Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill

I move, That the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. My speech today is for every victim of domestic violence who ever felt trapped and for every person who knew a workmate was being abused but did not know how to help.

It is no secret that I used to work at Women’s Refuge, and the resilience and the strength of the women I worked with has always stayed with me. I remember one woman in particular who left with her children when the violence escalated. She had been living under siege for years but he said he would kill her if she left. It was incredibly brave of her to leave, and she was not sure it was the right thing to do. He had racked up debt in her name, and she was struggling to imagine how she would pay rent, childcare, and everything else as well as pay off that debt. She was also understandably scared that he would kill her or her children. She needed her job to pay off the debt and look after her kids. She was a sitting duck at work. I called her boss and explained the situation and tried to organise time off for her, a change of shift, or a different worksite for a while. They said no.

I remember that night driving her up to the door of her work, and she was lying down in the back of the van as I drove up to the door. Her fear was palpable, and I suspect mine was as well. She went back to him the next day, and I do not know how things worked out. This situation will be different in some workplaces today but not all. People ask: “Why do women go back?”. This is why—victims of domestic violence are in the most danger when they leave. I absolutely understood her decision to go back, and I still feel the frustration and powerlessness of not being able to help her.

Most victims, however, find it really hard to stay in work. The impact of the abuse has a profound impact, and often they struggle to concentrate at work. Their partners actively try to make them quit, or try to get them sacked by using all the petrol when they need to go to work or by disappearing instead of taking the kids to school etc., etc. Without a job victims become more isolated and dependent.

Domestic violence reaches into workplaces all over our country. Evidence shows that stalking, constant emails, phone calls, and attacks in or outside the workplace happen. Recent research, funded by Women’s Refuge, of New Zealand women who had been in a violent relationship showed that 60 percent were in full-time work before the relationship but that fewer than half of those women managed to stay in work through the relationship. At any one time in this country over half of New Zealand businesses could have a staff member experiencing domestic violence. Workmates are often the only people who know, but we cannot expect them to automatically know what to do.

This bill is about saving lives. It provides victims with a pathway to safety and protects them from the effects of abuse in the workplace by providing up 10 days’ leave every year, which can be used to cover time lost through injury or other impacts of the abuse. It can also be used for counselling, moving house, settling kids into a new school, dealing with the Family Court, or safety planning. It also clarifies that victims can request flexible working arrangements to minimise the impact of the abuse outside or in the workplace, that domestic violence is a workplace hazard, and that employers should create the environment to be able to identify and mitigate. Finally, it adds being a victim of domestic violence as grounds for non-discrimination to the Human Rights Act so victims cannot be sacked or otherwise penalised for the behaviour of their abuser.

International research has found that although CEOs think domestic violence is a major problem they underestimate its impact in their companies. I suspect the same is true here. The argument that these policies will cost businesses too much is amoral, and it assumes that domestic violence is not already costing businesses. Well, it is. It is costing them great staff and it is reducing productivity. Economist Suzanne Snively’s research shows that the provisions in this bill, if we get them right, will provide a net benefit to businesses in terms of increased productivity as well as, I hope, knowing that they are doing the right thing.

Last year former Prime Minister John Key said: “It’s easy to think this [family violence] is someone else’s problem. But it’s not [someone else’s problem] … if you are a New Zealander who cares,”. In this case I agree with him. This bill helps workplaces and employers show they care and make sure every victim of domestic violence gets the support they need. If someone is in danger and we can help, we should. That is the right thing to do. Everyone deserves a safe workplace where they can get the support they need to leave a violent relationship. Being protected at work and getting the help to leave should not come down to luck. We need a standard across all of our workplaces.

Last year, after hearing thousands of submissions, the Victorian Government’s Royal Commission into Family Violence found that having a supportive workplace provides financial security to victims at a major time of need and that work colleagues are among the most common source of support for victims. It recommended national employment standards and specific leave provisions—pretty much what this bill intends to do.

I bring this bill to the House in the context of social change. This bill did not just appear out of the brilliance of my own mind. Progress is being made internationally and here at home. I really want to acknowledge the New Zealand Public Service Association, who started championing and providing an evidence base for these policies way back in 2011, and all the other unions, including FIRST Union, E tū, the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association, and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, that have been putting these policies on the table at bargaining for a long time now. It has been wonderful to see Countdown, The Warehouse, GCSB, GNS Science, ANZ, and many other smaller businesses and agencies responding and putting these provisions in place. The chambers of commerce and Business New Zealand publicly supporting this discussion, I think, is a milestone for this country. Of course, I want to acknowledge Shine and Women’s Refuge, who have been working with businesses for years to develop supportive policies as well as research to support this work.

The National Council of Women of New Zealand, Zonta International, and the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women have all been championing this cause for a few years now too. Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Dr Jackie Blue, has set up a business work network using her power to promote these policies. That is the context of this bill. All of these groups and people get that we are in this together, that domestic violence is something that we all have a stake in reducing.

