Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a stand. I was just packing my desk up, so it’s a real pleasure to take a call in regards to this bill. Of course, it’s recognised that Jan Logie has worked really hard for a number of years across the House, and I also recognise you for your commitment to this kaupapa.

I would like to talk about—I hope I’m allowed to—Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 41, which has been put in and made in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell. I’d like to talk about the proposal to amend clause 14, and, basically, the way that he has put this SOP in place is to say that—it’s reverting it right back what actually exists currently, which is that we, essentially, allow people to use their annual leave or their sick leave. It makes it clear and explicit that it’s OK to use it when you’re a victim of domestic violence.

So I’d like to just address that in that what we do know is that this is currently what’s happening. If you are lucky enough to have an employer who recognises domestic violence, you might be able to have that conversation, but, if you’re not, if it isn’t the case, what then happens is people use their annual leave and they use their sick leave up. What we know is the intention of annual leave is to have holiday, to have rest, to recover from their workplace, to be able to spend with family, and to have an enjoyable—hopefully—time with that family. What we do know is that families who suffer from domestic violence and women who are needing to use this leave are actually going to be using their annual leave to take care of these matters. We know as well that, unfortunately, sick leave is also used particularly in the case of injury. But also, really, when people get to that point where they are out of any other leave, then they actually need to use that sick leave. I believe that this SOP therefore is redundant. It doesn’t actually address what this bill does, and I would like to recommend that we don’t follow through with this SOP.

I also want to make it really clear that when we are talking about a workplace, and I want to reiterate this statement, productivity gains in the workplace for our victims of violence—this is actually a really positive thing. This is actually what’s going to make or help make a real significant difference. So when we have a member put an SOP in that talks specifically to “Well, let’s just give them what they’ve already got, and let’s just tell them that they can perhaps fib, or they can use their sick leave.”—they’re not sick. They’re not needing annual leave because they want to have some time with their family. They’re actually needing help, support, and safety supports from their employer, some specific time to address and help—try and get to a place of safety. I think we need to constantly remember that and remind ourselves. So, accordingly, I do not believe that this SOP has value in terms of—I get the intent, I understand where the position has been placed, but I do not believe that we should support this. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. I think we would all in the House have a great deal of sympathy for victims of domestic violence, and I don’t think anyone would not. I think that many people would feel a great deal of sympathy for what Jan Logie is attempting to achieve here, but I also have a great deal of sympathy for the business owners who are not actually the perpetrators of domestic violence and who would have to therefore, along with the workmates of the victim, pay for, essentially, someone to be able to take extra time off because they need it, outside of the sick days and annual leave provisions.

I actually think there is another way of dealing with it, and the other way is through the Government, through its Budget process. If the Government wants to fund the victims of domestic violence to be able to take more time from work because they need to deal with some of the issues around dealing with that domestic violence, then I think the Government should do that. I also think there’s another opportunity here for the Government another way, and that is through the Accident Compensation Corporation, of which I’m a former Minister, and I see that the Minister is here and is listening to this debate.

I say that not because I wish to use up all ACC money, because of course it wouldn’t, but actually because ACC is not there for accidents; it is there for injuries: injury prevention, injury rehabilitation, and dealing with issues around injury. So, for instance, if a victim of domestic violence in fact attends at an emergency clinic or whatever, medical clinic, they will actually end up—their bill will be paid for by accident compensation. In addition to that, if there are broken bones or other injuries or actually counselling, then that can well be paid for by ACC, because it is a natural part of dealing with the rehabilitation and treatment of an injury. So the misnamed, in many ways—the Accident Compensation Corporation is really the “Injury Prevention and Compensation Organisation”. I think that that is a better place to be.

So if the Government wants to reassess this issue and to take up Ms Logie’s bill and to turn it into another provision of ACC, I would personally not have any issue with that at all because I think that that is a better place for the costs of the rehabilitation and prevention to be placed. Certainly, I know that ACC has over the years put a lot of effort into these sorts of areas anyway. So it is not much of a stretch, frankly, for that to happen, and I would have thought that Ms Logie, with her position in the Government, would be able to help bring that about. I don’t think that’s a silly idea, even though it didn’t come from the Government—actually, probably because it didn’t come from the Government. But I think it is actually—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Oh, you were doing so well, right up until then.

I was just checking that they were awake, Madam Chair, because they were so quiet—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: We were listening, so carefully.

I thought there was something wrong. But I’m pleased that the Hon Tracey Martin is listening. But I think it is an idea, and I think that it’s a far better imposition to do that, because the ACC is an entirely different organisation than your average small business, and I think your average small business is not going to be able to cope well with this. They already feel somewhat put upon when it comes to taxes. They already collect the taxes that the Government seeks, rightly. They also collect and pay student loans. They collect the liable parent contributions. They collect the PAYE. They do all these things for nothing, for absolutely nothing, and we just need to be very aware that small business is small. It is not capable of paying any further for the wrongs of others. The perpetrators of family violence should be dealt with in the criminal justice system, and they should also, I think, when we look at dealing with the effects of their wrong and their harm that they cause to their victims, we should be going down the much easier route when it comes to the victims as well, and for business, and go down the ACC route. I think it’s the only sensible way of addressing this issue.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In this intervention, I’d like to briefly introduce my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which reflects the submissions that were made to the Justice Committee, but because we didn’t have a majority on the committee, we weren’t able to return the bill in a way that reflected that. So my SOP, SOP 39, makes the changes that were recommended in committee—or would have been. So, in effect, in this SOP, we are recommending that we change three pieces of legislation: the Employment Relations Act, the Holidays Act, and the Human Rights Act. What that will do is, altogether, provide a framework for employers to work out how they support their staff who are currently impacted by domestic violence.

I do want to pick up on some of the points raised by the previous speaker, Judith Collins: that employers shouldn’t have to pay for the violence of perpetrators. The misnomer is that—because that sounds rational, and I think we all support that concept—the problem is that they are paying right now, because domestic violence doesn’t happen just in the home; it happens between people wherever those people are. We have a huge amount of evidence now, from years of research, that tells us about the impact of that domestic violence in workplaces; where victims are stalked in their workplaces, where they are sabotaged from attending work or performing in their jobs by their abusers, and where they are also often harassed in the workplace. That is happening right now, and we know from the evidence that employers generally—most of them don’t know how to deal with it; either they don’t recognise that it’s happening and understand the impact on their workplace or, if they do, they’re not sure what to do. They want to support their staff members but they’re just not quite sure how to do it. So part of what this legislation does is provide them with the framework to walk through supporting that staff member. That, in turn, increases productivity, reduces staff turnover, and improves the entire workplace culture. There are significant benefits to those employers as well as to us as a country but, most importantly, to the victims.

