Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill

I move, That the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill be now read a second time.

Every year, over half a million New Zealanders are directly impacted by family violence. This violence costs lives and robs all too many people of their sense of stability, possibility, and well-being. We remind ourselves that it’s not OK, but all too often we’re at a loss of what to actually do to protect the victims. So it’s with great pleasure I welcome back my Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill to the House and thank Government members from the bottom of my heart for their support. This bill will provide employers with a framework to respond to the impacts of domestic violence in their workplaces now and provide victims with a pathway to safety, and it re-establishes us as world leaders in the fight against gender-based violence.

There were 167 submissions on this bill, with 161 of them in support of the intent. The submissions came from unions, community groups, women’s groups, men’s groups, the Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioner, business, and individual submitters—a true cross-section of our society. I want to thank all of the officials, submitters, and members of the Justice Committee who actively engaged to help develop a workable piece of legislation, which you can see in the form of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 39 on the Table. We always knew the original needed some work, and I will talk through some of the changes that we’ve made in this SOP.

First up, it will provide up to 10 days’ leave a year to victims of domestic violence or people caring for affected children. We’ve removed the requirement to provide a domestic violence document to be able to access that leave, and I’m grateful to the many submitters who drew our attention to sick leave and tangihanga leave as examples that we could follow.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

So as I was saying before I was interrupted, this bill will enable victims and people caring for children who are victims to take up to 10 days’ leave a year to deal with the impacts of domestic violence. It will also add new options for flexible working arrangements, to provide employers and victims with a better template for talking through their needs in the workplace. This will have a flow-on benefit for meeting health and safety obligations. Employers will be required to respond in a much shorter time frame than the three-month standard for flexible working arrangements, because we believe the impacts and the safety issues require this.

We’ve worked with New Zealand First to get a time frame that will work for all businesses while recognising the safety needs of victims, and we look forward to their SOP at the committee stage. While employers will maintain the ability to decline requests that they’re unable to reasonably manage, victims will be able to appeal a decision on certain grounds. We believe that this strikes the right balance between practicality and a duty to help someone who is in danger.

We’re removing Part 3 of the original bill, which related to the Health and Safety at Work Act, in favour of WorkSafe providing guidance to employers. We think this is more consistent with the original legislation and we have the assurances of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that this will happen, and we are confident with that. The bill will also strengthen anti-discrimination measures in the workplace, because we know this is essential if we are to enable victims to safely disclose to their employers.

There are some in this House who say that employers are doing this all already, so it’s unnecessary. These same people seem to think five days’ sick leave is enough to deal with flu, going to court, counselling, and children experiencing trauma and recovery from assault. I do want to acknowledge the many employers who are already doing the right thing by their staff, and the unions who have been seeking through bargaining to get these protections for staff. It really does feel as if this bill’s time has come.

However, we can’t delude ourselves. Even in the Public Service, many, if not most, attempts to get these protections into contracts have, in fact, failed. We heard plenty of evidence through submissions that not all employers are adequately supporting their staff or know how to. Court staff told the select committee that victims regularly raised concerns about not having enough paid time off work to give legally required evidence in cases of domestic violence. Both Women’s Refuge and Shine presented evidence of women losing jobs because of the abuse or leaving jobs because they were too scared or embarrassed to tell their employers.

I want to particularly thank the survivors of domestic violence who bravely told their stories to help us understand the potential of this legislation. I want to particularly recall the story of Ann Simmons for the House. She told us about coming home from an afternoon shift as a nurse an hour later than expected, and her partner not accepting her reason for being late. He went on to punch her in the face and the stomach, throw her across the room, and rape her before he passed out drunk. She got help to get out, and her partner was arrested and charged but released once he sobered up—still, obviously, dangerous. She had no annual leave and had used most of her sick leave due to previous assaults and staying at home to protect her children. She had to call her boss and tell him she was a victim of domestic violence and needed time off—a really hard thing to do. In return, her work suggested she resign. If this law had been in place, she might’ve been able to hold on to her job and not, in her words, “become yet another solo mum on the DPB.” This was Ann Simmons’ story. This story could be any of our stories.

A New Zealand survey of 450 people commissioned by Women’s Refuge last year found 60 percent of victims of domestic violence were in full-time employment before they entered an abusive relationship, and yet more than half of them lost their jobs during that relationship. Those who stayed in employment were subjected to numerous hardships affecting their future employment prospects, and those who left found it difficult to re-enter the workforce. Respondents from the survey frequently spoke about being forced to quit or having their employment situations made difficult by the abuser. This is clear evidence that the status quo is not good enough.

In the words of the New Zealand Public Service Association, “We can’t keep treating the workplace as if it’s somehow outside of our communities. We are all responsible for ending family violence and we cannot leave this responsibility at the workplace door.” When half a million New Zealanders are directly impacted by domestic violence right now, we know we need to do more than just business as usual. We need to step up as a society to create more pathways to safety. It’s not enough to say “It’s not OK.” if we don’t back that up with action. That is why I offer my sincere thanks to the Government parties in this House tonight for their support for a better future for all of us.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a huge honour to stand and take a call on this Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill at second reading.

I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Jan Logie, and the bill that she’s brought to this House. I think we came into Parliament in the same year—in 2011—and no one can challenge her absolute 100 percent relentless focus and dedication to making sure that victims of violence issues are raised and brought into this Parliament.

I have to say that I want to thank her for not getting up and making a speech about how much it’s only the Green Party or herself that cares about these issues because, actually, the people on this side of the House care very deeply about these issues as well. And if we choose to disagree that the intent of the bill—we do not feel that it’s actually going to achieve what is the genuine intent of the sponsor of the bill—it doesn’t mean that we don’t feel very deeply and passionately about these issues.

I can tell you now from my own personal experience, and I was reflecting on this, that I came on to the committee very late and I got involved in the—and I’m disappointed that Jan Logie is sitting there shaking her head because when I listened to you I did it with respect. A big part of the kaupapa of this House is that that happens, and you’re sitting there just shaking your head at—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Please, I ask the member not to include me in the debate—

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): —and to address the Chair as opposed to the member.

I was reflecting before I came to the House to speak tonight. I too dedicated most of my adult life to trying to prevent and stop domestic and family violence and trying to ensure that the victims of domestic and family violence were protected from the offenders and the perpetrators of it. I didn’t just do this in New Zealand, although I had a 14-year policing career that kept me on the front lines. Some of the toughest places, actually, to police during my time were the East Coast and Gisborne. At that time, we were still dealing with some massive social issues, and some of them are still there, unfortunately, including the issues that we had with Rastafarians and some pretty horrible gangs.

But I didn’t just do it there; I actually did it in Iraq and I did it in Somalia, and made sure that in the programmes that we were implementing, always at the heart of them was making sure that family violence, that violence against women, that violence against minorities, that targeting of minorities was at the forefront in driving what we were doing. So when I came on to the committee, I was very interested in this bill because I honestly felt that if there was something in the bill that would make a fundamental change in the way that victims of violence and family violence could be supported and helped, then I thought that was a very good thing to do. But when I actually looked at the bill and started to look at it closely, I realised that, actually, what we were trying to do is just somehow transfer the issue back into the workplace.

Now, I agree—I totally agree—that the victims of crime should feel confident that they can go and talk to their employer, they can discuss what they’re dealing with, and the employer will be able to work out a plan for them to mean that they feel safe and secure in their employment, and that they are supported in terms of whatever they’re having to deal with at home. I think that you’re right. A lot of the submissions from business clearly demonstrated that they were already doing that.

The submissions, though, were from big business, and let’s make a clear definition here. It’s that big companies are able to absorb far more costs and compliance than a small to medium sized business. The reality here in New Zealand is that 70 percent of our economy is small to medium sized business. I can tell you right now, as a business owner—and I’ve been a small-business owner and I transitioned a small business into what would be seen as being a big business. I can tell you right now that as a small-business owner, the thing that kept me awake at night, the thing that I worried about—well, there were two things. One was cash flow, because small businesses without cash flow will wither and die on the vine.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Ha, ha!

The other thing—I mean, you might find it funny, but this is actually true, all right?

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: We’re dealing with this with the invoicing today.

Yeah. The other issue is making payroll. When you have employees, the first responsibility that a small-business or medium-business owner has—and I’m talking about those because those are the ones that are going to be affected most by this bill—and the thing that they worry about most is making payroll. All of us here in this House—although I acknowledge Jo Luxton in the House because I’ve listened to her speak. She’s a small-business owner, and I think she understands completely the challenges that are faced by small business—whether it be cash flow, whether it be personnel—and worries about being able to make that payroll and actually pay your employees.

That is something that is important, because, actually, if the business fails, they don’t have a job. They’re not able to put food on the table for the family. The problem that I saw with this bill is that what we’re going to do is we’re going to say, “Small and medium sized businesses, you’re now going to have to find a way to manage an additional 10 days of leave. Small and medium sized businesses, you’re now going to have to find a way of managing the compliance costs and the compliance issues that come with that. Small and medium sized business owners, you’re going to have to find a way of being able to manage what are often very complex domestic violence and family violence issues back at the home.”