For me, politics becomes inspiring when we work in partnership with communities to solve problems and create social change. For me, that is the Green way of doing politics. But I really want to acknowledge with gratitude and appreciation all of my parliamentary colleagues who are supporting this bill tonight. My faith in humankind has really taken a leap. I think it is a testament to the importance of the issue, but it is also a signal to survivors who are watching this that we care, and we should. Today we are starting a process that, if we get it right, will save lives and support victims, so that going back or quitting their job is never again the better option.

Today is International Women’s Day, and although this bill will apply equally to victims of domestic violence, regardless of gender, the majority of victims are women and children, so it seems a very appropriate day to be having this debate. I hope everyone listening will go away thinking that in Parliament we are prepared to listen, engage, and get this right. Let us be bold together.

I am very pleased to come and take a call on this bill tonight and on this issue, and can I begin by just acknowledging the member whose name the bill is in, Jan Logie, for her very genuine commitment to this issue. I know that it is one that the member feels—and has felt for a long time—very strongly about, and I want to acknowledge her not only for her work on the bill but for her work in the area and the work that she has done with me as we have discussed issues around domestic violence in the time that I have been the Minister of Justice.

Can I just reflect on one of the aspects of Ms Logie’s speech, which is to share in her joy when Parliament can recognise issues that are of importance to us all. In the time that I have been working on these issues—which is the entire time I have been the justice Minister—right across Parliament, actually, it is probably the one issue, more than any other, on which I have found that the party affiliations go by the by, and I want to just acknowledge not only Jan but all of my colleagues across Parliament for their work on the issue.

I have got to say that I have been utterly appalled, as I know other members of the House have been, at the sheer scale of this issue in New Zealand. I have said from the outset that I certainly do not claim to stand before any group and suggest that I have all the answers, but what became patently clear to me very early on was that, as a country, the first thing we have to do is ensure that right across New Zealand the conversation is had about the importance of the issue, the scale of the issue, the severity of the issue, the trauma it causes, and the intergenerational flow-through effects of those families that experience family violence. Let us be quite clear that whether or not the victims are getting physically assaulted and whether or not the violence is interpersonal violence between partners, everybody in that family, everybody in that whānau, is affected—particularly when it involves children. They suffer tremendous trauma.

This House, I am sure, will know that last year in New Zealand we had notifications to police of family violence upwards of 105,000 times over the year. That is about once every 5 minutes. And if that is not appalling enough—and it is—the police will tell us that, actually, on average, a woman victim, where it is a woman victim, will often have suffered episodes of violence up to 21 times before an initial reach out for help is made. When you think about those two facts, beyond anything else, 105,000 to 110,000 notifications a year represents the very smallest part of the scale of the problem.

I must say that I never thought I would be in this House long enough to hear a member of the Green Party quoting John Key with respect. Ka pai to you—I think that is a great step forward, Jan.

💬 Jan Logie: Building bridges.

Building bridges. But you are absolutely right, and the former Prime Minister was equally absolutely right when he said that this is a problem for everyone—everyone.

I am not in any way shying away from the responsibility of Government to lead in this space, or the responsibility of this House, but, equally, we kid ourselves if we think that this Parliament or any Government can fix this on its own. If there was a bill that you could pass or if there was a programme you could fund that would put an end to it, no Government would have said no to that, and we all acknowledge that. That is not to say that we cannot do more, and that is why, with my colleagues—Anne Tolley, in particular, but colleagues across all the portfolios that impact on this space; 16 in total—we are overturning every rock and asking every question about what we can do better, because we have to do better. But it has to be more than the Government. It has to be a problem for New Zealand and every New Zealander.

The point I made when I made the commitment on behalf of the National Government to support the bill—certainly through the first reading and through to a select committee—was that what we do know, and what we must know, is that whatever the answer is, business has to be a part of it, and that is the absolute agreement I am in with the member. I think, actually, there is far more that the member and I share in common ground on this than we may differ on, which is not a bad starting point. But, none the less, it is incumbent on us to test carefully everything we do, because although the issue is significant and serious and real, as with anything in this space, we have to be very careful to ensure that we get our responses as right as we can.

But what we absolutely know—and what I agree with the member on, and what we have a chance to discuss—is that that does have to involve how we support these victims in their employment. I agree with the statistics that the member quoted around the impact on victims, and the additional trauma and difficulty and challenge, if they also lose contact with employment relationships. Equally, we know that someone going through particularly serious domestic violence when they are trying to get out of an abusive relationship, or trying to stay in one safely and successfully, will put needs and pressures and requirements on that victim and their support network that are unique to them, and, again, it is incumbent on us to think about how the system supports that. So although, in terms of the Government, we are not yet sure whether the answers in the bill as drafted are exactly the right mix, we are very happy to have an open conversation and explore that.

