Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you for the opportunity also to speak to the Family Violence Bill and the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill. Sir you'll be aware and the House will be aware that we are at this particular stage now as a result of Supplementary Order Papers at the committee stage of this bill dividing the original legislation into two bills. The fact that that has been necessary is I think not just an interesting aspect of parliamentary procedure but in relation to all the different amendments that are needed to other Acts that indicates actually something significant in itself which is the breadth of reform that is needed across our legislative framework and indeed the challenge to our social framework in all the different ways that we need to consider how the scourge of family violence affects our law and our nation.I'll take a minute as well to acknowledge the Minister presiding over this bill Andrew Little his colleagues and also his predecessor in the role of bringing this legislation to the House the Hon Amy Adams. I also acknowledge and thank those who have contributed to the broader process of discussing what is needed to conclude this item of work—those who have shared knowledge generously. I'm sure that many who have considerable knowledge of family violence wish that that were not so but nevertheless they are prepared to speak of their experiences and share those with us in the hope that together we can do something to at least allow a framework such that there will be less violence in our society going forward.I acknowledge speakers in this House who from lives previous to entering Parliament have particular knowledge. My colleague Harete Hipango for example has spoken of her expertise and earlier we heard from Priyanca Radhakrishnan with her particular experience and knowledge in the area of dowry violence among others—those encapsulating the bill but they have been well covered already by those other speakers so I don't propose to do so again in my time.So having referred to the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill that in turn amends various other Acts I'll just touch briefly on some of those in particular the Bail Act the Crimes Act and the Evidence Act. It is partly within the realm of criminal law that family violence legislation does sit so it's appropriate that those are amended to take account of this new framework; however it's not only in the criminal sphere of course but also the civil sphere and the family sphere as well. The dates of some of those provisions coming into force are different according to different Acts for reasons that have been well canvassed at previous stages of the legislation.As for the substantive work in the Family Violence Bill amending and overhauling the Domestic Violence Act I'd like to focus on a few aspects that seem to me particularly important as we're at this third and final reading and hence the concluding stage before this becomes law.One is to note just in general terms that the aim is very much to break the pattern of family violence and reduce the harm and cost inflicted on those who suffer as a result. And one word that seems to me very significant in that is the word pattern" and it's quite deliberate and meaningful that within the legislation the notion of patterns of violence and not mere individual acts that are significant in themselves is really a key item of understanding whereby the legislators including ourselves and also those who've contributed more broadly to the process are trying to understand the way to break the cycle. The number of ways that that happened I will come to if time allows.But first let me just mention at least in passing the bipartisan nature of the process that we've embarked upon. I don't believe there's a member in this House who wouldn't support the general aim of reducing family violence but it's pleasing too that we appear agreed on the way in which this can occur here today.The reason I think that it's important is partly symbolic. We've got a non-adversarial process for a piece of legislation that's designed to reduce violence and that perhaps is significant in itself. I think of the phrase that we might be said to be "giving peace a chance". And just as the word "peace" can be defined either narrowly in the sense of being the absence of war we can also take a more holistic view and talk about serenity in general. And so it is too that the abuse that's defined within this legislation and prohibited and precluded by this legislation is not just abuse in perhaps the traditional understanding of physical violence but also psychological violence and other forms of violence as well.Particular emphases of the bills that I'd also like to touch on include the emphasis on early interventions—the early stage of the intervention of course being very much directed at reducing harm. And that's important not only in so far as the actual harm itself whether physical or psychological is concerned but also recognising the fact that the longer harm is allowed to continue within that environment the higher the stakes become in the sense that justice in the traditional way that we say must be seen to be done really elevates the seriousness in a way of offending that is being carried out. So if you'll excuse me—resorting to cliché—prevention is better than cure and so too a cure of a relatively minor harm must surely be better than reducing further harm if it is allowed to flourish?Part of that in terms of what the bills actually state revolves around police safety orders. These are obviously an important mechanism that already exist within our system—the idea that we can take a person out of a violent environment typically or inevitably the person causing such violence whether male or female and that's an aspect again that my colleague Harete Hipango has touched on. Discussion was had at an early stage about the length of that. On this side of the House we did express some hesitancy about the fact that the maximum time frame for which a police safety order would apply was being increased from five days to 10 days. That point was acknowledged by the Minister in the chair at the committee stage. He did acknowledge as I say the fact that that is a considerable curtailing of a person's liberty and it's not a step that is being taken lightly as this bill progresses with that particular change being made.However he did point out—and I think in a way that was ultimately acceptable to this side of the House—that in balancing the particular harm of family violence with on the other hand the curtailing of a person's freedom in a way that hasn't been through a full judicial process was a reasonable balancing act in the way of preventing and reducing the harm that I've already mentioned.Part of the other rationale for the police safety orders it seems to me is reducing the fear of violence. And the fear of violence in the way that psychological abuse is abuse no less than physical abuse is could be said to be a form of violence in itself. And if it's true that fear is itself to be feared if you'll excuse the nod to Roosevelt then so too we should fear a situation in which our people in New Zealand are afraid of their loved ones—and I use that term deliberately understanding that oftentimes in fact inevitably in a family violence situation the persons concerned are loved ones to each other or at least should be. And it's the exceptional nature of family violence and the desire to bring back the norm such that family members would be loved ones to each other and not abusers and abused that we must work so hard to ensure that these provisions will be successful.Please allow me to finish by noting in particular the comment that I made before regarding patterns of behaviour and more particularly the fact that these bills contain definitions that recognise patterns of behaviour that might appear trivial in isolation but the cumulative effect of which is clearly abuse. And so too acknowledging that coercive or controlling behaviour can be abusive in the way that it subjugates and subjects the person who is being abused and is restricting them from being free in the way that we would expect and hope our children and adults of this country should demand and we should demand on their behalf.So with that I think I've covered enough detail to illustrate the more general points that I'd like to make and that others have made. I commend them for doing so. I commend those who have contributed at earlier stages of the process. I'm very pleased to join others in this House in supporting and indeed commending its passage and I look forward to the day that we will have to spend less time discussing this but in the meantime it's been a very useful exercise and I congratulate all involved."