Actually, in my experience—and maybe it’s changed—actually, some people do want their privacy protected. Some people don’t want to—you might look surprised. Some people don’t want to discuss their issues in the workplace. Some people actually just want to maintain a separation between the two.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: It’s not forcing anyone to.

So—well, no. You’re not forcing them, but part of the argument that you’re making is that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Not me. Thank you.

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. Yeah, one of the arguments that has been made by the member is the fact that it’s going to allow people to speak about their issues in the workplace. If they want to do that now, they can—if they want to do that now, they can. Is there anything right now that’s preventing a victim of family or domestic violence from being able to go to an employer and talk to them? We know the answer to that. The answer is no. There is nothing stopping them. How do we know the answer to that? Because it’s happening right now. It’s going on. The submissions in front of the select committee said, “We are doing this now.” It is happening—

💬 Jan Logie: No!

Well, that’s not what you said in the opening speech. In the opening speech you said that you had businesses—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I remind the member to address the Chair and not to include me in the debate.

Sorry. Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. The member said in her opening comments that businesses had come in front of the select committee and said, “We’re doing this right now. That’s what we’re doing.”

💬 Jan Logie: Did you listen to my speech?

Well, that’s not what the member said.

So we do support the spirit of the bill, and we are going to be submitting some Supplementary Order Papers on it. One of the Supplementary Order Papers is going to be aligned to and supporting the premise that if a person is suffering from family or domestic violence, then they are entitled to take annual leave or sick leave because they have been a victim of family or domestic violence. I mean, to me, that seems like a very, very good compromise, because it’s capturing exactly what the spirit of the bill is, which is allowing someone—they don’t have to go and get a certificate from the doctor. They don’t have to apply for some annual leave. They’re able to go to the employer and they’re able to say and state—or someone on their behalf—that “We are having issues at home.”, they have been a victim of domestic or family violence, and they’re immediately allowed to and can access their annual sick leave and annual leave entitlement.

We’re also going to submit a Supplementary Order Paper that’s going to require or ask that within the first six months or before the policy is implemented, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment goes out and undertakes a nationwide educational campaign with small and medium sized businesses so that they understand what their obligations are under the Act, and it allows them to get ready. It allows them to prepare. It allows them to have the flexibility in the workplace that’s going to be required, and it’s going to mean that, hopefully, the policy will at least be implemented with some sense of a seamless implementation, instead of just immediately applying this on to a small or medium sized business that actually is not ready for it, does not understand exactly what it means, does not understand the additional compliance issues that are going to be placed on it, and, actually, if you have a small or medium sized business owner that doesn’t understand what it means or how to implement it, in reality—

I apologise to the member. Your time has expired. I apologise. I also mucked up the time clock.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Can I just begin by acknowledging the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Jan Logie, for the work she has done not only on this bill that she’s sponsoring but actually on domestic and family violence generally. The fact that we have somebody of the calibre of Jan Logie in that role in this Government is testament to the commitment that this Government has to seriously addressing domestic violence in New Zealand today.

There’s a good reason for that, and that is that domestic violence and the occurrence of it in New Zealand today is an absolute scourge on this nation. If we want to be serious or get serious about addressing many of the social issues and the social ills that we have today, we have to start in the home and we have to start in those homes where domestic violence occurs. It is, regrettably, not a small number. I have a particular interest in this as the Minister of Justice, because I know that for many children exposed to family violence, they wind up in the criminal justice system in a different capacity and for different reasons.

Seventy percent of those who are in our prisons today have been exposed to, or are victims of, violence in their young lives, and that’s wrong. We have to get serious about doing something about it. That’s why other legislation that Jan Logie is responsible for that’s being shepherded through the House is very important, but it’s also why this bill is so important, too.

The last member who spoke, the Hon Mark Mitchell, I respect his experience as a former front-line police officer in dealing with domestic violence, because that is the experience of pretty much every front-line police officer in New Zealand today—a large chunk of their time is spent dealing with domestic disputes and domestic violence. You talk to front-line police officers and they will tell you of the situations they are dealing with—the sheer terror that children live in, the sheer terror that women live in—and we are working on giving police the front-line means to deal just with that issue more effectively.

But I differ with the honourable member when he said we should not be kind of bringing it into the workplace, because the reality is that the issue and the consequences of domestic violence are in the workplace across New Zealand already, and this is about giving workers who are victims of domestic violence the confidence, the means—in a sense, the permission—from this Parliament to step up and say, “I need help from my employer.” It is a message from this Parliament to all employers to say, “We need your help in this battle against this insidious affliction on this great country of ours.”

I know the member referred to many of the submissions from employers—they came from larger employers—and the Hon Mark Mitchell is absolutely right. It is easier for large employers to absorb, perhaps, the inconvenience of somebody having to take leave and sort out their personal affairs while they deal with a situation that is not of their choosing. Victims of domestic violence do not ask to be victims of domestic violence, like pretty much every victim of criminal offending, but they need help, and the truth is that the victims of domestic violence are not victims of domestic violence depending on who they work for or the size of their employer. Domestic violence and the occurrence of it do not discriminate on the basis of who you work for, and so every employer does need to be brought into the fold, and then we can ask ourselves, “Well, what will be the inconvenience to employers?”

Well, actually, it’s not all employers who will have a victim of domestic violence on their staff, particularly small employers. But for small businesses who might worry about this, the message to them is very clear: it is unfortunate for that business, but actually this valued staff member needs help at this time. And what a great way to win the further loyalty and commitment of a staff member who needs help at a traumatic time in their lives, for that employer to say, “Look, I know this is going to cause me inconvenience and personal inconvenience, and perhaps some of your work colleagues, but it is more important that you are able to deal with this incredibly difficult event or series of events in your life, to help you come to terms, to help you to make other arrangements, so that you can come back and have a sense of peace and stability in your work.” What a great message that is from an employer, from a manager, of any size of business, and that’s what this bill allows to happen.

It is not unusual to hear from the employer community about worries about provisions of extra leave, but this is leave that is triggered by the particular occurrence of domestic violence. And the honourable member is right too that not every victim of domestic violence will necessarily seek leave in these circumstances. Because of the nature of it and because domestic violence is often an insidious event, it is accompanied by threats and intimidation and it reduces the victim’s confidence and sense of personal confidence, and so they don’t want to disclose to very many people and sometimes don’t want to disclose at work. But wouldn’t it be right if we actually developed a culture and a set of values in this country where, actually, it is OK to disclose this and not feel as if you’re being stigmatised—not feel as if you as a victim have done something wrong, but that you can have the confidence to ask for help, to ask for leave, and to ask for the indulgence of the employer and your work colleagues so you can help yourself.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: That’s right—dignity.

It is about treating people with dignity. We do have to take every step we possibly can to reduce—and wouldn’t it be lovely to talk about eliminating—domestic violence in this country. We have to take every step possible, and this is one small step about giving victims of domestic violence and those who support them the means, the ability, the opportunity to say “I need some help. I need some leave. Please help me at this time.”, because, actually, a good employer will allow that to happen. A good employer will see the sense in making sure that that employee can continue to live their life with a greater sense of peace and sort out those difficult sorts of issues.

I’ve seen some of the excerpts from the submissions that were made to the select committee, and these are from front-line NGOs dealing with this issue on a day-to-day basis. Surely, this Parliament must stop and take pause and listen to what it has been told through the representations that have been made to the select committee and say, “Now is the time.” In the 21st century, in this country at this end of the world, this quite wealthy country that is otherwise peaceful, that is otherwise a great country to live—now is the time for this Parliament and for this country to take this insidious issue seriously and do what we can to get rid of domestic violence, to save the victims or those who would be victims in the future, and create that culture and create that environment where victims can actually do something about it with confidence.

For that reason, the Labour Party supports the bill, has supported Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie in the tremendous work that she is doing, and will continue to do so, and we know that this piece of legislation is just one of the important pieces of legislation that will help to deal with this issue. There are more systemic and structural issues we have to deal with, and that will come in in the future Government-sponsored legislation that is just about to come back into this House.

So this is important and this is an opportunity tonight for this House to rally together and say, “We get it. We understand it. We have empathy for victims.” We understand the challenges for employers, but in the end this issue is too great and it is too important and it outweighs that sense of inconvenience and we must get this right if we are to help victims and future victims of domestic violence and if we are to reduce that insidious crime in this country.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in this second reading debate on this member’s bill, not because this is a matter that derives for any member of this House any degree of pleasure at all, but simply because the House is considering this matter in a careful and thoughtful way. I listened very carefully to the contribution of Jan Logie, and, as my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell indicated, there’s not a member of this House or probably anybody in New Zealand that would doubt her sincerity in terms of commitment to addressing issues of domestic violence, which as the Minister of Justice has just indicated is an absolute scourge upon our society in every shape, form, and manner.

As the Minister of Justice said, the real issue here is one of systemic and structural form rather than employment law. It’s actually got very little to do with employment law and industrial relations, but it has got an awful lot to do with our focus and our approach as New Zealanders, as citizens, as members of a functioning society where we have for too long accepted and tolerated domestic violence in whatever shape or form it presents itself.

