Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill

The debate on this part includes the schedule.

It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I will get the negative stuff over first and say from the outset that we in Labour were a little disappointed that this bill went only part of the way to picking up Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill. Our preference would have been to see National take over that bill and progress it through the House. That has not been the case, but I stand and speak in support of this bill. I know that it goes a long way to addressing many of the concerns around domestic violence.

Part 1, which amends the Domestic Violence Act, will ensure that there is more protection for women—although not in every instance, it is predominantly women and families in the case of domestic violence—at the crucial time when there is considerable heat in the situation and it is essential that the offending party is off the premises and away from the family. I note that in terms of new section 49, “Offence to contravene protection order”, and new section 49A, “Offence to fail to comply with direction”, in clause 5, the changes are sensible. They are common-sense changes. Certainly, as I said before, they go a considerable way towards enhancing protection for women and families in domestic violence situations.

We all know that domestic violence is an absolute blot on this country’s landscape. The previous Labour Government put considerable resource, time, and energy into this issue. It worked with non-governmental organisations to tackle the causes of domestic violence, to provide education around domestic violence, and to raise awareness to ensure that people in this situation get the support and the protection that they so much deserve.

I am taking only a short call on this bill currently, but I am very pleased to be speaking on it. This bill will get the support of all members of the Committee, I assume, and I think that is commendable. At the very heart of the matter is protection for families who are subjected to violence and actions that no human being—and, in particular, no child—should be subject to. I am very pleased to speak in support of the bill. Thank you.

I thank the member Lynne Pillay for her comments on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. She is aware that since this bill was introduced to the House, a second bill that deals with some of the other issues that she refers to—plus another matter, which will enable us to ratify an international instrument in respect of one particular matter—has been tabled. Some issues remain with regard to the current legislation, to which the member refers, and that is why the second bill, the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, remains on the Order Paper. I assure her that I am doing my best to work my way through the remaining issues.

Broadly speaking, this bill is a piece of work that I started on about 2½ years ago with some staff with whom I was working at the time while in Opposition. I am pleased that the bill has made the progress that it has to date, and I hope that towards the end of the evening, before we adjourn the House, we may make some more progress on it.

Part 1 amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995 by inserting new Part 6A, which provides for the police safety order initiative. In brief, the provisions provide the police with the power to issue a police safety order when called to a domestic dispute if they are unable to arrest the alleged violent person. Part 1 also amends the offence provisions. Firstly, it removes the tiered penalty structure for the offence of contravening a protection order, while retaining the current maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment of up to 2 years. That was actually quite an important signal to send in the Part 1 provisions. Secondly, it separates out the offence of failing to attend a programme as directed, and retains the current penalty of up to 6 months’ imprisonment or of a fine not exceeding $5,000. That continues to give emphasis to the importance of participating in the programmes emphasised in this legislation. Section 50(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, which requires an arresting officer to consider certain criteria before arresting a person who he or she suspects has breached a protection order, is also repealed. Repealing those criteria aligns the principal Act with section 315 of the Crimes Act 1961, which permits arrest without a warrant where there is good cause to suspect that an offence has been committed.

The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of changes to Part 1 to provide more explicit provisions around the law enforcement and court processes associated with the police safety orders. I thank the committee for that work; I think it added to the bill and has made it a more whole piece of legislation. Supplementary Order Paper 72 in my name consists of several technical amendments to Part 1, and I hope the Committee of the whole House will see its way to supporting them.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I thought I might take this opportunity to go over briefly some of the more substantive changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee made, which the Minister of Justice referred to. But before I do, I highlight again what a considerable advance this legislation is. That is, of course, originally thanks to the drafting by the then Labour Government, but I also congratulate the Minister on taking on this legislation. I am sure at some point in the third reading we might go into it in a little more detail. Some of those additional pieces could perhaps be expanded on, although, as the Minister has mentioned, they have been put into the new legislation. There are still parts of Labour’s legislation we would like to see acted upon.

This legislation is a very new type of tool for police to add to their tool kit in preventing domestic violence. I want to highlight that this tool is intended to be a preventive measure, but with that come some difficulties. Of course, we are asking the police to intervene, in many cases, before a crime has occurred. The Police Association came forward and suggested in the select committee discussion that, for instance, some of the penalties for breaching a police order should be heftier than what had been proposed. We had to put back to them that we needed to weigh up the consideration of the fact that, in the first instance, a crime had not yet occurred, and that some of the association’s suggestions may be considered disproportionate. That was a balance that I think the select committee has struck in what it has produced.

The first change that I want to touch on briefly is in respect of some words that were either changed or removed. I think that that was in order to aid the police in making a decision as to whether a police order is required. The select committee tried to have a very practical discussion with officials about the kinds of practical situations police officers may find themselves in, so that we could ensure that we were not adding any words unnecessarily that may prevent police officers issuing orders where it might be extremely useful. One word was “immediate”. We recommended the removal of the condition that an order be issued only if necessary to safeguard the immediate safety of the person. That was on the basis that at any one point in time when a police officer arrives at a house, there may be a period where the dispute may seem slightly more settled, but that may not be the case a few hours after the fact. We wanted to give maximum flexibility to the police in that regard. The other word was “serious”. Proposed new section 124B(2) of the Domestic Violence Act sets out the matters to which the constable must have regard when considering whether to issue an order. One matter was whether there was a serious likelihood that domestic violence might be used. We felt that the word “serious” was quite imprecise, so we recommended removing it.