Can I also say and put on record my—“delight” is the wrong word in this context, but my great pride, I guess, in New Zealand, that so many parts of New Zealand, in the public and private sectors, have already taken steps down this road. You know, I have been an employer. I have run businesses. What you know when you run businesses is that your staff are your biggest asset, and, frankly, it is just good business and good economics to look after them. It is not about doing something because you have to do it; it is about investing in the people who pay you far more in dividend when they have a happy and productive and successful life. But I also know, as a mother of young children who has had to balance things, that when businesses are prepared to be flexible with you, it engenders a loyalty and a commitment and a productivity that I have always thought paid itself off in spades.

I do want to acknowledge with pride in my fellow countrymen the businesses that have seen this and that do work—and I know they are many and varied—to support their employees when they are in situations of domestic violence. I also want to acknowledge that across the Public Service we are seeing a tremendously strong response in this respect. We tested it with our 10 biggest Public Service agencies and 84—no, I think all of them, sorry. Those agencies, covering 84 percent of all public sector employees, all had arrangements in place to think about and work through how they would respond to an employee in this situation.

What I think will be very valuable through the select committee process is to hear more and learn more from those businesses that have put arrangements in place—what has worked, how they have found it works best, and what has not worked. The member, in her introduction, made reference to the five pieces of legislation that this bill amends, and each one of those will have its own impacts, which we need to carefully understand. I will admit to some nervousness around, for example, the width and the concept of the domestic violence document and how we frame that—how it works, how we set it up, and what impact that has on victims—and we do have to tread very carefully around how that is simply operationalised. So these are things that I think are worth exploring.

It is also worth reflecting, I think, that if those 110,000 incidents that I calculated last year would have qualified under the domestic violence document heads—and that would be a conservative estimate, because we know only what is formally reported—there is a huge continuum of circumstances in that. Parliament and laws are, by definition, blunt instruments. I think we have to be very careful to ensure that our response is not so blunt across that huge continuum of circumstances for New Zealand men, women, and children who are represented in those 110,000 incidents, but to ensure that we are able to arrange a framework that is proportionate, responsive, sensitive, and appropriate for that whole continuum. All incidents are serious, and we take none of them lightly, but there is a very different support system required, for example, when the police are called out to a very heated verbal argument, compared with, obviously, where a woman and her children are desperate to get out and to keep themselves safe. We have to ensure that our responses recognise those differences and reflect the needs of parties in each case.

So this is a discussion that we are interested in having because, as I said, how we think about and support domestic violence victims is a multifaceted approach. We have a huge programme of work under way looking at a number of aspects, but we are never so closed-minded that we are not prepared to consider other aspects.

What I will say, though, is fundamentally—and on International Women’s Day, I am going to be unashamedly gender-biased for one moment because, actually, in most of the serious cases, it is women who are the victims. Yes, men are victims, but more often than not, it is women who are victims, and if you want to know when the women of New Zealand will be safe, it will be when the men of New Zealand respect them and stop beating them. Fundamentally, we can keep women safe and we can do what we can to support the women, but if we want to stop this, we have to change the behaviour of the men who beat the loved ones in their life, and nothing will change until we change that.

Can I just end by, again, welcoming the discussion and welcoming the debate. We are going into it with an open mind and registering some genuine concern about the bill as drafted, but very happy to engage in the process.

I have to first acknowledge my dear colleague Jan Logie, who is an absolute champion for women, and I have to say, Minister Amy Adams—I am actually rather taken aback by the emotion you expressed at the end of that speech. I have to say for many women in the House, this is a very personal issue. I just want to tautoko my daughters and granddaughter in the gallery. Heaven forbid that anything that happens to many of the women in our country happen to those beautiful children up in the gallery. I must acknowledge Heather Hēnare, champion of this particular cause and supporter of many victims of domestic violence. Your work will go on and you will continue to be recognised for the amazing work that you do.

What this bill, I believe, attempts to do is to really start to normalise the conversations that we must be having in each and every workplace about domestic violence. It must bring it down to the point where we stop being scared of opening the door and shining the light on what is going on in many of the families that we occupy—that we live in. Each of our families is touched in some way by the abhorrence of domestic violence—whether we are impacted personally, whether our children experience it, or whether we are supporting our sisters and our brothers through difficult times. This legislation is saying: “You know what? It happens. Let’s own it. Let’s get real about this, everybody, because it happens, and because we are good employers, we are going to allow people the time that they need to address those issues.” Ten days is not much but, you know what, it is a heck of a lot more than we used to get, and it is a good start. This bill actually says: “Yep. We have a responsibility here. We have a responsibility as employers to support our employees through this, and you know why? Because they are good employees and we want to keep them and it actually adds to our bottom line at the end of the day.”

Let us get real—it is all about the cost-benefit for the employer. It is about the social benefit for that employer too, and I want to acknowledge all of those refuges, all of those family violence services, and all of those networks that have managed to stay together, despite some very difficult times, because that is where this work has come from. It has come from the grassroots family violence services, every single day, out there, not only supporting women, kids, and men but actually finding those creative solutions, those opportunities to actually make a difference, whether you have got funding or not, because this is New Zealand’s biggest issue. It is our biggest handbrake in terms of our productivity and in terms of our safety. In terms of being a great little country, this is our biggest handbrake.