But to punish and hit employers is not the way to resolve this issue. There’s something that is becoming increasingly apparent from this new Government—and, effectively, we can say with some confidence that although this is a member’s bill, it’s going to be supported by members of the coalition parties that form the Government, and that they are using this piece of legislation as part of that jigsaw puzzle, part of that suite of legislative initiatives that are designed to add extra cost, less flexibility, and more rigidity to the industrial relations environment.

They make some kind of connection between domestic violence and employment that gives a sense of somehow the employer being at fault, being responsible. That’s the sense of the discussions that we’ve heard from the Minister of Justice; that’s the sense of the contribution that we heard from the member promoting this bill—that somehow employers and business people have an infinite capacity to pay for almost anything and everything that this Government thinks that they should.

If there is a cost to be made to employers, why not spread it more widely? If the way to manage domestic violence in our society and in our workplace is to hit employers, well, why not spread the cost of that more widely through our society as a whole? Why not have the taxpayer fund the annual leave that’s being sought from this bill?

This is a bill that, as I said, adds to that suite of legislation, of which now there are about four or five pieces of legislation either in the House or going to be introduced to the House, that just makes it harder for business people and for businesses to actually employ people. This is going to be a further burden upon an already struggling, difficult commercial environment, where business confidence is low and falling.

If the Government was really keen on this, they’d fund it out of their massive surplus. They’d fund it in a way that didn’t apportion financial blame on employers, and they would separate those two connections. Everybody would agree that domestic violence is something that needs to be resolved and addressed and ultimately removed from our society, but punishing employers doesn’t achieve that.

Now, I come to this House from a background of commercial involvement, as an employer, as a manager, and as a senior executive in a number of large New Zealand businesses, and I well remember personal situations where—I can think of one, and this was a long time ago, in a far less enlightened time. We had an employee in one of the branches around the countryside who would regularly arrive on a Tuesday or a Wednesday at work with a black eye and bruises. This woman often wouldn’t arrive on a Monday because she was not able to arrive on a Monday because she had been so badly abused and beaten over the weekend.

Now, her work colleagues in that branch knew of that situation. They did what they could to involve legal officers—the police—they did what they could to provide personal and emotional support of every type and shape, and, as an employer, we knew and made allowances, as most responsible employers do. They do take care of their people and they do take initiatives to provide flexibility in the workplace, and they do whatever they can. Sure, there are always going to be one or two that are not going to do what they should do, but that’s true in every facet of human endeavour.

But this is a Government that wants to somehow connect employers with a responsibility—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Apologise to the member. Kieran McAnulty will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. So the vast majority of responsible employers do take these matters seriously and do what they can, and making it compulsory to add an extra 10 days’ annual leave simply doesn’t assist the process or the problem. In fact, what it actually does is, in a perverse way, it probably gets the back up of employers—good, responsible employers—and it creates a situation where suddenly there’s a degree of animosity, and I think that’s a very sad thing. I think that goes against the grain of what it is to be a responsible employer, what it is to be a responsible staff member, and what it is to be a responsible citizen in a society that doesn’t accept or tolerate domestic violence.

So we have this sense from the new Government that businesses have this infinite capacity to fund everything and to solve every social ill, and, actually, that’s not the case. The net result of this piece of legislation, should it proceed through the House, will be added costs to businesses, and, actually, it will mean fewer job opportunities for people who probably need a job, who need the support and the stability that comes from having regular income and a good job with a good employer. If those opportunities are going to be diminished or denied, then that is a perverse and negative outcome of this piece of legislation—which I’m sure is well intended, but, like most aspects of hard-left socialism, it’s based on a premise that someone else should pay, that somebody else should put to right issues that are actually not of their making or their concern in terms of their day-to-day business.

Business people don’t go into business to be regulated in such a way that means that they can’t do business. So we already have a generous leave regime, and to add further complexity and a new regime just adds, I think, to the difficulty of doing business, and adds nothing to providing solutions to the problems and issues that the member Jan Logie so rightly wants to highlight and raise by this bill.

So I am concerned that as the National Party, we could support a more moderate bill. We could support a bill that had a tighter definition and that was more realistic in terms of understanding the needs and conditions of a modern, flexible work environment, but, unfortunately, this Government doesn’t seem to get that, and I think that’s a shame. I think that’s a real shame because, ultimately, it will be New Zealanders that don’t reap the benefits of a strong and growing economy, don’t have the security of good jobs, and don’t have the security that comes from being an employee in a good, fair, and reasonable employment situation. So we think that this bill adds complexity, rigidity, and a further complex regime, and we don’t support it.

It’s a pleasure to rise and talk about the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. As other colleagues have mentioned, I’d like to thank you, Jan Logie, for the work that you do and have done for many, many years in this field, and for this very good bill.

I would like to start with the fact that this bill came to the House in the 51st Parliament. It came to the House on International Working Women’s Day. I read the Hansard, and I was absolutely proud of this House and the stance that each and every speaker made and the statements they made about domestic violence. I was proud that day to look at all the members and to think, “Yes. They get it. They understand the issue and they’re going to have a solution.”

In fact, reading the Hansard, I would like to quote the Hon Amy Adams, Minister of Justice on that day, and this is what she said: “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.”

So that is what I was expecting from the National Party. That was what I was hoping for: some compassion—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Don’t look at me. I’m not Amy Adams.

Ha, ha! I’m looking beyond you, ma’am. This is what I was expecting and hoping for, and this is what I was calling for in this House when I worked on the front line of a domestic violence service—a women’s refuge. [Interruption]

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Keep going, mate. Don’t worry about them.

Thank you. So the thing that has constantly surprised me with what I hear tonight from that party is about the cost to the employer—the cost to the employer. I too am a business owner in my other life. The cost to the employer is the loss of good staff. The cost to the employer is the loss in the workplace, dare I say it, of a staff member being killed. The loss is going to organise and have to prepare for a new staff member—to train that staff member to replace that staff member. These are the things that actually cost businesses. I notice that the New Zealand Public Service Association wrote a report in 2014. Domestic violence costs employers an estimated $368 million. The cost of replacement workers within that and the training for them is $153 million.

So when we are told by the Opposition that this is an economic argument, I dispute that. I dispute it absolutely because we know that when we take care of our staff, when we protect them, when we support them, and when we treat them with respect and dignity, then they are more productive, they’re more loyal, they’re better staff, and also they’re safe, and that is part of this, as well. We have 41 percent of domestic violence victims in paid work. That cost to employers is $3,371 annually per employer. There is a loss of productivity, there’s cover for sick days, there’s recruiting and training—it goes on.

But I want to talk to you about the cost of the employee and what it takes her to get to a place of safety. In my experience working in the field of domestic violence, I have worked with many, many women, many who have had brilliant employers, and we were always very, very grateful for those employers because it eased the way for our women and their children to be safe. It absolutely eased the way.

Let me tell you about an employer who knew that something was wrong. This woman had confided in a number of people, they had seen a very scary man come to the workplace and they didn’t know what to do, and they didn’t know how to have the conversation. Eventually, that woman left her partner and advised her employer that, yes, she needed help with domestic violence. They rang the refuge on her behalf and they hooked her up with us and we put her into the safe house. She was very lucky in that they gave her paid time off. They organised a transfer for her to another city because he was stalking her and terrifying her. They helped her with her relocation. They helped her when she moved to that new community with ongoing counselling. They were a brilliant employer. That woman left with a moko. She had been working for that employer for 20-something years. She left with her moko. She had to organise her new living arrangements. She had to go into Work and Income around her moko. She had to do a whole pile of medical treatment. She had to go and do all sorts of things that took about seven days. They paid her, and she was lucky for that.

But I have worked with many women who have just said, “It is too hard and I need to give up my work.”, and they’ve gone on a benefit. Some of you here may have had a relationship breakdown—not in the nature of violence, I hope. Fifty percent of your assets go at that point. Can you imagine, in an intimate partner - violence relationship, it’s much more than 50 percent. You’re too damned terrified. So you need to find things. You need to get furniture.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Sorry, ma’am. You certainly need to find all sorts of things. There are things that need to happen that are very difficult. They have to see lawyers. They have to see the police. They have to spend time in doctors’ offices, often, and they have to go and see Work and Income and confess what has happened to them. All of these things are things that these women need to do in order to get safe and it takes time, and a good employee is gone from your workplace because of it.

So I am delighted that across this side of the House, our coalition Government is going to support this. I am delighted that we are not just trying to do good; we’re actually putting it into legislation so that those bad employers, those employers who don’t care, or those employers who just don’t know what to do will know what to do, and we will begin to have a more honest conversation about family violence. We will begin to have a more honest opportunity for women and children to leave if they need to, and, in doing so, we show that we all care and we hope to eliminate domestic violence from our country. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in the second reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. I am a relative newcomer, but I am on the Justice Committee and have heard many of the arguments talked about, and heard some of the submitters as well. So my call tonight is to emphasise that I am very sympathetic to the aims of this bill. I am sympathetic to the member Jan Logie, who proposed it, and, as others have said, there is no doubting that member’s sincerity and her desire to improve the plight of the victims of domestic violence. We don’t agree that this is the way to do it, but I absolutely agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

A culture change within this country needs to happen. I do not believe it is an employment issue; I think it is more a health and welfare issue, and I have been speaking about this with my colleague Harete Hipango, who has had more than 30 years working in the area of law and family violence. When we look at the measures and protections that are already available under existing law around domestic violence protection orders, stress, and medical certificates that provide leave for people, it does appear to me that this bill takes New Zealand’s small businesses in a direction that they cannot afford.