I am really, really clear that I want every single victim in this country to have access to those protections. I don’t want to continue with the status quo, where it is a matter of luck whether you have an employer that understands this and offers the victims support. I do want to also challenge the point that this is just overwhelming and too difficult for small businesses. Well, actually, I’ve heard from small businesses who often tell me that they have almost a family-like relationship with their staff because it’s a small team. So, actually, for them to be able to support their staff members, if they were given a framework, is easier than it is for a large company that has to set up quite complicated HR systems to be able to ensure that that understanding filters all the way through their workplace. The cost on businesses and small businesses is actually less.

What we know from—and I’ve certainly spoken to small employers who have given their staff time off when they’ve needed it and have supported them because they’ve had that knowledge. Over in Australia, where 1.6 million workers are already covered by these types of policies, I have not seen a report of one business going out of business because of those policies and actions. Actually, it reduces the stress on the employers as well as the victims. But, of course, the primary—primary—purpose of this is to address the impacts of domestic violence and to provide a pathway to safety for victims, because one in three women are affected by this at the moment, and that’s got to stop, and we all have to play a role in doing that.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Just to take a call in support of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill on behalf of New Zealand First, can I open by thanking all members of the Justice Committee. There was diligent work here. There was real conversation, a real commitment, and I don’t think anybody wants to deny that—that there was a real commitment by the members of the select committee to come to a place that supported the victims of domestic violence. What we are in now is just a small conversation about making sure that there aren’t any unintended consequences for those—and business is the topic that has kind of been at the forefront, I suppose, here.

So New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. We will be supporting Ms Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 39, in one part because it actually allows a Supplementary Order Paper on behalf of my colleague Clayton Mitchell to take effect if it’s fully supported with enough votes across the committee. There are two Supplementary Order Papers under the name of my colleague Clayton Mitchell. The first one, Supplementary Order Paper 47, is, actually, around some concerns that we had with regards to the amount of time that an employer could be taken to task for using the number of ways that they could decline giving domestic violence leave to an employee. I think Ms Logie has tried, and the select committee has tried, very clearly, to recognise that there are times when it will be too difficult for a company, a business, to do what they want to do, which is to care for another human being that they are connected to—and the fact that that’s a business relationship or a personal relationship or anything else.

But we did feel that 12 months was a bit long, and we felt that there needed to be some sort of immediacy to that, so we’ve actually put in a Supplementary Order Paper to take that 12-month period down to a six-month period. We feel that gives enough time for the victim to have got—we hope—past the crisis or the trauma which they were experiencing and that they’ve had time to think about and seek support if they feel that it is necessary to actually lodge that complaint or go into mediation with their employer around that request.

I also want to talk about the secondary Supplementary Order Paper that is on the Table in the name of Clayton Mitchell, Supplementary Order Paper 46. Actually, it was Rural Women New Zealand who brought this particular Supplementary Order Paper to the fore. It was part of their submission to the select committee, and, again, you can’t doubt those women’s desire to be part of the solution here. They brought with them a very rural and practical and reasonable suggestion that five days—for an employer, in certain circumstances, to only have five days to be able to come back to the employee and say, “We can” or “We can’t” change your flexible working arrangements—was a little short, and particularly, I think, haymaking was one of the examples. There are some real examples in rural life where this is a little short. So our Supplementary Order Paper has picked up on their submission and actually sets a maximum of 10 days the employer has to be able to try and work some flexible working arrangements for somebody requesting domestic violence leave.

Just before I sit down, I want to just say one other thing. I want to reiterate the fact that New Zealand First does see—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Sorry. I don’t want to interrupt the member, except to say our time clocks are malfunctioning. You’ve got about a minute.

Thank you very much. I beg your pardon. So just to say that New Zealand First has shared the concerns others have voiced around business. We have had some constructive conversations with the Minister of Finance. He has agreed that the Tax Working Group will be taking this up as an item to have a look at as to whether any days taken under this particular piece of legislation can be claimed as a tax rebate by businesses, and it’s a continual live discussion with the Minister of Finance around that so that we can do right by both sides of the conversation here. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. I was on the Justice Committee, not for all the submissions but, certainly, for substantial discussions around this bill. National take the issue of family violence very seriously indeed, and when I was in a ministerial role, I was part of the wider family violence group of Ministers who addressed a lot of the concerns and wanted to do things that would actually prevent domestic and family violence from occurring, for younger people and also for elders and seniors. So, across many ministries, we worked hard in a prevention role.

This bill, we feel, misses the boat and misses the main point, which is to try and help women who have been victims of domestic violence, but in a way that is going to work properly. The education campaign which has been suggested in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 42, in the name of my colleague Mark Mitchell, will require the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to put in a very widespread nationwide educational campaign, because one of the issues that emerged at select committee is that people didn’t really know what they could do if they were on the brink of being involved in domestic violence, in the midst of it, or in the aftermath. So being able to have additional information about what to do and where to go for help is a very important part. This was acknowledged by many of the submitters and by many of the members of Parliament who have had these experiences, at our electorate level.

As the Hon Judith Collins put forward, turning it into an ACC situation—a vast organisation, already very well geared up to deal with victims of trauma. Whether it is rape, whether it is any other form of violence that occurs, ACC already has the mechanisms to be able to move into prevention, into rehabilitation, or into helping in the aftermath—not only the immediate victim herself or himself but also their family members and others. These methods, we feel, are very important ones for New Zealand, as a nation, to think carefully about and to support in a meaningful way.

I would urge this Government—and this member too—to be supportive of the Integrated Safety Response pilot, because about five years’ work across more than nine ministries led to this pilot. It is very effective in its early days. It is something that we feel will bring together all of the various agencies, whether it’s police, justice, ACC for that matter, health, and so forth—all of the ministries that have any involvement in helping people recover from violence but also giving them the help that they need to prevent themselves getting into worse situations.

