about the practice of uplifts and reverse uplifts where obviously a child is removed in circumstances that are obviously distressing not only to the child himself or herself and families—plural—sometimes involved in the movement but also those who care about such things and as I say I hope and expect that that is all of us. I do just want to note briefly from the perspective of being the shadow Attorney-General that it was distressing to see an element of judicial interference in relation to a matter that came in front of the courts along these lines both between an agency and the courts and within the courts in terms of a live proceeding in a manner that wasn't consistent with the court process as it should be. So that was disappointing. It reflects the complexity and the importance of the matter. As my colleague and friend Harete Hipango has said we support the intent of Ms Chhour's bill. We do support it at its first reading for all those reasons.