There are larger businesses in Australia who have been able to accommodate these kinds of leave provisions. When you have a team of 2,000 or 3,000 employees, that kind of arrangement is relatively easy to achieve. It does require an enlightened employer. But in a small environment—and New Zealand has a great many small to medium sized enterprises, with very small employer bases—employers could not afford and could not sustain an individual taking an additional two working weeks’ leave for domestic violence. So when we discussed this at select committee level, we looked at the way in which, for example, a corner dairy might cope with having somebody come into work and say, “I need time off for domestic violence leave now.” At that time—and I see it’s back in the bill—there was also a provision for a support person to take leave to be able to assist the person who was the victim, to drive them and so forth. But, again, in a very small employment situation, it is almost impossible to imagine that being able to work without it seriously undermining the business and, therefore, endangering the jobs of not only the people who are the victims of domestic violence but also those who are employed by the small to medium sized enterprise, so we felt it was impractical at that level.

We support the spirit of the bill, absolutely, but look at what it seeks to do. The bill proposes to make changes to five Acts: the Domestic Violence Act, the Employment Relations Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Holidays Act, and the Human Rights Act. When we look at the Employment Relations Act, to allow employees who are victims of domestic violence to request a variation of their working arrangements and then, under the Holidays Act, to have those 10 days’ paid leave, we are starting to see building up a situation that is very difficult, and very difficult to sustain long term for a small business in terms of there being any of the opportunities that might exist to support somebody who has been a victim of domestic violence. When we were in the committee, and in reading the papers and the advice from officials, we were provided with many examples of employers who are doing the right thing, who are recognising and providing appropriate support, flexibility, and leave for employees who are affected by domestic violence and who need to suddenly go and see a lawyer, go and take their children from school to medical appointments, and so forth. Any of us who have raised a family know very well how quickly we need to be able to respond as parents to the needs of our family, particularly if we are also in a situation where there is a domestic violence overlay.

When we see employers willing to take action and there are measures and provisions within existing laws to enable that action to occur, one starts to wonder what the real advantages of this particular bill would be. So in discussion at the select committee, we all agreed that there needed to be not only enlightened employers but also an awareness campaign for the public so that victims of domestic violence, employers, and everyone else, frankly, in this country who are not aware be aware of what they are allowed under the law and what the provisions are.

The flexibility and leave provisions do already exist. The employers have a responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work Act to provide a safe workplace, including protections while at work against threats that may be posed to a victim of domestic violence. So the opportunities for individuals who are victimising their partners, for example, or for someone in their wider family, to come into the workplace and threaten partners—they can be blocked in their access not only physically into the workplace but also via email or telephone.

Employers are required under existing law to consider requests for flexible working arrangements—and that’s provided for in Part 6AA of the Employment Relations Act—and employers must provide sick leave under the Holidays Act for an employee whose physical or mental health is affected by domestic violence. I would suggest to the member and to others who are in agreement with this legislation that the additional measures within this bill are not ones that are going to comprehensively change the landscape, but they will, in a very real and meaningful way, make it very difficult for small and medium sized enterprises to accommodate victims of domestic violence.

I mean, really, in terms of the essence of this bill, if an employer decided that they would not allow domestic violence leave, then, in the provisions of this, they can do that. They can turn it down on the basis that it would be difficult for them to be able to afford it, and that is a provision that an employer could easily and readily use. There are rights of appeal, and we talked around those, but, ultimately, it would be very difficult for the person who is a victim of domestic violence to argue against an employer who said “This cannot be afforded. This business will go under if we have to allow these provisions, so I am going to turn it down.” So, ultimately, how much real momentum and real power would come from this bill? I would suggest: nothing very much.

There is nothing stopping employers from offering more in addition, and, as I said at the select committee, we have heard a number of excellent examples of ways in which employers have accommodated the domestic violence issues of victims because they want to keep these good staff, because they want to support them, and because they are human beings who understand on that human level how important it is to have a supportive working environment. If an employer has spent a lot of time training and nurturing an individual who is an employee, that employer is going to be highly motivated to try and keep that person and support them through a time of stress. So given the ability of an employer to act flexibly now and to offer more in addition, why would we not—through awareness and public awareness campaigns, in particular—ensure that people know to ask and know to request it from an employer?

I think the additional administrative requirements under this bill were too extensive for us to support. Providing 10 days’ leave for a support person does require employees to provide domestic violence documents such as a police complaint or a statement from domestic violence support organisations, so there is a lot of additional material that would be required.

I think the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 41 in the name of my colleague Mark Mitchell—which we’ll go into in more detail at another time—is a very good compromise, and we need to do all that we can to reduce domestic violence. The measures that he has outlined are a more moderate change that makes it clear to employers that the reasons associated with domestic violence are valid ones for granting annual and sick leave, but that that be taken within the existing provisions. So when we look at what is around at the moment, we already have four weeks of annual leave, 11 days of public holidays, five days of sick leave, and three days of bereavement leave, and they are provided currently under the present law. It can be a very big burden on some employers, and we are genuinely fearful and have spoken with a number of employers who do not feel that they would be able to, in addition to those provisions that already exist, allow an additional two weeks of paid leave—10 extra days. So the SOP which the Hon Mark Mitchell will be tabling is one that I think will be enlightening for many of the members.

Labour didn’t agree to have a support person. Labour didn’t agree to the 10 days unless it was limited to 12 months. So there are a number of difficulties with this bill—

Order! I apologise—your time has expired.

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill in its second reading.

Can I take this moment, please, to acknowledge all members of the Justice Committee, because I have looked through all the submissions and I’ve been made aware of all the dialogue that took place at select committee and the work that the select committee did to come to a place of agreement. Can I acknowledge the work, particularly, of—I don’t want to diminish the work of the National Party members of the select committee, but I want to specifically acknowledge the work of the Labour Party members of the select committee around the suggested amendments they have made in the report back to the House. I think they are wise amendments.

All members of the select committee took this seriously. Nobody was flippant with the consideration of this bill. But it is a reality that the bill has been reported back to the House without the select committee being able to agree.

I want to acknowledge Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie, to use her full title—Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. If there has ever been a reason why Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie was originally elected to this House, I would say this is one of those moments—to acknowledge that there are purposes in life, and this is one of those for Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. It’s a very long title. We need to come up with some sort of acronym.

New Zealand First actually shares the concerns of the National Party. New Zealand First shares the concerns around small and medium sized business. We don’t share the reasons for their concerns. Business is not separated from community. Business owners are members of our community. Actually, business owners—some of them are victims of domestic violence. So we don’t see them being a disconnect, and this is why there have been quite a lot of behind-the-scenes, collegial conversations between myself and Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie and, strangely enough, the Minister of Finance.

So if I go to the conversations, in the first instance, between New Zealand First and the author of the bill, New Zealand First will be placing two Supplementary Order Papers on the Table in the committee of the whole House, and they will be reflecting some of the concerns that have been addressed by some members of the business community.

I want to acknowledge those members of the business community, however, who came into my office and said, “We don’t even understand why there’s a 10-day limit. We don’t even understand why there’s a 10-day limit. If an employee of ours walks on to our property and they have been beaten or they are scared out of their wits, or somebody is following them and chasing them or trying to make them lose their job”—which is one of the other protections that is inside this bill that is not going to be supported, unfortunately, by the National Party—“then we will protect that person—not, actually, because they’re a good employee. That is irrelevant, if they’re a good employee or not—it’s because they’re a human being.” It’s because they’re a human being and it is part of what we do for each other, and that is the change that this Government is trying to make. That is the change this Government is trying to make.

So New Zealand First will be putting two Supplementary Order Papers on to the Table in the committee of the whole House, and they have been agreed between myself and the author of the bill. Actually, I was most interested in the women’s submissions around this bill, so I particularly read those submissions from women’s organisations, and one of the Supplementary Order Papers reflects the submission from the Rural Women of New Zealand. They’re a group of women that often don’t get a lot of credit for what they do about being the backbone of this country, but they’re a highly practical, reasonable, really hard-working group of women who know what it’s like not only to be out there working on the land and making sure that you’re running an appropriate business but also they’re in small communities and they know what goes on. So the first Supplementary Order Paper will reflect that.

The second Supplementary Order Paper will reflect some concerns we had about the fairness about—and I find that very interesting. The Hon Maggie Barry just argued that to an employee who says “I need to take domestic violence leave.”, any small business can say “Look, I’m sorry, but actually the business can’t stand it right now.”—right? The business can’t stand it right now. She quite clearly articulated, and she even went far enough to say, that it would be almost impossible for an employee to argue against an employer of a small or medium sized business declining that leave on the basis of the financial vulnerability of that business, but, at the same time, said that the business couldn’t afford it, so therefore they are going to vote against it. It was a confused contribution, but there you have it.