This body of work is entirely where New Zealand ought to be going, and it’s almost there. I would urge this Government and this member to speak in favour of the Integrated Safety Response pilot, to be funded from beyond next year. The police and others and the early reports of it say that it’s going very well indeed, and we would like to see that continue, because it is addressing the fundamental issues and the problem—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I would encourage the member to come back to the specifics of the bill. That is another programme.

Sure.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you.

So that’s something that we feel very much would work as a preventative. Those are tried and true.

The member—and some of our submitters, as well—talked about the situation in Australia. Australia, we feel, is a very different environment, indeed, from us. It has not been accepted, incidentally, beyond certain employers. It has certainly not been accepted across all of Australia, and there’s probably very good reason for that. The member would like New Zealand to be the first country in the world to trial this and to put it into law; I feel that that would be inappropriate, for all of the reasons that colleagues have put forward. The burden it would place on the wrong people, and the idea of having support people and others also being entitled to 10 days, runs out of control and runs contrary to what a sensible approach would be.

The Supplementary Order Paper that my colleague Mark Mitchell has put in, to really enshrine and to give more backbone, if you like, to employers to be able to do the right thing in this situation by allowing domestic violence to be, absolutely, held up as a way of applying for sick leave and so forth, I think is a very correct way to go. I think that Supplementary Order Paper 41 is something that we are very much in support of, and qualifying for paid annual or sick leave for the purposes of dealing with the effects of being victims of domestic violence is very appropriate, along with Mark Mitchell’s other SOP on education. So we believe domestic violence is a scourge and a problem. We do not support this bill because it does not address it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is indeed a privilege to stand and take a call at the committee stage of this bill. I thought I’d begin with a little bit of an overview as to what this bill would actually—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Thank you, Mr Chair. As I said before the dinner break, it is indeed a privilege to stand and take a call at the committee stage of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. This is a bill that gives victim survivors of domestic violence options for flexibility at work. It includes leave entitlements that allow them to access support. It is a bill that actually provides financial security and, in fact, gives victim survivors the option or removes a pretty significant barrier to women leaving situations, environments, of abuse, which is financial security. I was part of the select committee that considered this bill—not the submissions but, of course, came in sort of part way through the process—and I know there was a submitter who talked about her personal experience of being subjected to domestic violence, requesting the flexibility, the leave, that she needed to be able to access the types of support that she needed, and not being allowed that, and having, actually, her job taken away from her through no fault of her own. That often becomes a barrier to women being able to leave.

The other thing this bill does that is phenomenal is that it allows for the routine or the schedules of women who are victim survivors of domestic violence to be disrupted. In many cases, it’s not just the incidents that make up domestic violence—that is domestic violence—it is a pattern of power and control that these women are subjected to. The way that translates into reality—and I’m thinking of many women that I’ve supported through my years working in the sector—the way it plays out is that the abuser knows what the routine of this woman is. He knows that she will go to drop the kids off at school at a certain time. He knows that she goes to work at a certain time. He knows where she works, and, therefore, he knows how to stalk her and how to continue to exert that pattern of power and control. We know, working in the sector, that that time when a woman decides to leave is the most dangerous time. So that disruption of schedule is what this bill allows for.

There are a number of changes—a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs)—that are being considered as well, and I’ll just go through them very quickly. There are two from the member Clayton Mitchell: one that deals with extending the time within which an employer is required to deal with a request for flexible working short-term arrangements for those who are affected by domestic violence—the SOP will amend the bill from five working days to 10 working days; the other amendment is to reduce the time that an employee has to make a choice of procedure. What that means is: if an application is put through for the flexibility or the leave and it isn’t given, there are methods of redress for the employee. This SOP will change that amount of time from 12 months to six months. They’re two reasonably minor SOPs that I’m quite happy for us to support.

There are two others, however, in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell, that I will speak to as well. This has been brought up by members opposite time and again: the fact that there are other mechanisms for victim survivors of domestic violence, other pathways that they can take or avail themselves of—annual leave, sick leave. We on this side have said ad nauseam: those are not appropriate. Annual leave is supposed to be for holidays. It’s supposed to be for some rest and relaxation. It’s supposed to be for when people need to take a break. It’s not for when you’re subjected to domestic violence and you need to access support; that’s not what it’s for. That’s not what sick leave is for, either. Many women, especially those who’ve been subjected to physical or sexual violence, have often used up that leave. Many times children are sick and, therefore, women have used up that leave. Victims of domestic violence, I would argue—[Bell rung]—actually need annual and sick leave perhaps more than most.

Order! Is the member’s seeking another call?

💬 PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, Mr Chair. So that particular SOP by the member Mark Mitchell, honestly, is lidicrous—ludicrous; I blame the cold. Annual and sick leave already exist for all of us. They’re not appropriate for domestic violence victim survivors, because that’s not what they’re for. What we’re seeking is for leave so that a woman can actually apply for the time that she needs to go and access medical care, access legal care. Sometimes it’s about having to leave the city that she lives in because of the danger that is posed to her and to her children. So this is actually a bill that would allow a woman to seek the safety that she needs both for herself and for her children.

The other SOP in the name of Mark Mitchell is about an educational campaign. Basically, he says that, within six months of this particular bill coming into force, “the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment must undertake an educational awareness campaign throughout New Zealand to advise small and medium businesses on how to comply with the changes contained within [this] Act.” Honestly, I think this is an insult to everyone’s intelligence, especially to those who run small businesses, because if you know how to comply with the other aspects of leave that you need to provide to your staff—namely, annual leave, sick leave, and bereavement leave—you’re going to know how to comply with this as well. It’s really not that complex. It’s a simple bill that makes a profound change to those whom it affects. So I would not be supporting either one of those two SOPs.

Going back to the bill, I’m just going to maybe address a couple of amendments in Jan Logie’s SOP, which is a very fine SOP, I might add, and came out of some of the changes that were taken to the select committee, one of which was actually the proof of domestic violence that we debated quite a bit at select committee. The initial bill had quite a detailed part that talked about the types of documents, I guess, that would constitute proof. We felt, at select committee, that that was a little bit too specific and that proof should actually be much broader than that. It’s not everyone who goes to the police to press charges. It’s not everyone who goes to a refuge organisation to seek help. The experiences of women who experience domestic violence are diverse and incredibly varied. Narrowing the type of proof that was required, through this bill, we felt wouldn’t be fair on those women, and so it’s much broader as a result of that.

