Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on this very important piece of legislation that National of course did a lot of the grunt work on in Government. Sadly we were defeated but it's good to see—Kieran McAnulty: Woohay!CHRIS BISHOP: Woohay!" he says my breakfast club partner Kieran McAnulty. You'll keep my friend! And it's good to see the new Government—well we say "new" but we're a year in so I don't think they're new any more—Chris Penk: We're getting over it.CHRIS BISHOP: —so let's say "the Government"—yeah "We're getting over it." says Chris Penk. It's good to see the Labour-led Government continuing it.Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 116 that the Minister has laid before the House is an interesting one and I've got to say that I have some concern around the change to extend the maximum duration of public safety orders from five days to 10 days—Hon Andrew Little: Police.CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry police safety orders. What did I say—"public"? I meant "police" sorry. These are orders that are quite rights-limiting and they are quite a wide-ranging power allowing the police to enforce orders against people without warrants or without charge and I think we just need to be pretty cautious in our democracy that we give the police those powers. Five days to 10 days is a doubling of the time that they're allowed to be issued for and I just want to place on the record I suppose my uncomfortableness. I realise and recognise absolutely that they are very useful and can provide a real mechanism of breaking the cycle of offending but I think it would be remiss of me not to place on the House's record my sense of caution or scepticism that the five days' to 10 days' extension is justified. I'm prepared to hear arguments one way or the other. So that's one very important change we need to note.The other change that I want to note which I think is a good idea is also within the Government SOP that has been issued which is around including dowry-related violence in the definition of "family violence". Now it would be fair to say that awareness of dowry abuse is very low but I think it is very important that we signal to decision makers and the public that dowry abuse is a form of family violence. We did hear some submissions during the select committee process—particularly from our Indian community—that the bill wasn't explicit enough that dowry-related violence was covered. The select committee that I sat on decided not to recommend a specific change in that regard. Perhaps we were remiss as a committee in doing so but that's the way that the select committee process went.I think it'd be fair to say that this is a good change—arguably unnecessary—but this is such a tricky issue we're dealing with and something that is really important actually as well as that you can certainly mount a case to say that some clarificatory definitional changes can be included. So this is a very important piece of legislation.Just in the closing amount of time I do want to place on the record my view that the SOP should have been sent back to the select committee to consider. This is quite a substantive SOP. Some of the changes are minor—we've talked about the dowry-related change—but some of them are quite substantive. I think the police safety order extension of time from five to 10 days is quite large. It is really important that we get this bill right. The National Party is supportive of the bill but I think it wouldn't have hurt the Justice Committee to have another go round on it for a month or two. I know we are a very very busy committee and perhaps that's why Minister Little's nodding. Perhaps that's why the Minister didn't support sending the SOP back to the committee. But—[Bell rung] I'll just briefly finish off. Perhaps that's why the Minister didn't support sending it back. We're an extremely busy committee with the End of Life Choice Bill which seems to be interminably going on and also other related legislation. I see we're now going to get the Criminal Cases Review Commission as well. That's undoubtedly going to be sent to us as well.Tim van de Molen: A very hard-working committee.CHRIS BISHOP: But yes my colleague says "A very hard-working committee." I think it's fair to say we've gone beyond the bounds of hard-working which is the usual kind of clichéd epithet approximated to select committees in the Parliament. We've gone beyond hard-working; we are extremely hard-working. But that's OK because justice matters are very important. But maybe that's why the Minister didn't do that. But I do just want to place on the record that I think it is poor process. There are quite large changes in this SOP that the select committee and submitters to the select committee have not had a chance to consider. But overall we do support it.Just finally—it is interesting—we had a discussion in the second reading debate around the name of the bill and I won't traverse the arguments that were mounted then around the name: do you include "Whānau"; do you include "Family and Whānau"? But I just want to place on the record that I am supportive of the removal of the phrase "Domestic Violence" and we're now going to have the Family Violence Act for the reason that I outlined previously which is domestic violence is redolent of the idea that abuse that occurs in the home is something that is only limited to the domestic sphere and is something that is off limits to the criminal law or indeed neighbours and wider society.The idea of referring to arguments or abuse or violence between a husband and wife or family members as a "domestic" and something that could just be ignored is wrong and I think replacing the Domestic Violence Act with Family Violence Act better captures not only the sort of behaviour that we want to condemn but also the behaviour we want to sort out to make sure it never happens again. So I'm very supportive of that change. Thank you Mr Chair."