Penk Chris; Faafoi KrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. Obviously Part 2 is a pretty small part and my contribution in discussing it won't be particularly large either—just a couple of points regarding that amendment of section 11 within clause 11. What a beautiful alignment of clauses and section numbers tonight Madam Chair; I sense your excitement almost matches mine. The phrase that sort of leaps out at me a little bit is the reasonable opportunities to participate in" decisions affecting a child. I'm quite pleased to see that the Justice Committee—for which I can take no credit; I was not a member—has talked about "reasonable opportunities" plural. It seems to me that what's indicated in that is an intent that the opportunities would be regarded as arising on an ongoing basis. So hopefully the intent is that the family dispute resolution (FDR) provider does not merely consider at the start of the process or perhaps in "taking initial instructions" in quote marks or in having an initial briefing but really regards the obligation actually to have an ongoing consideration of what the children might be given by way of opportunity or opportunities to participate in decisions. Of course it's an ongoing process—a lot of back and forth in these things often. So that's my first observation. Again as in Part 1 I sort of offer it as a comment that Minister Faafoi's obviously welcome to contradict but failing which I would hope we can take that I'm on the right track and that the record will reflect accordingly that intent from the legislature as a whole.A couple of other small points within that same section: one is that I see that the select committee has recommended a different form of wording than that which had been introduced into the House presumably by the Minister or perhaps a predecessor—I think the name the Hon Andrew Little was mentioned earlier. The select committee has steered away from a wording that talks about facilitating participation "to the extent … that the FDR provider considers appropriate". I think they've made a fair swap with the alternate wording that they've provided there. What we're going to end up with I think is a bit of give and a bit of take. So it's a stronger obligation—instead of the FDR provider having merely to facilitate participation they have to ensure that the children be given reasonable opportunities—but that's qualified somewhat because the opportunities are as considered by the FDR provider to be appropriate. So a bit of give and take—I think they've landed in a pretty reasonable space there. Then my final point I think in relation to that would be just to ask the Minister to give a bit of an explanation about the way that—I suppose it's a reflection really with some sadness that we're talking about a situation where we've got the phrase "children who are the subject of the dispute". There's no way around it. I mean that's exactly what we're talking about here. But I suppose I just wanted to reflect the fact that in a contested situation in litigation it's a dispute and children are caught up in this. So hopefully the Minister would agree that the overall flavour and intent of the legislation would be to minimise the exposure of the children to the dispute and without wanting to relitigate Part 1 just reflecting that the way that that can be achieved as best as possible with more or less legal involvement as the case may be should be the aim of us all in this committee. So on that philosophical note I will conclude my contribution on Part 2.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Again thank you to the member Chris Penk. My understanding is that child participation in the family dispute resolution (FDR) process as it stands is quite ad hoc. So the inclusion of this bill does put somewhat of an obligation on or encouragement of their participation again in the interests of working in their best interests. I'd also note as a last point to the member the stocktake that I mentioned earlier in terms of care of children processes and making sure that there are safe frameworks in order for that to happen also applies to the FDR process as well to make sure—I think some of the submissions that were made about keeping children safe especially in traumatic situations apply in the FDR environment as well."