Also, there is a clause that will be added in both the Employment Relations Act and the Human Rights Act that, basically, will stop the discrimination that often women face when they’ve been subjected to domestic violence at work. There’s a huge stigma, and especially, sometimes, from some of the smaller communities. I’ve worked with a number of women from those communities. There is still quite a strong stigma. It’s beginning to change, and that’s great, but there is a stigma that women are often subjected to that then stops them from seeking the help that they need. That’s another reason that this bill is so important. It sends a signal that we’re all in this together, that we all have a role to play, including small businesses, to keep women and children safe.

It’s not about punishing small businesses for wrongs that weren’t theirs, as members opposite have pointed out previously in this debate; it’s about increasing options for women to get out of abusive situations and get the access to the types of help that they need. It sends a clear signal, as I said, that we all have a role to play. It keeps people safe. It keeps women and children safe. It is one crucial part of the work programme that this Government is undertaking to eliminate violence against women and children. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It is with reluctance that we do not support the passage of this bill. I say reluctance in the sense that we understand and very much acknowledge and get right in behind—before, during, and after—the idea that family violence is a scourge on our society. That is the first and it’ll be the last thing that I say tonight, and it’s very much something that we have taken great detail and great care in when we were in Government around taking some significant action. I know that speakers before me have referred to the Integrated Safety Response (ISR) pilot and its success, which saw, in 18 months of its initial pilot, the percentage of clients comfortable reporting cases going to police from 25 percent to 50 percent. There were incredible wins in that regard—so too in the creation of the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, which is rather interesting tonight, knowing that that’s sitting languishing on the Order Paper and hasn’t been brought forward for its second reading. That’s something very tangible and preventative that the Government could be doing right here, right now. It doesn’t negate the importance of the debate we’re having tonight, but it’s an extra and significant debate that we should be having, because it addresses structural issues of family violence—significant structural issues of family violence.

Tonight’s bill is very incredibly well-meaning and well-intentioned, but it places the burden of responsibility of family violence on businesses in this regard, and it’s not the solution. When you’ve got a massive societal issue, it requires a massive societal and Government response, a Crown response, not entirely a business response in this regard. We’ve had the Hon Judith Collins speak earlier in the night about a possible solution around increased access to ACC funding, and there are other solutions that could be tabled. Instead, we’re having to deal with this particular mechanism for change and for support.

I really caution anyone on the other side of the House to promote or to pitch this as a pro-business or pro-victim response by our particular party. That is not at all the case. What we’re dealing with here is a considered response for the impact that business will have, and it’s the right thing that we evaluate that and that we cut across right intentions for the business community. When you’re dealing with a threshold that’s as low and as broad as this bill contains, we have to be very careful about impact on those who employ victims of family violence.

I’d like to touch on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in regards to an educational campaign, SOP 42. I’m aware that that may, as a previous speaker has just pointed out—I think she used the word ridiculous. It is not at all ridiculous, and here’s why. I sit on the Education and Workforce Committee. There are massive changes coming to small business—in fact, to all business—incredibly soon, in the form of the Employment Relations Act, and we are required here to forearm and forewarn and gear up business for any change that they face if we’re the ones in fact imposing that change on them. So it is the right thing to do to require the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, if this bill passes, to embark on an educational campaign and make sure that business is geared up for—after all, change, if this is going to pass, shouldn’t be happening at business; it needs to be with business. They are the lifeblood of our nation, and that’s something that we should be doing here in Parliament tonight.

So I would like to, again, as I said earlier, finish with my remarks: family violence is a societal scourge, and we are incredibly determined, as we have been through our ISR pilot scheme, through our family and whānau violence bill—massive changes in the past decade. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m standing up tonight in my role as the Minister of Police and also the Minister for Small Business. I’ve heard the arguments, and I’ve listened to this debate—the various readings—and one thing I would say is that there is not a single approach to family violence or family harm. If there was, we would’ve implemented it years ago and we would’ve done away with it, but, as everyone acknowledges in this Chamber, it is a scourge. It is a real problem.

I suppose where I disagree with the previous speaker, Denise Lee, and with a number of speakers is that we do need to deal with this as a society, as a community. If it was just a community issue, then we would just deal with it within the community. If it was just a Crown issue, then, believe me, we would be implementing the steps to deal with this here and now, but it crosses right across every single part of our community. The Crown—yes, we have a very important role to play, which is what we’re doing. The police have an incredibly important role to play. The honourable Jan Logie is playing a very important part, but also our businesses are a really important part of our community. Maybe, in my role as Minister of Police, I’ve seen a little bit more than most people, I’ve heard a little more than most people, and I’ve seen evidence of the massive harm this causes and this imposes on our families.

I would like to talk about Part 5, and this is about the changes to the Human Rights Act. The reason I want to talk about the Human Rights Act is we believe that this is so fundamental to human rights. We are not just implementing a Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill; we’re coding in human rights legislation that this is so important, and what this means is that you cannot discriminate—not you, Mr Chair; society or businesses cannot discriminate based on someone who is a victim of domestic violence or family harm.

I just think that there is a time to play politics. We’re politicians, and we argue across the House because we’ve got different philosophical beliefs and we have different ideas about how to solve problems. But there are times when, as a Parliament, we should come together and actually do the right thing. When I heard Melissa Lee speak about this—not Melissa Lee, sorry—

💬 Hon Members: Denise Lee.

—Denise Lee; sorry, Denise—I thought there was a lack of sincerity in her voice, because I am sure—I am sure—that, deep down, Melissa—

💬 Hon Member: Ms Lee.

—knows that this is actually the right thing to do. And do you know the interesting thing I heard in a number of speeches? People were saying, “You know, the vast majority of businesses actually do do the right thing.” They do actually look after people who are victims of domestic violence, because they understand that that person is a really important part of their business. Well, I tend to agree with that—I do—but there are some employers who don’t. There are some employers who will discriminate against someone who has reached rock-bottom.

I’ll tell you some of the interviews I have seen. This is the worst thing that can happen, and all the stats say it is usually—not exclusively, but it is usually—a dad who is smacking the living daylights out of a mum and, sometimes, the kids. There has got to be a safe place. If, in fact, there is prejudice in the workplace, let alone in the home and in places in society, which Ms Lee highlighted as well, then let the workplace at least be a shining example of where we are going to stand up for the rights of people who are victims of domestic violence. It is why it is in the Human Rights Act. It is why we are actually saying we’re going to change the definition from “and social and racial harassment” to “sexual harassment, adverse treatment in employment of people affected by domestic violence and racial harassment.” We are putting this on the same level as racial harassment. I think that’s exactly where it belongs, because it is just totally unacceptable in this day and age to discriminate against someone who has absolutely reached rock-bottom.

