Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Mr Chair and it is a real pleasure to stand and take a call on this the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. Firstly can I acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams who did put an extraordinary amount of work into this bill in the last term. I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair because we've had several meetings and I've certainly indicated to him that should he bring what we feel is good legislation around the reforms that he wants to achieve then we would look at those and if we felt they were good for the country we would support them and there'd be a bipartisan approach to that. I think that he has applied that rule in bringing this Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill to the House because this was in fact in large part a National Party bill that was developed under the leadership of the Hon Amy Adams. So could I acknowledge him in bringing this bill to the House and making sure that he continues to steward it through. We did have some consultation around the changes. I did go back last week after a meeting with our caucus to see whether or not we could break them out into the 11 separate amendments just so that we could debate them. Most of them we do in principle actually support. A few of them we oppose and we've had a discussion around that. I guess there were a couple there that we were a bit uncomfortable with. One was the extension of the police safety order from five days to 10 days. I know that when the Minister discussed this at length with advisers the advice that she got was that even five days we thought was an extraordinarily big power to give the police when effectively they can apply it. They can go into a home where there's been some family violence. If there's not actually enough evidence there to progress towards charges being laid then they can apply the police safety order. It's very very good in principle. What it does is it removes the offending party and it gives the other party the ability to be able to have some time and space and also if they want to go to the courts and apply for a protection order or something like that then they can do that. We did some stakeholder engagement. Largely stakeholders were in support of it. It allows a little bit more time. We'll be watching it closely because it is a big power and to extend it—to double it from five to 10 days—we felt was a big step and we will be watching closely to make sure that it's not abused. We've got a high level of confidence that it won't be but removing someone arbitrarily from their home without any formal charges actually being laid in our mind is a big power and a very big step. There was a lot of debate around that and we're still quite cautious. We'd like to see how that works. The other one was around the fact that that relationship was going to change between a carer in the care industry and the person they care for. This is around the people that will often go and stay the night or might even stay a week at the home of someone who might be suffering from dementia or cancer or some type of illness. In our meeting it became apparent that there'd actually been no stakeholder engagement. We were concerned about this and we worried about this because fundamentally we were concerned that there could be a second or third order effect. There could be an unintended consequence in the terms of the fact that we are changing that relationship. There may be some carers that actually want to have a very professional relationship with an arm's length status attached to that and what we're effectively saying is that now they can be treated and seen as a family member. What does that actually mean for them? If we could get some clarity around that it would be good.Fundamentally we of course support the bill. We think that it is a very important one and so I'm going to take only a short call but maybe in a later call I might just address very quickly the change in the name because although that may seem insignificant there was actually a lot of consultation that went on between the National Party and the Māori Party in terms of the development of this bill and there's actually quite a bit of meaning that sits behind the title of it as well. But I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.