It was a confused contribution, and it’s a little bit like—the other suggestion is that victims should just use their sick leave. These people are not sick. They are being harmed by somebody else. They haven’t got the flu. It’s not the flu. They are being harmed and, in some cases, hunted by other people. This is about stepping up.

But New Zealand First is also concerned around the fact that—we understand. It’s not that we have put this in bottom lines around businesses, but we understand that businesses are members of our community, they’re making a living, and they’ve got to pay their mortgages and put food on the table, and that is why we have had conversations with the Minister of Finance. We are continuing to have these conversations, but in the first part of these conversations—and we’ll be able to be clearer as we come towards the committee of the whole House—is that the Tax Working Group will be considering any leave taken under this piece of legislation as a tax-deductible expense. So that means that we are making sure that we recognise those business owners that are part of our community—the small and medium sized businesses—that absolutely—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: So the taxpayer foots the bill.

Oh, and now we’re hearing that Maggie Barry is shouting out that the taxpayers will foot the bill for domestic violence. I’m not quite sure who Ms Maggie Barry thinks is footing the bill right now for domestic violence. With the police numbers, with the imprisonment numbers, with the violence against children, and with the violence against women and men inside their homes, who does the Opposition think is currently footing the bill for domestic violence? Who does the Opposition think is currently paying? It is the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer, but Ms Barry continues to harp on about the fact that it can’t be the business owner, it can’t be the taxpayer—but then, who is left? Who is left to take responsibility and be brave? All of us have to take responsibility and be brave over this issue. All of us on this side of the House are prepared to do so. All of us—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Tragic.

Oh, “tragic”, she says now. Oh my goodness! Oh my goodness—and I’m repeating what Ms Barry says because it puts it on the Hansard, and I want it there for history. I want it there for history that Ms Barry has said that the taxpayer should not pay for domestic violence, business should not pay for domestic violence, and she considers that while it’s tragic, with a tone—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is totally misrepresenting my position. I am offended and dismayed by her inaccuracy, and I would like her to withdraw and apologise. I take offence.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member, and I apologise to the member for what has just occurred. There are some provisions within the Standing Orders that if you feel that you’ve been misrepresented, you can follow those actions in order to correct that. So I encourage the member to do so.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I just clarify. Is the member able to correct the Hansard as part of that procedure, because the member just clearly stated that she wanted it on the Hansard—something that she misrepresented in the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): There is a process that needs to be engaged in, so I ask the member to engage in that process. As a result of that, that may result in corrections, but we cannot pre-empt that. So—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The Hon Maggie Barry has clearly taken offence.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: She has said she’s taken offence. I would suggest that the right action would be for the Hon Tracey Martin to withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member for her intervention. I’ve already given a way forward. On the matter of offence, or the use or misuse of language and whether it is unparliamentary, there are longstanding Speakers’ rulings that state—and I will refer the member to rulings by the Rt Hon David Carter, as well—that the House must take offence in order for that course of action to—[Hon Judith Collins moves forward in her seat] No, Ms Collins, I’m speaking and I’m ruling. I’ve given the member a course of action to undertake, and the member has the opportunity to do so. I am now going to call the Hon Tracey Martin to continue with—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I hope you are not going to relitigate what I have just said.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When I am sitting in my chair and I have moved myself, I don’t expect to be told to sit down or to be quiet while you’re about to say something—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: —when I haven’t actually said anything.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): The member will resume her seat. The member will resume her seat.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Point of order—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I have been a member of this House—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No, I haven’t called the member yet.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Point of order, the Hon Judith Collins.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I’ve been a member of this House for 16 years. I’ve dealt with a lot of Speakers, and I have never been spoken to in such a condescending way as you have just done. Perhaps that’s going to be the new standard from now on, but I suggest it’s not going to help this House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I would ask the member to resume her seat, and I asked the member to resume her seat before. I am the Speaker in this House. When I’m on my feet, you will resume your seat and you will be silent. I have given the member a course of action to undertake, and she is going to do so. That is the end of this matter. I call—

💬 Hon Member: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No, that is the end of this matter.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. All I’d request you to do, as the Speaker of the House, is review Standing Order 110(1) in relation to this matter. Otherwise, the member may lose her opportunity that she’s entitled to under the Standing Orders.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I will review the matter, thank you. Thank you, and I will report back to the member—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Well, when you say that the House must take offence, are you the House for that purpose, or should we have a vote?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): For the purpose of this, I will adjudicate whether the House has taken offence, and the House has not taken offence. I’m going to now call the Hon Tracey Martin to resume her speech.

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. Let’s get back to the bill, shall we? New Zealand First will be supporting the bill at second reading. We will be bringing two Supplementary Order Papers, one to reflect the submissions by Rural Women New Zealand and a second Supplementary Order Paper with regard to assisting small business when it comes to the employee’s opportunity to lay a complaint or express a concern about a decline around the request to actually change their flexible working hours.

We will continue to work with the Minister of Finance, who has said that this item will be sent to the Tax Working Group for them to consider that the amount of days taken under this particular leave provision could be made tax-deductible for business. We will continue to have conversations with the Minister of Finance’s office around how we can ensure that small and medium sized businesses, particularly, are not penalised for doing what they want to do. They want to care for the people in their communities, regardless of whether they are a good employee or regardless—they are just another human being that they are associating with. They want to do the right thing, and we’re going to try and support them to do the right thing. So, again, I honour Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. Kia ora.

Madam Assistant Speaker.

You are calling?

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: I’d like to take a call in the debate according to Standing Order 110, “Misrepresentation”, under “General Procedures”.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Now, I just want to clarify with the member. You’re seeking another call; you’ve already had a call in this debate. If you’re seeking it, you are not permitted to seek a call if you are wanting to correct or—I’m assuming you’re wanting to do this in terms of the point of order you raised before about misrepresentation. Is that correct?

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Under 110.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes—you are unable to do that according to the Standing Orders. You’ve already taken a call in this debate.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just looking at this Speaker’s ruling 37/5, “When arising”, it says, “A member who has been misrepresented must wait until the end of the speech of the member concerned before rising to make an explanation”.

I’m referring to Speakers’ rulings 38/5 and 38/6 when I make that ruling. Miss Barry has been given a course of action which she can undertake. She is going to avail herself of that course of action. I’m not going to rule on this again. I’ve already given Miss Barry an opportunity do so, if she would refer to Speakers’ rulings 38/5 and 38/6.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders, which certainly have precedence over Speakers’ rulings, say, at Standing Order 110(1), “A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member’s speech which has been misquoted, misunderstood, or misrepresented in the same debate.” Are you saying that that Standing Order no longer applies to the Hon Maggie Barry?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is the member choosing to do so as a point of order or as another debate call?

Well, it says here that she can do that, and that she cannot introduce any other matter other than the correction of the misquotation, misunderstanding, or misrepresentation. I think that’s very clear.

Just a moment. Now, I’m just going to respond to that point of order by the Hon Judith Collins. Miss Barry, if you were standing to make a correction to something that you had made within your speech rather than an interjection, you would be given leave to do so—you would be given the call to do so. However, what you are attempting to do is to correct something that was made by interjection by another member. That is not permitted by that Standing Order. [Interruption] Now I’ve—yes. If you’re attempting to correct something in your interjection, that’s—

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Quite simply—and we are seeking your guidance on this, genuinely—what happened was that while the Hon Tracey Martin was making her speech, she stated clearly that she wanted to put on the Hansard some interjections that the Hon Maggie Barry had had, and then she proceeded twice to misquote her and misrepresent her with the single purpose of putting her on the Hansard. All the Hon Maggie Barry is doing is requesting through the Chair, or through you, Madam Assistant Speaker, to be able to stand in this House and correct the misrepresentations that were made by the Hon Tracey Martin.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just a moment. Look, I have already given my ruling. I will refer the members to Speakers’ rulings 38/5 and 38/6. Now please, this is going to be the end of the matter. There is a process which the member can engage in. I’m not going to take any further rulings on it, and I am going to call the next member.

Thank you very much. I think everyone in this House and, indeed, the vast majority of New Zealanders realise that New Zealand has an unacceptable level of violence—all types of violence. Now, this bill focuses on domestic violence or family violence, but I think we’re all concerned about the level of violence, including domestic violence, family violence, and sexual violence, and I think we all agree that it’s beholden on all New Zealanders to support victims of these types of violence and to raise awareness on how abhorrent it is to us in society.

This bill has been around for several years, and some relevant legislation has been changed since it was drafted. Although we want to take every possible opportunity to improve outcomes when it comes to victims of family, domestic, and sexual violence, we don’t believe that this bill will make a significant difference.

Action on domestic and family violence is an issue that’s close to National’s heart. During the time that we were in Government, we introduced numerous new initiatives to combat domestic and family violence. But of course there’s no silver bullet. And I have to agree with parliamentary under-secretary Jan Logie that this is an issue that everyone in our society needs to take responsibility for. There is no silver bullet, so during our time in Government, our initiatives were wide-ranging. They involved 16 different portfolios in an effort to redesign the way that the Government responds to family violence. We created a Ministerial Group on Family Violence and Sexual Violence, proposed changes to civil and criminal laws, and provided better guidance on the Domestic Violence Act and how we should apply it.