What would the Opposition have us do? Are the Opposition saying, “No, no, no, it’s OK. Small business can’t cope with that, so when someone’s down, let’s just give them a couple more kicks and get them out of the workplace.”? If we think that is the way to treat Kiwis who are totally and utterly victims, then the Opposition has a problem.

As mentioned, as the Minister of Police and as the Minister for Small Business, I completely buy into this bill, and I thank Jan Logie for bringing it here. It is a really important part of what we need to do.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I stand to take a call. I might end up taking two in a row, actually, because I want to also add my thinking around the insidious nature of domestic violence—or any violence against somebody else, actually. What I want to talk about is strengthening this bill, and I believe that our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 41, under the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell, will actually enhance this bill. Even though I’ve sat and I’ve listened to what the Government members have said—you know, “It’s no good; it’s nothing”—I think that we need to actually take a step back, stop being so aggro towards one of our SOPs from the Opposition, and start to look at this with an open mind, because we are dealing not just with the victims of domestic violence but also with their families as well.

I’ve sat here and I’ve listened to the member in the chair, Jan Logie, talking about the value of small to medium sized businesses gaining some education around domestic violence. So when I look at the bill and I see the SOP under the name of Mark Mitchell around clause 14, we’re looking at, in new Subpart 5 of Part 2 of the Holidays Act, inserting proposed new section 72B, “Interpretation”, of the parts of “domestic violence”. One of the areas in the Domestic Violence Act 1995, section 3, actually describes what “violence” is. We’ve heard about small businesses and medium businesses needing some education, so in that particular part of the Domestic Violence Act 1995, it actually just gives a definition around what “violence” is. That alone should help in the education of employers around giving them an idea of what violence is.

In the next part of section 3, it talks about the victims’ children and what they’re subjected to, and I think that needs to be inserted into this bill, because—as I heard the Minister of Police, the Hon Stuart Nash, just talking about—the victims’ children actually witness this violence actually happening in their families towards their mother and/or their father, because whilst women are the majority of victims of domestic violence, there is also a small portion of those victims that are men, as well. I believe that in this bill we want to protect not just the victim of domestic violence but also their whānau.

As I said, by inserting section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 into this bill, it will actually help, number one, with the education for small and medium sized businesses without them actually even leaving to go and start some education programmes—especially through the organisation Shine—but it will also give them an idea of what they’re actually looking for. Some may understand what domestic violence victims may look like, but the majority of them will not know, and I think that this particular section in the Act will actually help to identify that. I think it will strengthen this bill, and I’m asking the member in the chair, in whose name this bill is under, to actually consider putting that particular part into the bill to actually strengthen the bill.

The other section that I want to talk about is the proposed replacement section 72C to Part 2, new Subpart 5. We look at subsection (3). “The request must—” is what the subsection starts at, and it’s “(a) state that the request is made under this subpart; and (b) state—(i) the employee’s name; … (ii) the date on which the request is made; and”—this new insertion is paragraph (c)—“provide appropriate evidence verifying the request.” Now, this isn’t meant to sound like we’re getting at people, saying—we’re not saying to them that what they’re saying is incorrect. What we’re asking them to do is to be able to provide some information to the employer, so the employer makes an informed decision around the type of leave that that person will get.

Not everybody shows up to work as a domestic violence victim with bruising. Some of them are psychologically bruised. Some of these people, they show up to work—the victims of domestic violence—and they’re not physically bruised, but they are inside, and that is what the employer doesn’t see. They cannot see that. Therefore, with a discussion and an interview between the employee and the employer, it will actually help for the employer to actually be able to grant leave to their employee.

So I think that what we’re asking for isn’t unreasonable. We want to strengthen this bill, and we do support victims of domestic violence. I think these are very sensible changes or inclusions. They’re not new things. They’re already in legislation, but, by adding them into this bill, it actually gives strength to this bill. It protects the victims of domestic violence, it protects their families, and, at the end of the day—as we have heard many times in this House—if children are surrounded by domestic violence right from birth and right through their lives, it affects them as adults. It actually can move in towards generational domestic violence, and that’s what we want to stop at the end of the day, isn’t it?

Everybody in this Chamber must agree that we want to stop that generational cycle of domestic violence. By including these parts into this bill, I believe that it will make it a better and stronger bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just rise to address some of the issues that have been put up by the Opposition and a few inaccuracies. I will try and do this carefully. I don’t want this to be an antagonistic debate. I want this to be one that’s grounded on the legislation, but I must admit that I’m a bit confused from the last speech.

We’ve heard the member Jo Hayes speaking about strengthening the bill and talking about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 41 that will make changes to clause 14, which is the clause in the bill that provides up to 10 days’ leave, and they are suggesting we actually get rid of the 10 days’ leave. That’s at the very heart of the bill, so I really struggle to see how removing the heart of the bill could be understood as strengthening it.

I really, really respect the conversation about us needing to care for our children and recognising the impact of family violence on our children. It is profound and it carries on beyond generations. That is why in this bill—in SOP 39—the leave is available to victims of family violence and people caring for children who are affected by family violence. At the absolute core of this legislation is that understanding that this is about how we strengthen our whānau.

That leave is available to—usually—mums, but it could be another parent who is coming out of a violent situation where the children have been traumatised and they’re expected to carry on as if nothing has changed. The kids are dealing with trauma and freaking out, and they’re expected to leave them at home and go to work. This leave is to enable them to stay with their kids when they’re freaking out and they just need them there. That is at the heart of what this is about.

I also just want to address too the point that we need to do some education around what is domestic violence and to expand people’s understanding of it. The bill links to the Domestic Violence Act. So it does do that. And while we are not supporting the SOPs that have been put up by the National Party—and I do feel a bit of frustration about it, because maybe we could have actually had a discussion about the education. But bringing it and putting it up today without coming to us and actually engaging in that discussion about what is the best method for implementation and going through and educating people—you know, actually, maybe we could have had that conversation, but putting it up today, it does look a little bit disingenuous to say that they’re committed to that. And I would also say that, actually, we’ve got it. We know that implementation is incredibly important in realising the potential of this legislation, and we’re not just going to pass this legislation and not engage with employers as well as our communities. We have got that under control.