I will touch on two other issues. The committee rightly picked up on the fact that, when a police officer is called out originally, the criterion was that a constable could award an order if there was a view that that person had not committed crime significant enough for an arrest. We considered that there might be another offence that may have occurred in that environment or in that home to cause the person’s arrest, which might be completely unrelated to domestic violence, but that there might be reason enough to suspect that a safety order might be useful. We wanted to ensure that, even if an arrest had occurred, a safety order could be used as well.

Another issue I will touch on briefly relates to who could award an order. We determined that it would be worthwhile to clarify that a constable who is not a qualified constable must receive authorisation from a qualified constable. That was specifically to take into account the fact that in a rural environment someone may not have reached the required bar in order to issue an order, but may be the only person available on the scene at that time to do so. We wanted to give not only maximum flexibility but also oversight to those situations. We considered that it would be appropriate that that may occur via telephone.

It is a privilege to speak in this debate in support of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. As the bill went through the select committee process, it enjoyed the goodwill of members on all sides of the Justice and Electoral Committee table. We had a number of very positive submissions from the public in respect of this bill, and only one or two were against it. Those submissions seemed to be from a partisan view of the proceedings of the Family Court, rather than against the bill itself. We made a number of changes around process to take account of, for instance—as the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, mentioned—the difficulties for those in rural areas of accessing legal counsel. The days available to obtain a formal protection order whilst the police safety order endured was lengthened slightly. There were some concerns around just how that would fit at certain times of the year—for instance, over the Easter period or over the Christmas period—and I think that those are valid concerns. We will have to see how that runs. There were also concerns in respect of an enhancement made to the bill to allow police who preferred prosecution out of certain circumstances to be able to bring a safety order there as well.

One other aspect of the debate within the select committee process that was very interesting was the submissions made by groups in support of women as victims of family violence. One group suggested that the protection orders should not be able to be put in place by a court on sentencing, because it took away the power of the victim to have some self-determination in respect of her—it is usually “her”—own circumstances. It was interesting to note that the exact opposite suggestion was submitted for exactly the same reasons. Other groups in support of women came before the committee and suggested that courts should be able to make these orders without any consultation with the victim, or despite their not wanting them, because women who are oppressed in these relationships are frequently unable to make those decisions and choices of their own volition. In the end, we allowed the courts to impose a protection order at sentencing, because we felt it was in the best interests of the people involved in the centre of these disputes.

I finish by thanking those who were involved in the select committee process. I am thankful for the spirit in which we engaged together, for the good result we ended up with, and for the enhancement of confidence in the parliamentary process, given the result we had in preparing this bill for the House. I commend it to the House.

I will begin by acknowledging the member who has just resumed his seat. Not only was that a considered contribution to this very important debate but also I understand that he was very well regarded as chair of the committee, not just in the way he dealt with other members of the committee but also in the way he dealt with submitters, and I acknowledge him for that. I am not likely to do that often, given his current political affiliation, but when it is warranted I certainly will.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Just wait!

That is right. When he moves on from that position, we never know what might happen.

I acknowledge the Hon Annette King, who put a huge amount of work into preparing the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, and also all the officials who worked so hard, not just with Annette King when she was Minister, but also with community organisations up and down the country, to make sure that that bill had really strong input from people who knew the outcome they wanted. There is no debate about the outcome that is required, but these issues are not always as straightforward as they seem. The bill that Annette King introduced to the House was the result of widespread community consultation, and that is the point that I want the Minister to reflect on before he takes the next call.

I will add that it was one of the few pieces of legislation that went to the cross-party family violence prevention group, which had every single party in Parliament, tragically with the exception of National, represented on it. That cross-party group looked at various options in terms of enhancing safety in the home, and supported the progress of the bill. It certainly is not often that we have people like Heather Roy, Tariana Turia, Sue Bradford, and Judy Turner in the room together, all working on one cause with a great deal of passion and commitment. I regret that National left the group and did not come back, because it was an opportunity that was lost.

The original bill came forward with a lot of support from both outside and within this Parliament. Part of the bill that I am referring to, the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, has been picked up by the Minister Simon Power and I acknowledge his commitment. I have no doubt about his personal commitment to enhancing safety in the home, and I acknowledge that, as well. But I find it quite puzzling that despite him introducing a second bill, there are still quite important issues from the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill that have been omitted. Frankly, if we have an opportunity as a Parliament to make our homes safer for everyone, and particularly for women and children, why would we throw away that chance? That is the question I want the Minister to answer. There was a bill already before Parliament that had majority support in this House, without doubt. There may have been some small parts of it that could have been debated, but I doubt even that.

The Minister went to all the trouble of introducing his own bill, which took part of that original bill, and sent it to select committee, and then went to another lot of bother to introduce a second bill. Still he missed out four quite important parts of the original domestic violence reform legislation. Why would anyone want to reduce safety by taking away some of the key elements? That is what I would like the Minister to answer, because it seriously is a puzzle to me.