I want to acknowledge the work that some of our people do at the very grassroots. I can remember a few years ago when I was part of the west Auckland family violence movement, not only in refuge but in network services, where there were a couple of women who went out knocking on the doors of all the businesses to say: “Hey, we think family violence is a bit of a problem in our community. As an employer, what do you think you can do in response?”. And do you know what? Many employers, including a large supermarket chain, said: “Well, we’ll take this one step at a time.” The first thing they did was they actually had the white ribbons on White Ribbon Day and they handed them out over the counter—step 1. Step 2: the next year they actually joined the White Ribbon march and they got engaged with some of the family violence services to learn a little bit about what was going on. That is how these things start—one step at a time—and then they get to the point where they are businesses that acknowledge that family violence occurs within their staff and they want to do something about it.

I am really pleased that the Health and Safety at Work Act is involved in this and that we will be looking to train people to recognise that family violence is a hazard in the workplace. I am so pleased that this has come to the House for us to discuss and debate, and I am so pleased that we are actually now able to throw open the doors and the cupboards and shine some light on what happens, because, yes, there are 100,000 family violence callouts to the police but the problem is three or four or five times greater than that—we all know that.

Just in my final few seconds—I wish I had more time—I just want to tautoko you, Jan. This is an amazing bill, and it is definitely worthy of all the time that we can devote to it in the House. I really want to thank you very much for bringing it to the House.

I too join in the line-up of people here today who are very pleased to be speaking in support of this bill, the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill, in its first reading—to see it through to the select committee stage and to have some honest conversation about how we move forward in protecting the majority of women who are subject to domestic violence and those men, in the workplace. I am pleased that Ms Jan Logie has referred this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think that our committee is up for the challenge to have these discussions, and, as I said before, I am very pleased to be part of this movement right now, which has unanimous support in the House.

I do want to pay tribute to Jan Logie. Contrary to popular belief, MPs do speak to each other outside this House, and I can also report that I had a conversation with Jan Logie just before we came into the Chamber here tonight. I could see her genuine excitement that (a) her bill had been pulled from the ballot, and (b) that she would receive unanimous support to see this bill through to the select committee phase. Well done, Jan, for championing this issue, and well done for this achievement.

Also, well done to our Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams, for leading the charge on this side of the House in respect of the issue of domestic violence. It is an absolutely insidious, abhorrent thing that occurs in our society—an issue that is intergenerational and ingrained in our community, and one that is completely and utterly unacceptable. The only way that we can start to get on top of this issue is to have these honest conversations, to be upfront, and to empower women. I think that is a really important thing to say: to empower women—and also men, but to empower women to come forward and talk about this issue and to feel safe enough to seek help to remove themselves from abusive relationships and put in place measures to make their lives and their children’s lives safe, so that they can go on to lead successful lives and do what they want to do, free of fear of harm.

As I said, I am really pleased to be speaking on this bill, and, as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I am very pleased that it is coming to us to have that conversation. We have been upfront with a few of our concerns about the drafting of the bill, and we will have those conversations at the select committee. We will hear from advisers, hear expert evidence on the changes that are mooted, and also, of course, call for submissions from the public on these issues.

To create a safe environment at work is of course important, but we need to make sure that there is a balance in the workplace. I actually happened to be on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the time that this Government made changes to the Employment Relations Act, and there has been some concern voiced that there may be a risk that the way this bill is worded would actually limit the flexibility arrangements that employees may have when seeking flexible arrangements at work. That certainly does need to be debated, because, if there is an issue, we certainly want people who are experiencing harm to be able to go to their employer and ask for flexible work arrangements until they can put in place measures to keep themselves out of harm’s way and keep their children safe. That is one of the issues that we need to explore.

There are other issues around the other Acts that this bill would change, but let us have those honest conversations, let us talk about the issue, and let us get in place something that works for our people, to prevent and, basically, eradicate this awful crime. Thank you.

Before I call Clayton Mitchell—I chose not to interrupt the member—I do want to remind people of the rules of how people address other people in the House, in involving their surnames. I feel a little bit like Judy Small—you know, “Don’t be too polite.”

It gives me great pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to, first of all, acknowledge you, Jan Logie, for bringing this bill to the House. With tongue in cheek and with serious sincerity, I think divine intervention has played a little part in this. Being International Women’s Day today says a lot, and the only time I have seen that happen again was with Sue Moroney’s bill, when it was to do with paid parental leave. It was just again that the stars aligned, so well done and great courage. It just goes to show that the passion that you have for resolving this comes through with your speech and you speak very, very eloquently of that.

I would also like to acknowledge the Minister for her words and her sincere thoughts, along with all other members who have spoken here today, and it gives me great pleasure as a male to stand up and speak to this. The fact is that New Zealand First wholly supports this. We certainly would encourage the conversation to continue in select committee. I think there are some potential drafting issues but that is not here nor there. We would like to hear from small and medium sized businesses to see what their take is with regard to the period of time, the 10 days, that has been allocated for people who are suffering at the hands of domestic violence.