I also want to touch on some of the issues that have also been raised: that this is placing—I will touch on them again—the burden on business and that the Crown needs to take responsibility. Well, I do want to say that, actually, that is what we’ve been doing for a really long time. Almost all of our response—and the research that the previous Government did was about where Government spending is and where society spending around family violence is—almost all of it is after the police have been called. It’s about police and prisons and our healthcare system—1.5 percent of Government spending is on prevention and not much more on early intervention.

Actually, if we’re going to turn around these horrific rates of violence in our society, it’s going to take all of us. We can’t just leave this with the Government. We need to be joining hands to actually support changing this culture of violence, and that is part of what this bill does. And there will be very real benefits to businesses from doing that. I would talk to the research from Suzanne Snively in New Zealand that showed that it’s over $3,500 per victim per year cost to businesses now. So this idea that businesses won’t be able to deal with the cost of what the Australian experience shows is women taking an average of, I think, 43 hours a year—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: A year.

A year—that businesses couldn’t deal with that cost when it’s costing them about 3.5 grand at the moment is just not getting with it.

And the saying, as well, that actually this is unfair on business—we had businesses submitting to us supporting this, saying that it’s made a real difference to them. We have evidence from businesses in Australia as well that have been saying this has been really positive for those businesses that have engaged and put these policies in place. Those policies cover 1.6 million workers in Australia. I think they’ve got some experience of this.

And I would also say that I know Suzanne Snively has written passionately in support of this legislation and she’s done the research modelling on it. She was a previous governor or board member of the Reserve Bank, partner in KPMG—she’s a very, very experienced business leader and very aware of the challenges for all of our businesses in New Zealand, and she believes that this legislation will help improve the wider culture in business to improve productivity by helping employers get with the programme that if they support their staff, they’re going to have increased productivity.

So it has benefits for business on a wider level. But at the very heart of it, what this is about is saving lives and when a victim comes to their employer and says that they are experiencing domestic violence or they need some help, I believe that the right thing to do is to ensure that person gets the help that they need. And that is what this piece of legislation, at its heart, will do.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute in this, the committee stage debate of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill.

I do want to provide some context for the relevance of this bill, particularly to women. So a third of New Zealand women suffer from family and domestic violence—a third. Let’s ponder that. Twenty-four percent of New Zealand women have had some form of sexual assault in their lifetime, and 6 percent of men. The police respond to 120,000 family violence incidents every year, and, apparently, 76 percent of family violence incidents are not reported. So the actual number is close to nearly 500,000 incidents. Context matters. The reason I quote that is because this piece of legislation—and I do want to focus on new sections 69AB and 69ABB, set out in clause 7, which actually are about what this bill is trying to do, and that is to provide a statutory right to victims—people who are affected by family and domestic violence—to be able to deal with the effects as employees. So let us ponder that.

Evidence before the select committee from groups such as the University of Auckland, ANZ, Countdown, The Warehouse—these are employers that actually, in some form, I call it self-regulation, actually, haven’t required the Government to tell them to implement these policies. They’ve chosen—

💬 Hon Member: Westpac.

Westpac. Thank you. They’ve chosen to do it themselves. And why? Because, from their perspective, actually, it saves them money and resources: sick leave that they can tally up, the turnover of staff, unexplained absences. And the reality for the businesses that presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee is that this makes economic sense to them—to actually invest in their employees.

I just want to focus on new section 69ABB, set out in clause 7: (1) An employee who is a person affected by domestic violence may make a request—(a) at any time;”—and this is the bit that is the most poignant—“(b) for the purpose of assisting the employee to deal with the effects on the employee on being a person affected by domestic violence.” The reason I want us to think about that concept is, actually, we’re asking people to disclose, and we have completely ignored the fact of those 76 percent of family violence incidents that don’t get reported, because these are people who will not tell anybody. They keep it a secret.

I managed to find a piece of research called Help-seeking amongst women survivors of domestic violence: a qualitative study of pathways towards formal and informal support. And what that piece of research has said is that domestic violence and disclosure is a long journey of ambivalence. It’s a journey of being anxious, being depressed, self-medicating, being unwell. And the other finding in this piece of research was that many women needed an enabler. They needed someone or something for them to be able to disclose. And guess what happens when women disclose family violence? They get help. They can stop the cycle, because they are strong enough within a context that they know will support them to disclose. And, in fact, that is what this piece of legislation is going to enable us to do. It will completely change the game. And for the Opposition not to realise how significant this piece of legislation is is incredibly sad.

The other thing that is very clear is that because this provision is specifically for victims of family violence, there is a specific need for family violence leave. So Mark Mitchell’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that wants to convert annual leave and sick leave into de facto family violence leave completely undermines the whole purpose and intention of this piece of legislation. This SOP speaks volumes about the Opposition’s so-called want to be part of a solution. This completely undermines the credibility of the Opposition.

So I’d like them to actually think about what they’re going to do in the third reading—I’ll be presumptive and think we’ll get through this phase of the process of making this very good bill into a piece of legislation—because if you really want to help and be part of the solution, then go and talk to all those business owners that you’re scaremongering and saying that you’re opposing this bill because you don’t want to impose extra costs on them. Actually go and talk to them. Maybe all of you should go and talk to 10 businesses in your electorates and actually get some evidence and get some voices from—

💬 Harete Hipango: Did you consult with them?

—the community. I was part of the process. I was in the last committee that heard all these submissions. I’ve had an intimate knowledge of this piece of legislation and the evidence that has been presented to the House about this piece of legislation.

So do I feel I need to get myself more evidence to make an informed decision? No. No I don’t, because this piece of legislation, actually, as Suzanne Snively said, is so historic. She put this up with women getting the vote in New Zealand; 125 years of women’s suffrage in New Zealand this year, and what a wonderful way for us as a society to put on the table, actually, the status of women in this country. And the reality is too many women are victims of family violence, and if we really want to change it, then we do need a society systems approach to ensuring that people can disclose—as I said before—to get the help that they need, and also, for the children of those families to get the support that they need too.