My colleague Jacinda Ardern outlined some of the concerns that were raised both by members of the select committee and by submitters to it. I want to proceed with asking the Minister directly for his views on the four points that have been omitted in both pieces of legislation, and that were in the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill. The first omission is changing the definition of a child, from under 17 years of age to under 18 years of age, in the Domestic Violence Act. Obviously, that would give us compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that is a good thing. It does not improve anyone’s safety, but it is always good to sign up to United Nations conventions when we can and when it makes sense for our nation. It also would align the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act. It is very puzzling that a Minister who is generally regarded as having quite a lot of rigour, showing attention to detail, and common sense would waive the opportunity to make a very straightforward move aligning the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act; it puzzles me.

The second omission was the decision that has specifically been made to not require reasons to be given in writing when a without notice application for a protection order is declined by a judge. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no explanation from the Government as to why it specifically made the decision not to proceed with including that provision in the legislation. Again, this is something that was worked through by experts in the field, by people who are survivors of domestic violence, and by people who support them to move from being a victim to being a survivor. It was worked through with the police and the Ministry of Justice—the people who know what they are talking about. This was the advice that was given to us; we took it from the best sources. But the Minister said: “No, I’m not going to do that.” Once again, it is a big puzzle and I would like the Minister to take what will be one of the last chances to explain that second puzzle to me.

The third omission from the original legislation was the decision not to introduce information sessions. That is contrary to all the evidence around the fact that protection is best given in a situation where an individual knows how he or she can access support, and that person also understands the nature of the threat that he or she may be faced with in the future. That message does not seem to be understood by the Government, even though people in our country die at the hands of partners who often have quite recently professed to love them. They have been frightened and they did not understand what may happen to them. Information sessions are a critical part of enhancing an individual’s safety. We literally have people in our nation killed, and we may have an opportunity to enhance the safety of someone who could be in that situation tonight. I know the Minister is committed to that aim. I cannot understand why he took that information session provision out of the original legislation, because once again it was on best advice that that was included. I hope that this is not a political party issue. I am sure that every single member in this House wants to enhance the safety of individuals, particularly within their own homes. Once again, I ask the Minister whether he could please explain to the Committee why he did not take the advice that Labour was given when in Government to include those information sessions as part of the legislation.

The fourth point is the Government’s specific decision not to introduce funded addiction treatment services and, again, that is despite overwhelming evidence about the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. I cannot fathom why that specific recommendation has been taken out. It is a huge contributor to enhancing safety, not only in the home but also in our broader community. In my view, it is not too late for the Minister to say that he has changed his mind and introduce some amendments. Labour would support those particular provisions being put back in the legislation. The Minister is able to provide Supplementary Order Papers at a moment’s notice. He has the advantage of having some extraordinarily competent officials on hand. They may well have those amendments drafted, just in case the Minister decides that the best evidence is worth taking and that doing every single thing we can to enhance safety in the home is worth pursuing.

Despite those omissions, the parts of the Hon Annette King’s legislation that the Minister has taken on board are very good. I hope they achieve the aims that we all share, to ensure that fewer children, fewer women, and fewer men are harmed by those who should give them the security and the love that they deserve within their own homes.

I start by acknowledging what the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, said, particularly in relation to Chester Borrows. He has done an exceptionally fine job of chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee through its consideration of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I agree with what Chester Borrows said: all the members of the select committee—whether they were from Labour, the Greens, or National—entered into a spirit of cooperation that was very good to see. It was this Parliament and the select committee process working at its finest.

I also agreed when Ruth Dyson said that every member of this Committee wants to do his or her bit to enhance the safety of victims and potential victims of domestic violence. In fact, we want to do what we can to ensure people do not become victims. The Minister of Justice acknowledged that there is more work to do, which he and his ministry are working on. This bill is a response to a serious issue, and, in respect of the Minister, I think we are seeing a fine response.

Before talking very briefly about the response, I say that I am sure no one doubts the severity of the problem. I agreed with Lynne Pillay when she said that domestic violence is a blot on our society. We think of the very high-profile cases, the children like Nia Glassie and the wives and spouses who are badly beaten. But, of course, it is also clear that domestic violence can be rather more banal than those headline cases. With 80,000 domestic violence call-outs for police every year, no one can be in any doubt that this issue needs a response from this Parliament. As I said, it has been a privilege to be part of the team under Minister Simon Power that worked on this.

What does the bill do? Well, it does many things. It deals with the penalty provisions for failure to attend a programme, and so on. There are a number of specific provisions, but perhaps the key part is that it allows for on-the-spot protection orders for up to 5 days in situations where police may not have sufficient evidence to charge then and there—although they may get it eventually—but it is quite clear that the situation is bad, is serious, and needs to be dealt with. In other words, this bill allows for immediate safety to come first. It empowers the police and gives them the tools to ensure that immediate safety comes first. I do not think anyone in this Chamber could disagree with that. I look forward to taking a call in the third reading debate of this bill.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002