O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): As has been offered by all it sounds like across the House we're supporting this the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. Of course it's just returned from the Justice Committee and it's important to acknowledge the member sponsoring this bill Ginny Andersen. It's been my observation sitting on that committee that not only she has to balance the chairship but obviously her personal views on this and she's done that very positively and also demonstrated I think the passion behind this.It ended up as quite a discussion of how to make this work. I think it's fair to say the committee was in agreeance that this should go forward; it was just a matter of how to make it happen. And so without taking away from the intention which was excellent a lot of work was undertaken particularly by advisers to give us a way through. Fundamentally what started as two proposed provisions has now seen the select committee in effect trying to tie this amendment bill back to existing laws. Joseph Mooney who resumed his seat earlier noted that one of the critical points in this is making it clear that those who are involved in grooming of young people—so under the age of 18. Actually I should make the distinction. To be quite clear: those over 18 involved with grooming those under 16—the grooming itself is an offence. The meeting is not a necessary requirement any more. I think that's quite critical as obviously it's what this bill's trying to achieve but the other thing is of course we don't want these people meeting the under-16-year-olds. It was one of the very quick discussions because we were all I think if memory serves me right in agreeance—the idea that one would have to just wait for the groomer to go and meet this young person to trip the current law just seemed wrong and inappropriate. So it's good that that is there.There's been talk about the penalties that are in play. These are now more aligned to equivalent offences I think rightly. The initial presentation of this law had much higher fines and I think even the suggestion of seven years in prison. That's been dialled back and I think it's important for those in the public to understand this is not the Parliament at this point suggesting we should be soft on these forms of crimes but more that we want to align the penalties with what already exists.So it's a good bill. I think it's actually a really positive example of a good member's bill. There's a lot of stuff that comes through—by all parties I'd better add—that can be seen as superfluous. This one is not. But it's also a very good example of a very good intention which has if you will shown the best qualities of a select committee their advisers Parliamentary Counsel Office and others to actually bring about some workable aspects. My final thought though is—well I think it's complementary to what others have said. Look ultimately this is sort of not quite ambulance at the bottom of the cliff but it's trying to stop something which is already in train. And the only thought I'd give this House is that when we come to think about who we are as humans our relationships our families sexual relationships and others that needs to be grounded in values and ethics and morals. Now there's not one moral or ethical code but that needs to be grounded in some sort of values. The more modern view and we've heard it from some speakers much earlier who are wanting to reduce relationships to effectively transactions that can be taught consented to—you know attend a few classes in school and all will be well. That has failed dismally failed over many many years. So if we want to continue to address child exploitation family violence and the like it's certainly my view that we need to return as I say to a view of family and relationships that's based on a value system and not simply on transaction.