We knew that we needed to intervene earlier, and to be more effective in getting perpetrators to change their behaviours and break the intergenerational cycle. We focused on protection orders. We wanted to make them easier to get, more tailored to individuals’ conditions as victims, and to direct perpetrators to change programmes and services. One of the successes was the introduction of the National Home Safety Service, and that kept over 1,000 victims of family violence safe every year in their own homes. We overhauled family violence laws. We improved access to information so that judges and police could work more closely on family violence cases, and to try and improve information-sharing regulations.

I was particularly impressed by the integrated safety response pilots. One of those was based in Christchurch, and I followed it closely. And in meeting with both victims and the social services that supported them, I found that it made a real difference to the lives of those victims. And the main reason was that it provided very timely—in fact, there was daily triage action and intensive case management.

We also involved the use of independent victim specialists to work with high-risk victims and to keep them safe. It was an extremely successful programme, and I heard that from the people who accessed the pilot, but also for the organisations that monitored the results, including the independent committee on reducing family violence and the Family Violence Death Review Committee. Both were extremely supportive of the programme, and I strongly encourage the new Government to continue this work. It’s intensive, it’s expensive, but it works.

But going back to the bill: after reading 167 written submissions and hearing 35 oral submissions, our members concluded that the bill is unworkable and may in reality be detrimental to the employment of victims of domestic violence. From my experience employers understand the value of the employees and they value and support them when they’re in difficulties, both at a personal level—and that’s in terms of well-being and harmony in the workplace—but also in terms of good business practice: minimising the turnover of staff and supporting employees to be as effective as possible in their job, and so that they can contribute to the team.

In fact there are numerous examples of companies that go out of their way to support their employees in lots of ways, particularly if they’re victims of family violence. And on top of good, sensible business practice, there’s legislative responsibilities that employers already have to support victims of domestic violence. For example, under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015—and I do think the original bill was drafted before National made major changes—that Act requires employers to provide a safe workplace, and that includes protection at work against threats that could be posed to a victim of domestic violence. Employees can trespass threatening partners, and they can block access by email or telephone. And I think this bill covers some of the problems that the Hon Tracey Martin has highlighted.

Under the Employment Relations Act, employers are required to consider requests for flexible working arrangements for victims of family or sexual violence, and they do make these changes. And, furthermore, under the Holidays Act employers must provide sick leave for an employee who is physically or mentally affected by domestic or family violence and, again, they do this.

During the select committee process we heard many examples of employers recognising the need to provide appropriate support, to provide flexibility in working conditions and leave, and we also saw no evidence that employers were being unreasonable in their approach to this important issue, and nothing to justify a new range of complex regulatory requirements that are actually proposed by this bill. We heard that numerous employers were going out of their way, beyond legislative responsibilities, in the interests of looking after their employees, and we absolutely commend that.

So although we support the philosophy behind the bill—who wouldn’t?—we can’t support the bill as it is written. And I would like to give the House a heads up on Supplementary Order Paper 41 that my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell will be introducing. It will make sure that it is explicit that domestic violence or family violence is a valid reason for a request for annual, sick, or paid leave—paid annual sick leave. It’s an intelligent and sensible way to provide the 10 days of leave for domestic violence victims without burdening small businesses with extra costs and extra regulation.

As I have said, employers are keen to support their employees, and this provides a solution for them to do just that without a blowout of extra costs. We do not agree that paid leave should be available for a support person. Domestic violence, family violence, whatever you call it, is absolutely abhorrent. It is not something that the Government can combat alone. All New Zealanders need to support victims of violence, and they need to make it very clear that violence in any form is not acceptable any place, any time, or to any people, and particularly within our families in this country. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? [Interruption] Sorry, did I hear someone say, “Yes, there is objection.”? No, go ahead.

In an earlier call that was taken by the Hon Tracey Martin, as a result of an interjection I made when that member was speaking, that member misrepresented my position, and I took offence at that. I would like the record to state what my real beliefs are, which are that domestic violence is a problem that we all have to—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that she’s sought leave to correct that. So it’s not about making a speech. You made an interjection that was misrepresented, so this is your opportunity to correct that interjection.

The Hon Tracey Martin, after my interjection, then went on to misrepresent my position. So—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s right. That’s what I’m saying, so it’s about your interjection that you’ve sought leave to correct.

So my interjection was around a separate matter. The member, the Hon Tracey Martin, then went on to misrepresent my position and everything that I had said, for the purpose of getting it in the Hansard. I want to get the record straight.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand. I’m trying to be helpful to the member. She has sought leave from the House to correct that misinterpretation of her interjection, which she’s perfectly entitled to do under the Standing Orders. But she must keep to that misrepresentation of the interjection.

So the misrepresentation of my interjection was to expand the notion that I was in favour of domestic violence and not in favour of taxpayers’ money being—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, but this is heard in silence.

The member was misrepresenting my position on domestic violence and the relationship between taxes by taxpayers being paid to help victims.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your personal explanation is not about the previous speaker’s misrepresentation; it’s about your interjection—that’s what you sought permission from the House to correct.

So the interjection, which was around the tragic circumstances of domestic violence, was then misrepresented in a way that was not true. My beliefs are that domestic violence is a tragic situation and that I believe that we should do everything that we can to relieve the victims from their suffering, and that is the position that I hold and the one I wish to make clear and to stand on the record for Hansard.

That will now stand on the record. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The exercise that was engaged in just then did not seem to me to be a personal explanation correcting that member’s statement on the record. What it was was her affront at an inference that another member drew, and her further inference that she drew about what that member herself was saying.

That contribution from the Hon Maggie Barry just then, as a point of order seeking a personal explanation, did not conform with the Standing Orders. It was not a personal explanation on a so-called misrepresentation.

💬 Matt Doocey: Speaking to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Look, I don’t need any help. As the Speaker, I have accepted that. I have attempted to get the member to stick to what she sought the leave to do, and I’m satisfied that we now have an end to it.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to support with pride the second reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. I will start with the acknowledgment and tautoko to the many members across this whole House, not the least from the Opposition benches, who have been singing, rightfully, my colleague Jan Logie’s praises, because this is her member’s bill.

I quote the Opposition MPs saying, “No one can challenge her focus or her sincerity on this matter of domestic violence, and for ensuring that there are supports for all people impacted on by domestic violence, and for understanding that we have a responsibility to stamp it out from our society.” But what people have not focused on so much, especially from the Opposition benches, is that she also understands the evidence and she has the smarts to put this legislation through, because this is coming from her lifetime commitment, dedication, and passion for this work, her dealing with front-line agencies and organisations at all levels, and her deep, profound understanding of exactly what victims and people go through when they are facing domestic violence. So it’s not simply about her sincerity, it’s not simply about her dedication; she knows this stuff and she knows what works. So I wanted to make sure that I put that right up front.

What does this bill actually do? This bill is going to make sure that people affected by domestic violence have up to 10 days’ extra leave to be able to deal with the effects of that violence, and that a victim of domestic violence can rearrange their working arrangements—so it could be working in a different location, it could be changing their working hours to make things easier to be able to deal with the extra stress, damage, and harm of domestic violence. It also looks at changing the onus of having to provide personal contact details, which we know can also put people at risk. A lot of people are having to put themselves in a situation where they cannot be found, because it is unsafe or where it is too risky for someone to know where they are and to be able to find out where they are and track them down. We know how absolutely critical safety of contact information is. So these are the sorts of amazing positive steps that we can take right now to improve workplace legislation.

I was also relieved to find out that this bill proposes that under the Human Rights Act there would be a protection for a person affected by domestic violence from discrimination, protected from discrimination in employment, quite specifically and quite—named, actually named. As someone who has come from 10 years of working with Human Rights Commission, I specifically welcome that proposal in the legislation. So that’s what the bill does. That’s what the legislation sets out in writing, but what does it actually say for us as a country? It says that we take this matter seriously. It says that we’re going to do things immediately and that can make such a massive difference in the lives of people who are suffering and being harmed by domestic violence.

This is the second reading and so I have read through some of the submissions. I was also the chief panellist on the Owen Glenn inquiry into domestic violence and child abuse, and I understand deeply and, sadly—I understand, sadly, too well—exactly what happens when someone is faced with the stress of having to deal with the harm from domestic violence but also the stress of having to hold down a job, and I understand the absolute appreciation that one would hold when their employer has been able to make allowances. This is the very sort of bill where we can make that massive change.

