Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak to the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill as it will become known noting of course that change to the name as alluded to previously by the Hon Mark Mitchell and indeed the Minister in the chair Andrew Little as well.Mr Mitchell has alluded to the fact that we do support the intent and indeed overall the bill itself. There are a couple of different items he's raised that we've made something of a subject of discussion. I think it's worth looking at the various substantive changes that have been highlighted in the new Act as it will become and just giving some context to those for anyone who's watching and is interested as no doubt many will be in this very important aspect of our lawmaking.It probably goes without saying that in this country we can and should and no doubt all do abhor domestic violence—or family and whānau violence as it's variously known. None the less a sensible approach to lawmaking is required such that we have pragmatic and realistic provisions in that legislation and seek balance at all times.First looking at that aspect that the Minister touched upon in relation to behaviour that might seem minor or trivial when it's viewed in isolation but that none the less can form a pattern of behaviour that constitutes violence—the cumulative effect of that being a significant thing and indeed the new test under the Act. That seems to me an act of policy making that's grounded very much upon the real experience of people who are suffering this type of violence and those advocates in the area who have pointed that out to the Parliament and indeed the Ministers plural—from Amy Adams who led it initially and then again as I say Andrew Little—and that's the advice that they provided that domestic violence should be viewed in that holistic way so to speak. So that seems a positive and a useful way to include that perspective in the way that we will deal with what we consider to be violence going forward.So too the approach of considering coercive or controlling behaviour as family violence—again it seems to us appropriate that we would have a scenario where behaviour that might not be overtly violent in the traditional physical way of conceiving that concept but none the less it is very much adverse in its consequences and no less so than those other modes of violence.I'd like to touch on the time frame of the orders that Mark Mitchell has referred to recently: increasing a police safety order from a duration of five to 10 days is a serious step. It's one that we have considered carefully on this side of the House. No doubt others have considered it carefully too—I wouldn't suggest otherwise—but I think if anything it highlights the fact that we need to be very vigilant about other aspects of the justice process such that if we are going to effectively detain and keep separate those who are accused of perpetrating domestic violence we have perhaps an even higher duty than before to ensure that that case—that scenario—is worked through whether that's in front of the courts or by some other means so that the situation is not left unresolved.The issue of delays and a lack of timeliness in our court system is one that has been with this country for some time now and I just take a moment to reiterate the fact that in relation to other legislation that will come before this House during the term on this side of the House we'll work constructively to do what we can along with the Government to improve the situation as far as that is concerned as well.Touching briefly in my remaining time I'd just like to note further to those comments about the abuse situations that it's particularly by setting out quite detailed definitions in Part 1 of the bill the meaning of abuse" for example and the meaning of "psychological abuse"—setting out that that's actually a separate but related phenomenon in itself seems to me a pretty useful feature of this legislation. So for that and other reasons that I've outlined and that Mr Mitchell has outlined as well we're pleased to support the broad intent and indeed the bill itself notwithstanding that caution is I think needed on all parts just to check those unintended consequences."