Let me just go to a couple of statistics, because people back home may not be aware of how big this problem is. Currently in New Zealand the Government puts $1.4 billion a year into dealing with domestic violence and sexual violence in homes. It is a problem that is probably costing the taxpayers $8 billion and that is made up of a raft of things. A study that was done—New Zealand research—shows that for every 100 workers experiencing family violence and domestic violence 94 percent will take 1 extra sick day, 78 percent will be unable to concentrate at work, 60 percent will be late by more than half an hour at least five times a month, 60 percent will also be harassed at work via the phone, 50 percent will miss on average 3 days a month of work, and 44 percent—nearly half of them—will lose their jobs because of domestic violence. This is a huge problem for New Zealand.

I think in the 1990s when we saw a terrible depiction—well, a good depiction but a very horrific and brutal depiction—of family violence at its worst, Once Were Warriors, for many people it was categorised as just in a certain group, but it is not in a certain group; it is actually very, very broad reaching within our communities. It does affect women particularly, but it also affects men. I do particularly like that this bill does have a neutral gender bias. It is about domestic violence in its entirety and not specific to women, although we all understand that the larger sufferers of domestic violence are women and that needs to be addressed in the way we deal with it.

Certainly what we have been doing for many, many years is clearly not working. In the OECD, New Zealand is the worst for domestic violence and it does not seem to be getting any better—the statistics we have access to have shown that. We would like to see a new, fresh look at the problem and we know that workplaces are in many cases a sanctuary for people who go from their home, where it is unsafe and they feel very, very vulnerable, to a workplace where they can confide in workmates and work colleagues, their bosses. This bill allows them to actually deal with it in their own space and time, giving the person suffering at the hands of domestic violence the flexibility and security at the same time to deal with this problem absolutely upfront.

This is a situation that I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and “hero” the businesses in New Zealand and internationally—but specifically here in New Zealand—that have taken a forward-thinking approach in dealing with this problem and have already implemented this policy within their business. That is the ANZ bank here in New Zealand. The Warehouse has also got that. Countdown is also very, very aware of this problem and I believe in Australia it has actually got an app that you can push, which is a confidential alert to senior management with regard to dealing with it. We have got the University of Auckland, which has addressed this problem, and the bill has certainly been very well supported and certainly supported through to the select committee by Business New Zealand and the chamber of commerce in Auckland.

We hope that this progresses through. I see the absolute genuine passion that Jan has and congratulate her on bringing this bill to the House. We are very pleased that this has got 100 percent support throughout the House this evening. It does not often happen, but when it does it is for good reason, so congratulations.

There is no doubt that domestic violence is an absolute scourge on our society. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we need to do absolutely everything we can to, firstly, eliminate it to ensure that we do not have victims of domestic violence in New Zealand, but also that we as a society do everything that we can in the meantime to support victims of domestic violence.

I think it is all too easy at times for those of us who have been fortunate enough to grow up in households where we have not experienced that and maybe have just been untouched by it, and certainly we have things to be thankful for in that. But, despite the fact that it is so prevalent in New Zealand, there are a whole lot of people in New Zealand who really do not understand the full ramifications for victims of domestic violence. Yes, there are the physical scars, there are the emotional scars, but then often there are a whole lot of other practical things that have to be dealt with.

For example, if you need to shift house because you are the one who has to move out, you do not just do that in your spare time after work, necessarily. Those things take time. If you need to visit your children’s school to explain to the principal or to their teachers about what is going on, to be able to help them manage their way through it, you do not just do that in your spare time after work. If you need to even change schools or go to appointments or otherwise, there are the really wide ramifications of a whole lot of practical things that victims of domestic violence have to endure on top of the abuse itself. So it is important that we have within our employment structure the opportunity for those people to be able to have the flexibility to do some of those things.

In an ideal world, we would not be here this evening having this discussion, because in an ideal world there would not be any domestic violence; also in an ideal world, even if there was domestic violence, all employers would be understanding enough to be flexible enough to ensure that this would happen anyway and there are, as has been said this evening already, many good employers out there who are already doing that. But sadly we do not live in an ideal world, and so we do need to ensure that there are some systems and some mechanisms in place to ensure that our victims of domestic violence in New Zealand are getting every amount of support that they can get.

I have to say, when I initially saw and heard of this legislation, I could see how for a large employer this would be relatively easy to implement. I thought, actually, when I first heard the idea of 10 extra days off per year, of how that might be difficult for a small employer. And so there will be some things, I am sure, as this goes through the select committee stage, that may need a little bit of nuancing for us to be able to figure out how we can ensure that those people are supported, while at the same time ensuring that the employers, and particularly smaller employers who are struggling, are not unnecessarily affected by that. I think, ultimately, we will be in a position where through what we do in this House we send a very clear message to employers so that, actually, an employee perhaps never has to invoke this clause, because they will be able to have the kind of relationship with their employer where they can actually go and talk to them about what is going on, and their employer will respond; but there obviously needs to be a backup for them if they have an uncooperative employer.

