So the part that is staying is the bit that is probably the most extreme, which is around murder or manslaughter or infanticide. The bit that is being removed is the bit where a previous child has been removed from a parent and has no likelihood of being returned. So the design this provision was put in for in the first place was to ensure that where a child had been removed from a parent, the children born subsequently to the same parent was an automatic consideration for the safety of that subsequent child—that second or third or fourth child, or however many the parents went on to have. So, in effect, what it was doing was ensuring that there was a mandated and automatic response when subsequent children were born into that family. Basically, what it was there for was to provide greater oversight of the safety of those subsequent children. So that is the National Party's view: it is that the reason that that provision was put there in the first place was focused entirely on the safety of subsequent children—and there is no argument that lots of work needs to be done with families, that wraparound services are provided to families to ensure that they get the support that they need to make sure that they become safe, loving parents, providing for their children—but by eliminating this clause in this piece of legislation, it simply removes a safety valve that is in place.