So I was proud to take a short call tonight to celebrate this step that we are going to make together in this House, alongside many other steps, to end the culture of violence and abuse in our country. But this is an effective step that we can take together right now that also makes sure that we understand that employers and workplaces are a part of our community. They are a part of health and safety and welfare, and this is a brilliant way, an evidenced way, a way that has been shown to work overseas that we can get on to this important work, alongside changing the culture of violence and abuse in this country. I am so proud of standing alongside Jan Logie and this member’s bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill at its second reading. I didn’t get a chance to talk on this bill at the first reading, and, indeed, I wasn’t at the Justice Committee, but I have read the select committee report. I would just like to start by taking the opportunity, as many of the members have done, to congratulate Jan Logie on this bill and commend her for bringing it to the House. I do know from having debated Jan prior to the last election in my very first ever debate—she may remember it at Auckland University, where I was very much outnumbered by many people in the audience as well as speakers; it was a pretty tough night. But listening to her then and listening to her since then in the House, I have great admiration for her hard work in making a difference in this space, for her tenacity, for her determination, and for her passion.

Domestic violence in this country is a great stain on our reputation and it is something that we need to take seriously. It’s a significant and insidious issue that we must strive to reduce. Now, the intentions of this bill on the face of it are very good, and its aims are worthy of consideration. But just because something sounds good doesn’t mean that it is good, and when you delve down into this bill it is quite clear that the bill won’t actually make any real difference, despite its very good aims. As we’ve heard from a number of speakers tonight, including Jan Logie herself, there are a very small number of ratbag employers, who will always exist and will continue to exist under this bill.

Most businesses—99 percent of businesses—are flexible. They give victims of domestic violence time off under the current legislation—and even above and beyond that—allowing people to see the police, to get their kids sorted, and their lives in order. But for the very, very small percentage of ratbag employers—as we’ve heard about tonight—this legislation won’t make any difference, because they will continue to be ratbag employers because this very bill gives them a huge out. New Part 69ABD—grounds for refusal of request by an employer—gives them an incredibly long list of outs. So while this bill sounds great and gives many rights to an employee, it then takes that all away by saying, “Well, ratbag employers can continue to be ratbag employers by using the refusal to request the application under this very legislation.” So while we’re putting this in place we’re going back and taking it all away again.

I was the chair of the business association, the Browns Bay Business Association, not the biggest business association in the country but they’re a very important one in my electorate, and—

💬 Hon Member: Vital.

Vital. I would like to say that in dealing with all of those businesses I can say that they were all fantastic employers. They were decent human beings, as Tracey Martin said, and they looked after their employees. Most businesses in New Zealand do that already. For the very small percentage of ratbag employers, they’re going to continue to do that under this legislation. All we are doing is taking a giant stick to very good employers and smacking them about the head and saying “Well, you’re already doing a good job but here’s some more compliance costs. Here are some more costs on your business, even though you’re already doing an amazing job.” The very small percentage of ratbag employers will continue to be like that.

The division between this side of the House and the other side basically boils down to a couple of points: that there is no clear evidence to show that employers aren’t currently recognising and providing appropriate support. In fact, the select committee heard from many employers who were doing a very good job. There was no real overwhelming evidence to show that there was, in fact, a problem to solve.

Secondly, the bill uses an incredibly wide definition of domestic violence, which includes verbal abuse, monetary pressure, and other aspects that are difficult to define. On top of this wide definition, the Government is proposing amendments to put no time limit on how long ago that domestic violence occurred. So we have no identifiable problem within our current legislation, no reliable definition of domestic violence, and no set time limit.

While the spirit of this bill is commendable, the current leave framework is working and there is no requirement for such a bill. We will not be supporting it. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Can I begin by stating my support for this Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill at this, the second reading. I too would like to acknowledge my colleague Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, domestic and sexual violence, Jan Logie.

Can I also point out that there is a Supplementary Order Paper 39 that the said Minister has tabled in the House. I’m glad that people have read the report of the Justice Committee because every single issue that was highlighted in there from the Labour Party has been implemented in this Supplementary Order Paper. So, actually, wake up people. Read the Supplementary Order Paper.

I do want to state that I was a member of the Justice Committee in the 51st Parliament, and with my colleague Poto Williams we listened to many of the submissions. So I’m going to talk about some facts that came out in that process. So the first fact is that Women’s Refuge surveyed 450 women in their care. Prior to being in their care, 60.1 percent of them had been in full-time employment; after they had entered an abusive relationship that fell to 27.5 percent. After they’d left those abusive relationships, actually, only 34 percent of them were able to gain full-time employment. So what does this mean? If you’re a victim of family violence, actually, it doesn’t just go away. It affects you for the rest of your life. You become damaged, and because of that damage and because of our knowledge we need to keep you in work. What does work actually do?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually not me. Not me.

We need to keep victims, sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, into—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’d be nice if you kept me in work, but—

Well, you don’t need to be kept in work; you’re working. It helps you to build stability, resilience, and it also helps to break the cycle of abusive relationships, and increases independence. So all of these factors actually point to the solution that my colleague Jan Logie is making through this bill.

The New Zealand Public Service Association Inc. says in terms of lost productivity related to domestic abuse, it costs us $368 million per annum. I’d like to acknowledge the champions of pieces of legislation like this who don’t need legislative reform. They are The Warehouse, they are the University of Auckland, they are ANZ, they are Countdown, and they are Foodstuffs, and they’ve been ably supported by Women’s Refuge. I also want to acknowledge that Countdown have the Shielded Site. So this is a protected site. This is for women who want to disclose abuse, and they have 120,000 visits each week. People can go on to that site and disclose. So we have incredibly—excuse the pun—progressive businesses that actually want to take some responsibility to address our appalling statistics.

I’d like to quote Suzanne Snively from the National Business Review, who on 12 June 2018 said this: “The Domestic Violence (Victims’ Protection) Bill currently before Parliament presents an opportunity to bring about some of the most significant social change in New Zealand since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1893. And it’s good for business.” How about that? So, Jan Logie, your bill tonight is creating significant social change, and I’m incredibly proud to stand here to speak in support of that.

In 2014, Minister Amy Adams said there were 100,000 incidents of family violence. In 2016, that had gone up to nearly 120,000 incidents of family violence. Nearly 50 percent of all homicides and reported violent crime in New Zealand is family violence - related. We are the first country in the world, ladies and gentlemen, for intimate partner violence. A third of New Zealand women experience intimate partner violence. What is the cost of family violence for us as a country? Seven billion dollars per annum. That’s an average of 13 women, 10 men, and nine children killed. Twenty-four percent of women in our country suffer from sexual assault, six percent of men. If you’re a disabled woman then you’re twice as likely to be a victim of violence. The victims of this family violence, ladies and gentlemen, are women. So that’s why my colleague Jan Logie has focused on victims and supporting victims to stay in work. What we know is that work provides a pathway to gain confidence and to escape the abuse. Workplaces, therefore employers—small, medium, and large—are part of the solution. The bill that’s been presented tonight is a solution for family violence. If we want to rid our country of family violence then this is the bill that we must all support.

💬 Hon Member: Seriously?

Did someone say “seriously”? I am saying seriously.

I’d like to quote ANZ HR manager Gina McJorrow, who spoke in the submission process and she said this: “It’s counter-intuitive but it costs very little. The cost of losing someone to sick leave, turnover, or unexplained absences, lower performance, and disengagement all adds up. Providing paid special leave is not as expensive as you think.” So the reality of the situation and the evidence that we have from employers who have implemented this solution is that it works, and it costs less for them to implement these policies than absences, and actually in some cases deaths.

The reality for ANZ, the reality for Countdown, is that 18 months ago, two years ago, they bought into this solution because they had staff members who died. They were murdered by their partners. So they wanted to provide an opportunity for those women to be able to say, “I’m living in an abusive situation. I am the victim of violence, and I need your help.” So what this bill says is that we need to help and we need to provide an environment where businesses take responsibility for ensuring that workplace hazards are eliminated, and it’s not about the money. The excuses from the Opposition, that this is going to cost business, I just find sad. I find it sad because I’ve talked about the consequences of family violence, the consequences to women. So I find it sad—oh, actually, maybe it is an appropriate differentiation between our side of the House and the Opposition that they want to prioritise the cost to business as opposed to being part of a solution to eradicating family violence.

I am going to take this opportunity, and I’ve talked to my mate Jan Logie about this, because during the select committee process there was one issue that my colleague Poto Williams and I had with her, and it was actually about her focus on victims. Actually, we said that if you really want to eliminate family violence, if we really want to eliminate family violence, then why isn’t this part of a White Ribbon solution? A White Ribbon solution would actually extend some of these provisions to our men, to our perpetrators, because we want them to go to court, we want them to have counselling, we want them to have access to that transparency in their workplace so that they can get help too. But Jan was really clear that, for her, the focus is on victims first. I guess she comes from that perspective because it actually is always about the powerful over the powerless. But I guess we have to start questioning that concept of power actually, Jan, because we live in a society where violence has become normalised.

So if you normalise a behaviour, because no one wants to address it, then actually do you have power? If you have got no conscious control or conscious ability to say “Why am I doing this? Why am I hitting my wife? Why am I hitting my partner? Why am I abusing my children?” to an environment, that’s actually damaging them. So that would be my only plea that actually—and I know and I want to acknowledge that some businesses now are actually providing the opportunity for perpetrators to get the help they need too. Kia ora.