I also just want to acknowledge the delegation of people whom I had come through my office door in Palmerston North a couple of weeks ago, the local representatives from the National Council of Women of New Zealand. They came to me and said: “Jono, we’d really, really like you to support this bill, at least to the first reading stage, to ensure that this very, very important conversation gets on the table in Parliament and is debated, so we can work through all those different sort of nuances”—as I referred to before—“to ensure that we get the very best legislation we can.” I am really happy to support this, at least at this stage, to ensure that we have that very positive discussion, because, as I said when I opened this speech, it is clearly incredibly important that we not only eliminate domestic violence from our communities but do everything we can to support the victims of it, and I commend this bill to the House.

At the outset, can I first of all acknowledge that this is International Women’s Day. What better day to be debating this bill than International Women’s Day, which is a day when we all stand in solidarity with women right across the world in order to, yes, celebrate how far we have come, but also to pause and think about what we have yet to do. This bill clearly falls into the latter bracket. I want to congratulate the member Jan Logie on her foresight in bringing this bill forward. As we all know, with the luck of the draw of the ballot—I think this is the ballot goddess at work again today. It is the ballot goddess at work again to make sure that this got debated on International Women’s Day, because, sadly, this is an issue that does affect women, in more numbers than it does men. In fact, what we would wish is that it affected nobody.

I agree with the last speaker, Jono Naylor, in that all of us would want to not be dealing with this end of domestic violence. All of us would want to be putting our energy into preventing it from happening. That is the world we really want to live in: where there are respectful relationships and people can deal with the pressures in life and the stresses in life without battering the people closest to them—the people who should be able to rely on the love and support of family members, but instead are hurt and have violence meted out against them from the people whom they should have the most trust and warmth and understanding from. Sadly, that is not the world we live in, and I will not rest until we actually address the front end of this, and actually stop that domestic violence from happening in the first place. But it does happen, and so this bill is going to be something that will be a huge relief for those people, predominantly women, whom this happens to.

Imagine how distressing that situation is of having to deal with that hurt, having to deal with that destruction, having to deal with all of the things that happen in a family unit when that occurs, and then having to turn up to work, put on your smiley face, pretend it is not happening, and get on with life. Actually, that would be an excruciating thing, and so to have this provision in place, where people know that they are not required to be subhuman and pretend that things are not going on that are; where people know that their jobs are not at risk because they are a victim of domestic violence, and that they cannot be victimised all over again because they are having to deal with the fallout of that, and therefore their job is at risk, so they get victimised all over again; where people know that they can attend court hearings; where people know that they can find alternative accommodation—and, boy, I do not know whether in this day and age 10 days is quite enough for that, quite frankly.

I am dealing at the moment with a situation where a woman who has been a victim of domestic violence has lost her home as a result of that—actually because the violence damaged the house, and so she has been kicked out of the house. She is in so-called emergency housing, and has been for 4 months now—moving from motel room to motel room to motel room with her daughter for 4 months. Imagine being in that situation and keeping your job going and supporting your family while all of your belongings are in a car and you are moving from motel to motel. These are the very sad situations that exist for far too many New Zealanders today. That is the harm we have really got to address. We have got to stop those situations from happening.

But in the meantime I am very pleased to stand to support this measure today. Thank you, Jan Logie. Thank you for thinking of the most vulnerable in our society and the ability that everyone should have: the ability to be able to continue in their employment and to be able to do that with dignity and with respect. This will be a very practical measure that will help out some of the most vulnerable in our society—help them to keep their jobs so that they can actually build that future for their families that they all deserve and that we all want them to have. I really look forward to continuing this debate. I look forward to the bill’s speedy expedition through Parliament. I want to see this in place before the election, so that it is voted on all the way through and we can know where the Government stands at every step of the way along this journey.

Can I firstly acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Jan Logie. I was not privileged enough to see her first reading speech, but I understand it was quite a remarkable speech, and I want to pay tribute to you, Ms Logie, for your sterling work in bringing this bill to the House. As someone who has also had the luck of the ballot smile on me, I suppose, and had a bill pass its first reading unanimously, as it looks like this will, it is a great feeling, so please enjoy it.

One of my favourite songs is a song by Pearl Jam called “Rearviewmirror”. It is on their 1992 album, and it is about domestic violence. The title refers to the protagonist in the song driving away, and the lyrics talk about driving away and the time for emancipation. The lyrics talk about dealing with the effects of family violence. It is one of my favourite songs not only because it is a great rock and roll song but also because of the lyrics. It is a song, I think, that first made me think seriously as a young person about family violence or about domestic violence. I guess it is a tribute to the power of music to make people think about issues that are really important in society. Pearl Jam is a great feminist band, as I know members in the Greens will know, and it got me thinking about it as a teenager.

