Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill as it will be renamed no doubt in due course. I'd like to acknowledge the remarks that others have made across the House more generally about the evils of domestic violence or family and whānau violence. I don't wish to belabour the point of the particular evil that is indeed the scourge of our society except to say that of course like every other member of this House I do acknowledge the importance of that and therefore the need to do something about it. It is something therefore that we must do if it is a useful and worthwhile thing in itself—and it is. But it's also worth acknowledging I think—and again I believe that every member of this House does acknowledge—that there is much more that can and should be done in this arena. Let me begin sir please by noting that a number of different Acts will be changed by this bill and it seems to me that that reflects the fact that this is a complex area. It's an area of our legal system where a number of different facets—for example bail the care of children the Crimes Act and so forth—are touched by this legislation. So I acknowledge the work of the officials and also the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee who have considered all of those very diligently and of course the previous and indeed current Ministers for taking that comprehensive view to our legislative framework and our statute book to do the things that are necessary in order to make this bill work. My colleague Harete Hipango who has serious credibility and experience in this field has talked about the main features of the bill. So I won't belabour that point except to say that I would like to focus on some of the aspects that go particularly to the definition of violence. That seems to me very germane or indeed crucial to the way that the bill operates and the way that it will be executed so to speak in the field—indeed in the home most often. I'd like to focus in particular on clause 9 which talks about amending the definition within the Act of psychological abuse. This is very interesting to me as a matter of lawmaking of course in addition to the very serious substantive issues that are discussed and raised in relation to the type of abuse that would be covered by this bill. One of these is the definition of psychological abuse as it reflects forms of abuse in relation to the elderly and also disabled people. So if you'll allow me sir I'd like to go through some of the detail of that because it seems to me very important to the issues that we are at least trying to rectify by passing this legislation if indeed we go through to the third and final reading. In new section 3 in clause 9 we look at the meaning of family violence. It says in this proposed legislation that (3) Violence against a person includes a pattern of behaviour (done for example to isolate from family members or friends) that is made up of a number of acts that are all or any of physical abuse sexual abuse and psychological abuse and that may have 1 or both of the following features:" and then it goes on to list two features. I'd like to pick out the words "pattern of behaviour" because it seems to me very important that we are acknowledging as a Parliament and as lawmakers that sometimes the nature of abuse is that it is effectively cumulative. The bill is quite explicit about the fact that a number of acts when viewed in isolation may appear to be minor or trivial and yet the cumulative effect of those—or the "pattern of behaviour" to use the wording of the bill—is such that that is serious enough that we should consider it to be abuse and therefore we should offer to those who are suffering such abuse the protections of this bill. For the sake of completeness—and I think very wisely—the bill also does say quite explicitly that a single act may amount to abuse. So of course it's not just a pattern but it might be a one-off instance of sexual or other physical or indeed psychological abuse that would be covered by the bill. Psychological abuse is somewhat complex. I suppose it's less obvious potentially to those who are becoming involved in helping the victims of such abuse. It might also be less obvious to those who are suffering the abuse that they have in fact been subjected to psychological abuse. So it includes threats of physical or sexual abuse and it also includes particularly we find in this bill in relation to people who are already vulnerable—of course by definition a victim of abuse is vulnerable but the bill does actually set out that there are particular categories of people who are already vulnerable and whose vulnerability is therefore multiplied by the situation of being abused in such a way as for example where a person is unable to withdraw themselves from the care or charge of another. There might be the removal or hindering or the threat of a removal or hindering of an aid or device that affects or supports that person's quality of life. So that example is important. It is important that it is an example and that we're not narrowing the effect of the legislation. There's been some considerable effort I note from reading the commentary to ensure that the examples don't limit the scope of the bill. That shows to me that some care has gone into this piece of legislation that an as wide as possible application will be had and that is indeed a positive thing. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that there are factors that are outside the ambit of the bill but not by reason of it having been drafted in a way that is limited except to say that all law is limited in the sense that as a society as a community and indeed as families and whānau we must as the saying goes own the issues in a way that acknowledges that with all the best will in the world of the Parliament—and it seems that the Parliament does so far unanimously support this bill—there are factors outside the ambit of the law that are things that we do need to take ownership of and do outside of the legislative framework. With that in mind I note that in the regulatory impact statement there are a number of key constraints set out. Non-regulatory options were considered but the scope of the review that had led to this bill being crafted was not focusing on those explicitly or exclusively. There was some discussion as well about the quality of the evidence base. It was noted that there's a range of factors that contribute to perhaps a lack of understanding of what family violence might be. An obvious reason for that might be because such violence takes place behind closed doors almost by definition and that there has been historically low reporting of such incidences. Looking further down the agency disclosure statement we see that it's noted that there will be no doubt an increased demand for services as a result of this bill. That is a good problem to have in itself if it's the case that more services are required to give effect to helping those who are in situations of abuse but we do then face the conundrum of being unsure whether an increase in services being required reflects the fact that there is better reporting greater acknowledgment and indeed better assistance being given as distinct from an increase in the rate of violence or abuse. So that is something that we must remain vigilant about as lawmakers and indeed as a society as a whole. It goes to the point that was highlighted I think very well by various colleagues earlier about the name of the bill and acknowledges that a disagreement including physical sexual or psychological abuse is not merely a domestic matter and is not merely behind closed doors and that a man's home or indeed a person's home is not his or her castle in a way that should preclude us from taking an interest and taking action in these cases. With my remaining time I'll simply note that the bill has undergone considerable scrutiny in its time so far having reached us now over a period of some months. No doubt there will be more. That's appropriate for such an important area of legislation as this and I look forward to hearing from other colleagues and continuing to see this bill's passage through the House."