Just before I call the next speaker, I just remind members that this is a second reading debate, and according to Speakers’ rulings 108/4 and 108/5, we are discussing the bill that is before the House. The fact that there is a Supplementary Order Paper can be referred to, but the contents of that Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated in detail. We are on the second reading. The Supplementary Order Paper comes in at the committee stage.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the last speaker for this side of the House, I’ve been sitting listening to all the contributions tonight, and I was really surprised at the one that was given by Louisa Wall just before I stood up, because there is no way that this side of the House is not sympathetic towards the victims of domestic violence and family violence.

The way that the members on the other side of the House are articulating their speeches tonight, it’s almost like they’re misrepresenting this side of the House. Yes, we do believe in protecting those victims of domestic violence and of family violence—we do. We want to see them protected, as well. What this bill does, though, is it is almost like attacking a group of people—employers—and the previous speaker spoke about—

💬 Louisa Wall: How is it attacking employers?

No, just listen. The previous speaker spoke about big employers like Countdown and The Warehouse, who actually have got programmes going inside their organisations to work with domestic violence victims and family violence victims, and that is great. What we’re saying on this side of the House is that small businesses will struggle under this piece of legislation. It’s like taking a great big hammer and banging them over the head with it.

My colleague Erica Stanford also talked about the ratbag employers, and there are those employers out there. With this piece of legislation, you’d give them an excuse to actually marginalise those staff members that are victims of domestic violence, because they are ratbag employers.

I wasn’t on the Justice Committee to hear the submissions, but the report that came out of the select committee hearings told me that there are a number of employers that come and they do a good job in supporting those victims of domestic violence. We do care on this side. We believe that it should be a broader way of actually addressing the situation, not going along and just cherry-picking out various groups of people in the community. What we are saying is actually take a broader look at the whole subject. Don’t try and do that and marginalise good employers who do do the work by supporting those victims of domestic violence.

Now a lot has actually have gone around this House about that, and as I start to wind up my contribution, I just want it on Hansard that this side of the House—the National Party side of this House—does support victims of domestic violence. We just want to make sure that the approach is wholesome, it is fair, and it protects everybody, so that people can actually hold their jobs and be helped along the same way, but adding an additional 10 days on to current leave entitlements isn’t the way. There are other ways, and I do ask the Government—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Every member in this House is entitled to their view, and they’re entitled to have that opportunity to make their view. So just calm—OK?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I encourage that side of the House—the Government benches—to look at the work that the National Party did around family violence and to adopt the process and the procedures that we laid out in our family violence approach. So without—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Integrated Safety Response.

That’s right. This is not an employment issue. My colleagues have already said that we know whereabouts this issue actually belongs, so I implore the Government to have a look. Do not put your blinkers on or your blindfolds on when it comes to this issue, because it is too important to let this issue slide away just because people are trying to politic in here. Look at what everybody’s contributions are and build a piece of legislation that will address the subject from all points of view, from all areas within our society.

I cannot support this bill. It is far too narrow.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am absolutely thrilled to stand and speak at the second reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. Right, I’m just going to go very briefly into what this bill does and then recall some, I guess, case studies, as it were, based on the years that I’ve spent in the sector working at the front line with women who’ve experienced this. So what does this bill do? It’s an omnibus bill, which means that it will amend a whole suite of Acts: the Domestic Violence Act, particularly, but also the Employment Relations Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the Holidays Act, as well as the Human Rights Act.

Now, we’ve all stood up—well, from both sides of the House, members have stood up today and acknowledged the fact that domestic violence has damaging impacts on the people who are subjected to it—largely, women. We’ve also acknowledged that staying in employment is critical to reducing that effect of violence. We’ve all talked about it, yet only one side of this House actually supports this bill and puts our money where our mouths are. Everyone has the right to live a life free from violence, and as I mentioned, no one disputes that. For many, though, that’s just words, and talk is cheap. Many women I’ve worked with in this sector, and as I mentioned, I’ve worked for many years at the front line, I recall spending hours advocating on behalf of women who needed some sort of reprieve at points, some sort of compassion from employers because of what they were going through and how that impacted on every facet of their life, including their lives at work.

Many of them needed someone to advocate on their behalf because of the trauma that they’d gone through—the fact that reliving what had happened in itself was re-victimisation, the fact that there is still stigma and shame that disproportionately affect women from some groups, especially some of the ethnic communities that I come from, because we’re already small communities and reasonably marginalised. So, understandably, the entire community doesn’t want to feel like they’re being tarred with the same brush, but that doesn’t mean that we can ignore the fact that it exists, and the impact, the disproportionate impact, that has on women from those communities.

I remember specifically two stories that I will recall today. One woman I worked with was a cleaner at a reasonably large hotel. She’d experienced high levels of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse. She wasn’t sure what to do, whether she could speak to her employers about the fact that she needed some assistance or not. In her case, and in the case of the other woman I worked with who was in an admin role in a company, I picked up the phone, spoke to their employers for them, and, for them, luckily, their employers were willing to listen and willing to accommodate what their needs were.

Some women don’t necessarily want to talk about it, because they’re just tired, and having to explain time and again to people who are supposed to be helping them or supporting them can just make things too difficult, really. That’s why this bill is important, because one of the things that it does is send a really strong signal across our society that we all have a role to play in keeping women and children safe.

So what exactly are we talking about here? In terms of safety, when we talk about safety there’s the direct safety, of course, that women—and I say “women” because, disproportionately, women are impacted by domestic violence. But there is extensive research that tells us that it’s at that time, when she leaves the abusive relationship—that’s the time when it’s most dangerous for her and her children. That’s the time, often, that women’s lives are at risk. And what happens? Why is it important that women need to have some sort of accommodation at work? Because that’s often where the stalking happens. It’s about disrupting routine, because domestic violence is not just about incidents, it’s not just about physical, emotional, physiological, sexual, and financial abuse; it’s about power and control, which then means that when an abuser is wanting to continue to exert that power and control over a woman, they then look for what that woman’s routine is: “Where can we stalk her? When she drops the kids off at school, when she goes to work. We know what her email address is.”

I read in one of these papers that the most common form of harassment is through phone calls and emails at work. Physical stalking happens at work as well, and that’s why flexible working arrangements or paid leave when a woman needs it are crucial to keeping her safe, because they disrupt that routine, and not one person on that side of the House has even alluded to them. That’s what this bill will do.

Members opposite have talked about the fact that there’s sick leave, that there’s bereavement leave, and that there’s paid annual leave that women can access. Two points that I’d like to make to that: firstly, that’s not what sick leave is for, or what any of those other types of leave are for. Secondly, in many cases, especially when there’s physical abuse involved, women have already used up their sick leave.

There is the safety of children as well, in terms of the disruption to children’s lives, in terms of direct safety to children, and in terms of the indirect safety that children need to be protected from when the mother is being abused, stalked, and harassed. The break that we need, the disruption to the stigma and the shame that still exist that prevent people from talking about it—so, making it OK for women to talk about what’s going on at the workplace and to seek help. We’re not saying, as some members opposite have said, that somehow—the Hon Scott Simpson mentioned that members on this side of the House are somehow implying that the employer’s at fault—no, we’re not—or that there’s some kind of connection between employment and violence.

There’s a connection between violence and every aspect of a person’s life. We take our whole selves to work, and we should have the right to stay safe wherever we are, whether that’s at home, on the street, or at work. Unfortunately, the Hon Scott Simpson used the words “punish and hit” employers. No, that’s often what happens to the women who are experiencing violence. The cost for the employers was brought up, but there’s a cost to not acting. My colleagues on this of the House have talked about the cost directly to employers. There’s a massive cost—I think it was $7 billion—to society as a whole when you include the flow-on costs of domestic violence as well.

An interesting point that I want to note that the Hon Maggie Barry made, actually, and I quote so that there’s no issue around misrepresentation, is—I quote—“employers … are already doing the right thing”. So if this is the right thing, why aren’t we doing it? That’s what I want to know. Why is this House not voting—why is that side of the House not voting to do what is, apparently, the right thing? So is it right or is it not, and if it’s right, why won’t members opposite support it? That’s what I want to know.

The member also mentioned that it’s not an employment issue—I think I’ve addressed that—that there’s domestic violence protection orders, medical certificates. It’s not a sickness. It’s not a sickness, and that’s not enough. That’s not good enough. And that it’s easier to achieve for large employers and not for small—yes, I take that point. It is easier to achieve for large employers, but what are we saying here—that it’s too difficult, that safety, that protecting, supporting the safety of women and children, is too difficult for us to do? Erica Stanford talked about ratbag employers. It’s not about the employers; it’s about the message that we send. It’s about, ultimately, the protections and the supports for the women who are undergoing or who are subjected to this.

There are horrific statistics that we have in New Zealand around domestic violence, and we have an opportunity here. This may not be the be-all and the end-all. Minister Andrew Little has talked about everything else that this side of the House is doing to end violence against women, but this is one critical part of it. It’s a critical role that we stand here to play, to ensure that we all play the role that we can play to end this scourge on society.

With that—actually, one more quick point: I understand from submitters that, actually, more employers were in support of this bill than against. I put that to members opposite in consideration of this bill, and, with that, it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.