It is not an issue that has ever touched me in a real, literal way in society. I have been very fortunate that it is not something I have ever had to deal with, except, I suppose, in a remote way, and I am very privileged to have not had to experience that, but for too many people in New Zealand, and for too many people in the Hutt Valley, it is a very real thing. “Joy” is the wrong word, but one of the things I have been very privileged to have done since I became an MP just over 2 years ago is to go and spend time with our women’s refuge in the Hutt and to deliberately get out there into the community, to some of our marae and to some of those community organisations that are dealing with the front end and the hard edge of this issue. It has been an eye-opener, and that is one of the things I think you can do as an MP, actually. You get the privilege of learning and growing in the job, and that is something that I have deliberately tried to do.

One of the things—I suppose the biggest lesson—that I have taken away from those visits and those conversations is that the size of the problem is truly remarkable. You know, it is just almost unfathomable, the extent of violence—almost always by men against women—in our communities. As Minister Amy Adams said in her excellent speech, which I watched in my office, it is not just going to take the Government to do something about this problem; it is a whole-of-society issue that we need to address. The Government will do its bit and we will lead on this, and I hope, actually, that we will look back on the 2014 to 2017 Parliament and people will say that was the Parliament—the 51st Parliament—when the New Zealand Government and elected representatives got serious about family violence. I do not want to besmirch or cast aspersions on the efforts of other parliaments that have gone before, or indeed other Governments, because I do not think this is actually about party politics, but I hope people will look back and say that it was the 51st Parliament that put a marker in the sand and took serious action on family violence.

I think the package that the Government has outlined, which—again, I do not mean to be party political, but we are in Government, so that is what has happened. But the package that Minister Adams has put together, and I know it enjoys widespread support across the Parliament, will, I think, make a substantive difference. The work across greater penalties, the work across early intervention work, some of the work that is going on with the Integrated Safety Response pilot—other speakers have made reference to it.

Those are all very worthy things, and the aim of this bill is very worthy as well. I am a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and I am looking forward to discussing it on the committee. I think it is a worthy bill, and I am looking forward to the discussion. Kia ora.

I would like to start where others have started, by congratulating the member in charge of this bill, Jan Logie. She was very humble in her first reading speech, by recognising that the work—as is always the case with these things—started outside Parliament with Women’s Refuge, with unions bargaining for changes through collective bargaining, and with all the other groups that, I am sure, have worked closely with Jan Logie on formulating this bill. But the truth is it does actually take someone in this Parliament to put the bill into the ballot, and then, when it comes out of the ballot, to actually champion it, to have the negotiations and to work with colleagues around the House, especially the hard work to get to the point where it appears we will have unanimity when we come to the vote on this first reading. So I want to acknowledge that work by Jan Logie. We all like to be humble in this place, but we have a job to do, and when those opportunities come up—when that bill comes out of the ballot—it does take a lot of work to get to the position that this bill has got to. So congratulations to Jan on doing that.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, for her leadership, because—I will say this gently, and like the previous member, Chris Bishop, I do not want to be party political—the Government’s initial response was negative. The Government’s initial response was that this would cost too much, and Michael Woodhouse, as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, stated that on the record. Clearly, some conversations have gone on within the National Government, aided, I am sure, by the lobbying from the member in charge of the bill, and it is pleasing to see that Amy Adams’ leadership has won through and the Government has decided that this is a worthy piece of legislation to at least take to a select committee, where we can have the conversation.

And there has been some conversation tonight about what the Government’s role is in this. I think the Government certainly does have a role, but at the very least our role as a Parliament is to lead the conversation and to show the way. By getting this bill to a select committee, where businesses will have the opportunity to come and speak with us about the challenges that it may present to them but also the opportunities, and I hope they will work with us on how we can make this work, because we have heard from some organisations that the cost may be unbearable for some businesses, particularly small businesses. I implore them, please, come and speak with us about how we can make this work. Do not simply come to the select committee and say: “This can’t work. We’re not supporting it.” Parliament is of a clear mind that we want to make this work, so I ask everybody who is planning to submit to the select committee to come and speak with us about how we can work together to make this work.

I would actually like to look at some of the provisions in the bill, because much has been made of the leave provisions—the additional 10 days’ leave that would be available to victims of domestic violence—but the bill does much more than that, particularly in the area of flexible work arrangements, which allow people who have been victims of domestic violence to have flexibility around their hours of work, their days of work, their place of work, their location of workplace, etc. Again, I think the member in charge has been a little bit conservative on this—and Sarah Dowie touched on this—and we actually might just need to loosen things up a little bit here to make this allowance for flexibility at work more permissive. I think those of us who are in the Opposition tend to be a little conservative so that we can try to get the Government’s support and get it on board. I took Sarah Dowie’s comment as quite a constructive one and a positive one that, actually, we might be able to get that part of the bill to exactly where Jan Logie would like it to be. So that is good.

Obviously, there are the changes to leave. The changes to health and safety at work—I think those are incredibly positive. To actually acknowledge domestic violence as a workplace hazard—that is a bold step forward. Again, it speaks volumes as to how important this issue is, and the type of leadership that Parliament can take.

