Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. This has been a weird process from the very beginning starting from the select committee process in the way of we did not get many submissions when it came to this bill because it ran alongside another bill that was quite contentious and it kind of was hidden in the shadows behind that contentious bill which was the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill. So there was not much feedback on this amendment bill and thoughts on what kinds of unintended consequences may come about by what this bill is intending to do.So what this bill is proposing to do is to partially repeal the subsequent child provisions which came into effect on 30 June 2016. By repealing that it will mean that only children who have died at the hands of an adult whose care they were in—whether it be through manslaughter murder or infanticide—will come under the provision of an automatic mandatory report being made and making sure that an assessment is done to make sure that any other children that are born to that person is in a safe home.Whilst I kind of feel for the Government and understand where they were coming from I think we've raised the bar a bit too high when it comes to what a parent or a caregiver can actually do before we think Wow maybe we should make sure that the next child isn't put at any risk of this happening to them." Personally I have seen the damage of children who have come after children who have been abused and neglected in their home and then another child has come along and suffered sometimes a worse fate than what the first child suffered. I feel that a safety net is needed. So that's why in the committee of the whole House I did put forward an alternative and a Supplementary Order Paper in my name requesting that we add in another provision—apart from murder manslaughter or infanticide—that would also include a person who was convicted under sections 188 to 204 of the Crimes Act 1961 of an offence involving the assault or injury of a child or a young person who is in the person's care or custody at the time of the offence. Now these aren't small minor issues. These are issues that could be—I'll list a few: wounding with intent injuring with intent strangulation or suffocation aggravated wounding or injury aggravated assault assault with intent to injure assault on a child ill treatment or neglect of a child disabling discharging a firearm in their presence poisoning infecting with a disease or assault with a weapon. So I'm not talking about small minor issues within a home. I'm talking about major issues where someone would be convicted with at least three months of prison time.I feel it's up to us to be the protection for the young people who cannot protect themselves. And we have seen this Government previous Governments and Governments before—for a long time—who have with best of intentions tried to have our children living in safe environments but have failed. Just recently over the last few years we've seen report after report after report into Oranga Tamariki and whatever it was called before it was called Oranga Tamariki stating that they are not doing their job. They are not actually protecting our children and children are slipping through the cracks.I mentioned the Oranga Tamariki Oversight Bill at the very beginning because the select committee process ran side by side. Part of me is concerned that by changing this and getting rid of the safety net here for subsequent children my concern is around the oversight process when things go wrong. So now we've got two bills that I feel are going to let our children down. It's a scary thought. I have every belief that those within the select committee process that were sitting across the table from me are trying to do the right thing but the unintended consequences are just far too damaging to ignore. Now I've heard that social workers will still have the ability to act if a report of concern is made. I think I heard it mentioned on this side of the House previously that that's after the fact. It's after the fact that somebody has seen something that they feel they need to report. And from experience it takes a lot for somebody to report. It's not just somebody thinking "Oh maybe something's wrong." It takes a lot for somebody to put in a report of concern. Then once you put in the report of concern what is the process after that? Recent reports have shown us that even if someone has put in a report of concern there's no guarantee that that report of concern is going to be followed up. There's no guarantee that that report of concern is going to be taken seriously. Whereas if we have an automatic mandatory check it's there it's in place and it has to be done and we know it will be done. And we're not relying on an after the fact report of concern when we may be too late. Can we afford not to have this safety net? Whether or not it's an inconvenience to parents hapū iwi and children that have come before is that inconvenience worth saving a life for? In my mind it is. Because a child can never get their life back if they pass away. We can say sorry as much as we like but that's not going to bring back a child that loses their life or ends up with a lifetime of disability because a safety net that may be a bit inconvenient for our system is taken away. I have huge concerns about the potential risk we are putting these children in. Through best of intentions I hear that we've got to rebuild the faith and trust of families iwi and hapū. Surely it's the other way round. Surely they should rebuild their trust in the State to show that they are capable of looking after these children. There should be some kind of accountability for bad behaviour and terrible behaviour when it comes to our children. We are losing too many children and we're making too many excuses for the bad behaviour of these parents.I hear that a lot of parents that have ended up in these situations have been victims of abuse themselves. I'm sorry about that; that should never have happened. But it is also not an excuse to let people get away with creating more victims. Because when does this cycle break? When do we break the cycle of abuse and harm to our children? When do we say it's not OK and we're going to make sure that this doesn't happen to another child? This bill does not do that. It actually puts our children at more risk. So we oppose this bill and hope that the Government can come forward with some better legislation in the future."