Unfortunately, I think the missing element in all of this is our kids who have to grow up living in households where they witness this violence, they internalise it, they go to schools. We’ve got big issues with bullying. Anyone who’s been visiting their schools in recesses or on Mondays and Fridays when we’re not here—and if you haven’t been told that we’ve got behavioural issues, issues of bullying in our schools, then actually you aren’t constructively engaging with some of the issues that our principals and our teachers are having to deal with. And that doesn’t come from nowhere. That comes from a culture and a society where we have internalised violence and made it an acceptable and normal part of how we deal with each other as human beings.

And so I do implore the Opposition to please look further at the evidence, because I think it would be a wonderful thing. If your only two SOPs for this House are Mark Mitchell wanting to get rid of the 10 days and allow people to use holiday leave and special leave for domestic violence, and if the other part is you want the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to engage in an education process—and I quite clearly heard the Minister say that an implementation plan is already under way, and that that will be an absolute part of what the Government will do in terms of disseminating this legislation, and what businesses are required to do, and MBIE will work with those businesses—then there actually doesn’t seem to me to be a reason why the National Party will not support this bill. So let’s have and continue to have a constructive discussion and dialogue; that’s what committee stage debates are all about.

But I just, finally, would like to commend Jan Logie and her work in working with New Zealand First and working with the Greens and working with the Labour Party to present an SOP that actually fulfils all our requirements, and also we’ve had other SOPs tabled from Clayton Mitchell. And I guess that offer is still there. Obviously, one of those SOPs is off the table—well, both are actually—but if the National Party want to come up with another one and consult with the member in charge of the bill tonight, maybe, there’s still time, I don’t know. But I really do implore them to change their position, because it would be wonderful to see all of Parliament supporting this piece of—

💬 Hon Member: Do the right thing.

Yeah, do the right thing, and try and actually end the rates of family violence that we see in New Zealand today. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. It’s a great pleasure and an honour to take a call at this stage of this very important piece of legislation, the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. Like my colleague who has just spoken, Louisa Wall, I’d also like to acknowledge and pay tribute to the author and champion of this bill, and indeed of this cause, Jan Logie, who is an outstanding under-secretary for Justice. And, actually, the energy that she has brought to the cause of getting domestic violence in the forefront of policymaking for this Government has been absolutely outstanding. It’s been a privilege for me to play a supporting role in making sure that we advance that cause. And there’s a very good reason, and I think most in this Chamber know that. One of the biggest scourges that we have in this beautiful, peaceful country of ours is the appalling record of domestic violence in this country. So many families are afflicted by it, so many children are affected by it, and it is an issue that, simply, we have to take seriously in this country if we are going to make a real difference and give the next generation, and every generation that follows, a decent chance of living a decent life.

I know, in my role as Minister of Justice, that the price we pay for not doing better and not doing more on domestic violence is represented in our prison system and in other parts of our criminal justice system. It is not true to say that every child exposed to domestic violence becomes an offender themselves, but we do know that a huge percentage—the vast majority—of those who offend and who wind up in either our youth justice facilities or our prisons are themselves victims of family violence. That is the price we pay. And so it makes absolute sense to me that we have a piece of legislation that allows victims of domestic violence the opportunity, during work time, to deal with that issue, to sort out their affairs, to see the people they need to see, because that is the way we will start to make some progress in dealing seriously with this issue.

I hear members opposite saying, and you see it reflected in their Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), “Well, why would you give 10 days’ leave? Everybody will be taking it.” That’s the low trust model. And, unfortunately, historically, that’s actually the way the National Party regards working people. They regard working people as people not to be trusted. That’s why they hate legislation like this, which affords rights to people for important things, and then sort of have to add so many barriers and hurdles. It is enough at the moment that the level of prescription in this legislation is as it is, because the truth about employment-related legislation is that the overarching culture in this country is one of not trusting workers. Be that as it may, but when it comes to an issue like this, and provisions for those who are the victims of or who are deeply affected by domestic violence, by violence in the home, when they have their opportunity to extricate themselves from it, to seek help about it, to find safe refuge, to talk to specialists and get the support that they need, then why should they not have that opportunity available to them?

Good, responsible employers know that and understand it and afford that opportunity to people in that situation. There are plenty of employers who, even without this, would say to their valued staff member, “Of course this is an important time for you in your life, and I want to support you as part of my way of valuing you.” This is not a right that is going to be exercised by every employee. The underlying premise to one of Mark Mitchell’s SOPs—No. 41—is that, somehow, there’s going to be a flood of applications for leave for domestic violence; it’s not the case. But it is right that we have on our statute book a provision that pays respect to this as an issue and gives those affected by it the opportunity to do something serious about it. This is one thing. It is one thing that can make a difference, and we should allow it to happen. It is one thing we can do that can seriously help to make a difference for the victims of domestic violence, and really—especially—for children who are exposed to domestic violence. If a victim—more likely a woman but including some men—gets the opportunity to take time out from work without loss of pay, without putting themselves under even greater financial pressure, to get an issue sorted out that goes to the heart of who they are and can enable them to find peace and security and safety again, then actually good responsible legislation like this should allow that to happen.

This House, discharging its responsibilities to every citizen of New Zealand, and indeed to every business in New Zealand, will know that the responsible course of action is to ensure that these rights are provided for, appear on our statute book, and the people affected can exercise the rights accorded to them under this bill. So the mere fact that we have to provide for the opportunity to request provisions like these in employment agreements is—well, I guess we have to have it on our statute book because there will be some employers, and I would hope a small number, who will say, “If it’s not black and white, if it’s not in the law, on the statute book, then I’m not going to do it.” I actually happen to think there are many more employers who will say, “I value my workforce, and for those who face tragedy in their lives, I want to be a supportive employer and I know that we a run a business and run an organisation that can accommodate and provide for and be a supportive place for people in that situation.” So we should allow that to happen.

As it is, the bill requires, for those who take leave or apply for that leave—there are prescriptive processes to go through. That gives, I guess, some certainty to employers, at least, and indeed to workers who are availing themselves of this. But I trust the majority of New Zealanders, in a situation like this, when they have the opportunity to provide support to somebody in this situation, that they will do so willingly, without being grudging about it, and knowing that it is the right thing to do. This bill achieves that, and it is right that this House, at this time, should be making provision for it.