So I do encourage people to see this bill in its totality. This is not just a bill about leave. This is a bill about how businesses and employees and the Government and Parliament can all work together to say that we do not accept domestic violence and we will take every step possible not just to mitigate it but to stamp it out. The last point I want to make, as others have made, is that it is important that men take leadership and take ownership and acknowledge that when men stop committing violence towards women, we will make a significant step forward.

I too stand in support tonight of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill, in the name of Green Party MP Jan Logie, and I add my congratulations to Miss Logie on her initiative in writing this bill and also on her good fortune of having it pulled from the ballot. I did hear her speech tonight. It was an impassioned speech, and I congratulate you, Miss Logie, on your dedication to this cause.

I too believe there is a lovely quirk of fate that sees this House debating this Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill today, because we are celebrating International Women’s Day, and the theme for International Women’s Day 2017 is “Be Bold for Change”. It is a call on the masses or individuals to help forge a better working world—a more gender-inclusive world. So there is a lovely irony in what is happening here today. As we have also heard here tonight, this is an issue that we all agree needs to be tackled by everyone across this Parliament. We will enjoy, I am sure, united support to get this bill through this first reading today.

The purpose of this bill looks to introduce a new leave entitlement for the victims of domestic violence. It is an omnibus bill that seeks to amend five pieces of legislation: the Domestic Violence Act, the Employment Relations Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Holidays Act, and the Human Rights Act. I do have to confess that I did not quite understand how the Health and Safety at Work Act actually could be introduced into this bill. But, on reading the background, I do appreciate the need to have it included.

From my own conversations with NGOs that work with victims of domestic violence, there is a clear need to support women at work who have fallen victim to domestic violence. For women who work in front-line roles where they must interact with the public, it is essential for them to have their privacy protected, especially if a woman bears the marks, the bruises, the impacts from a domestic violence episode. Also at work an abuser makes it very easy for a woman to be trapped, to be captured in her workplace, and to become yet a further target for abuse. The most effective way that an abuser does that is through violent or abusive phone calls or emails. But also it becomes a risk for others in the workplace, and therein lies the impact on employers in terms of making their workplace a safe workplace.

I also acknowledge the work, as others have done tonight, of the Hon Amy Adams, who has also been working on a substantial programme of work, looking at the ways we address family violence and the type of support that can be offered to victims of domestic violence. I too am looking forward, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to furthering the work on this bill, under the leadership of Sarah Dowie. I also look forward to speaking with the wider community on the details of this bill, and having those conversations through the submissions stage.

New Zealand has a shameful record of domestic violence and one of the things that I certainly look forward to is the day when women are empowered, to the point where we no longer call them victims. I have great pleasure in supporting this Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill in its first reading. Thank you.

It gives me hope to stand up tonight after having listened to all the speeches in the House. I could think of it as personally gratifying that this bill, with the community we have brought to the House, has this support. But mostly what I am feeling is the message that you are sending to survivors in the country—that we are, together, committed to making their lives better. We have heard their experiences and we are committed to making their lives better in every way that we can. I think that, for me, at least is a moment to mark in time.

I have heard really clear support for wanting to eradicate domestic violence and for us to use what tools we can as a country to do that and to support the victims and survivors in the meantime. I have also heard a very clear articulation from all members in the House that, yes, this is not just the business of Parliament or Government, but all of us have a role to play in that, and that part of being a good employer is caring for your staff, and this is one way to do that and it will pay off for businesses.

I have heard mention that there needs to be some work around the drafting of the bill, and I am really happy to acknowledge that. Part of the reality of it was that I actually had different legal opinions on the current status of the law in relation to flexible working hours, but particularly in relation to the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the extent to which it covered domestic violence. So what we have drafted is something—it is quite hard to get something right when you are not actually sure of the status of the existing law. So I really do see it as an offering for us to be able to work together to come up with the best solution. When we are all on the same page about the outcome, then that gives me hope that this process is going to get the result that we need, and—I will say it again—it is a result that could save lives, so it is absolutely worth hanging on to.

I did appreciate the comments that maybe we could loosen up a little bit. That is not something that people usually suggest to me, but the flexible working arrangements and the need for the domestic violence documents in the bill were based on some legislation from overseas—from the UK. But, yes, we do not want to make it more difficult. We want to clarify that the flexible working arrangements should be used and should be available, and that needs to be visible, I believe, to be able to have that intent realised, but we do not want to make it more difficult.

Somebody did mention the point about the fact that perhaps this would be too onerous for small businesses, and I thank the member Iain Lees-Galloway for asking businesses to come with solutions if that is of concern to them. But I am going to push quite hard on this, because the international research—in Australia, 1.6 million workers are already covered by these provisions, and although the provisions are there, most of them do not take them. It is very rare. They will take some—they take what they need—because it is not a mandatory 10 days. It is up to 10 days, and you use it when you need it. The experience overseas, as well as in businesses here, is that people do not exploit that. It is a relationship of trust, which is working. So I want to put people’s minds to rest on that point.

In the final few seconds—just for all those people who have been fighting for this for so long, and for those women who went back because they had no other choice or felt that they could not get out, I hope tonight gives you some courage. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.