The bill is necessarily prescriptive about setting up clauses in agreements, and it goes through the various hoops there. It allows for mediation and intervention by the Mediation Service and labour inspectors to enable disputes to be resolved. I would hope that that simply is not necessary, simply because the small proportion of the workforce who will be drawing on these provisions to enable them to get to a safer place and a better place are already facing a level of indignity. They have already been afforded a level of disrespect, and I would hope that a culture would develop where, actually, they are not going to be revictimised through the processes that they need to go through to get to a point where they can get the support they need and make themselves safe again and spare any children in the relationship or any children exposed to domestic violence from continuing to be exposed.

This legislation sends a signal that this country will at last take it seriously, and this country, through this Government joining with employers and the employer community, are prepared, at this point in our history, to say, “We are going to take this issue seriously. We are prepared to recognise the problem, and we’re prepared to recognise that a solution is that people affected by these insidious incidents can get the help they need. There will be no impediment and they don’t have to bury themselves in shame in order to get that help, but it is acknowledged and is something that we can usefully do something about.” That’s what this bill does.

I’m not quite sure what the purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper calling for an education campaign is all about. Typically, these things will be duly notified. With all due respect to the author of it, from the party opposite, it just looks like more patronising from those members, who clearly don’t seem to understand the purpose of this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. It’s with great pleasure that I support this Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. There’s a few strange things that have been said that I just want to point out. There seems to be a suggestion that a person who suffers from domestic violence is sick because they need sick leave. That’s simply wrong. The idea that sick leave should be used for a person who suffers from domestic violence is quite pernicious. It’s an entirely different issue that’s being faced. As for the suggestion that they should go on holiday, that simply beggars belief—beggars belief.

What this bill is about is giving a person who suffers from domestic violence some time, a breathing space. If I may say, one of the things I’ve learnt about domestic violence is it’s not about dictating to the victim how to sort out the issues that face them but giving them the opportunity to work through that themselves. That may include leaving the home. It may include going to court, but it might not. It might include sitting down and working through some really difficult issues with a person they love. It’s not for us to judge that. You know, the suggestion that there’s going to be a wholesale uptake of this is also offensive, because it’s a huge barrier facing up and owning up in the face of a sense of shame for many people that this has happened to them—they’re the victim, but nevertheless the sense that it’s in some way their fault and they should feel bad about the fact that they’re a victim.

There’s not going to be a flood of people going to their employer looking for a few extra days off. I admire any person who has the courage to say to their employer, “I am a victim of domestic violence.” Look, yes, there will be costs on employers that they will have to bear. They will have to get cover for people who can’t come to work because they’re desperately trying to hold on to their life, their job, and their family all at once. But let’s remember this also, that there will be benefits—benefits not only for that family and that person, benefits for the community and society, but benefits for that employer as well. Let’s start having a culture where we are a community that hangs together, that recognises that if we look after each other we will all flourish. So I absolutely commend this bill.

Look, one other thing I feel I must point out: the suggestion that this fits within the ACC framework is also entirely misplaced. There may be injury, and certainly it is an accident, from the victim’s point of view, that that injury has occurred, but there may be many and manifest examples where it simply doesn’t fit within that. Domestic violence does not have to be a punch in the face; it can take all kinds of forms which don’t manifest themselves in injury at all. So to put it within the accident compensation framework is placing it entirely in the wrong place. It would mischaracterise what’s going on, and it would entirely undermine what we need to be doing, which is addressing domestic violence and abuse in all its forms and not pretending it’s this archetype. That, again, would undermine the very good work that’s being undertaken here.

So, look, Ms Logie, I absolutely commend you for the hard work you’ve done here. It’s disappointing to see that we don’t have broad-based, cross-party support, and I am a little bit surprised about that. But this is a bill which absolutely must pass, because this is an evil, a scourge, an absolute disease in our society, which we need to attack from every—every—angle. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s with pleasure that I take a second call tonight. I just wanted to raise a couple of matters that haven’t been raised so far this evening. I am going to talk a little bit about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 42, in regards to the educational campaign that Mark Mitchell has submitted. Essentially, what he is saying in this is that there needs to be a systematic educational process around leave applications and how to manage that. He’s also saying that there needs to be some education about flexible working environment requirements. One of the things I have to say in response to that is that I actually believe that our employers know what they’re doing. I am an employer; I work my way through legislative requirements. There are some amazing tools online if people get stuck. Those tools even include just looking at writing up contracts, and they’re automatically there. So there’s the Department of Internal Affairs, there’s Government departments, etc. There is access and help and support in order to be able to navigate through this process.

The second part is around the educational awareness, and I really just wanted to draw this committee and the wider community to a really brilliant resource for employers, which is actually out there right now and very valuable. It has been in place for quite a number of years. For those employers who are seeking and need to know what to do right now, I recommend that they go to “It’s Not OK”, www.areyouok.org.nz, to the business resource, and have a look at the provisions and the support available and the way to help your employee in that situation. It’s really important, and often in my role at the Ministry of Justice, and also in my role at Women’s Refuge, we had employers just wanting to know what to do. We often directed them to this and also talked them through the process. Compassion is the key, really, when you’re an employer and you have an employee suffering.

One of the things that is really clearly articulated in that tool is the following findings: when an employee is managed appropriately, there is less absenteeism, there is lower staff turnover, there is greater productivity, there are fewer safety risks, there is better morale, it meets the health and safety requirements that everyone must follow—and, in fact, has been pulled back from this bill—they have a reputation as a good employer, and the community recognises that. And the community recognises that. So that’s the first issue.

The second issue is just in relation to when this leave arises, and there’s a concern that there’s a cost. Well, there are a couple of parts in the member Jan Logie’s SOP 39 that limit that liability, if you want to call it that. So, new section 72F says that domestic violence leave is not to be paid out. So this is not an accruing entitlement; when you leave, you don’t have to be paid out this leave. It’s very much exactly like sick leave. That’s important so that people know that this isn’t going to accumulate. So that’s the first thing. The second thing is that there is no carry-forward provision. As an employer, we’d sometimes put in place that a person could hold up to 20 days of sick leave and they can use that at any time. There is no provision in this SOP for that to happen. So, in lots of ways, we are limiting the cost to an employer, and that is an important fact, even though I firmly believe that most employers out there would very happily support the ending of domestic violence for their staff. I’m very happy to say thank you, Jan Logie, for your wonderful work on this.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 in the name of Clayton Mitchell to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of Jan Logie be agreed to.