Family Violence Bill, Family Violence (Amendments) Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is indeed a privilege to rise and speak in support of the family and whānau violence legislation at its third reading. This is legislation that significantly amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and it is actually a piece of legislation that is incredibly needed. In 2016, there were about 118,000 incidents involving family violence that police responded to, and yet we know that about 76 percent of family violence incidents are not reported to police.

Our statistics in New Zealand are horrific. Between 2009 and 2015, 194 New Zealanders were killed as a result of family violence. Our family violence homicide rate per capita is two times that of Australia, Canada, or the UK—the countries that we commonly compare ourselves to. Children are present at two-thirds of all family violence incidents that are attended to by police. Children who experience—and we know this from the research that’s been done—family violence are two times as likely to be victims of sexual violence, four times more likely to commit sexual violence against a partner, and three times more likely to attempt suicide, and 57 percent leave school without a qualification.

Now, what this legislation does is provide a framework to support the cross-Government response to family violence that is so needed—that is something that this sector has been crying out for. There are quite a few bits of this piece of legislation that I would like to draw the attention of this House to, but I want to focus on two, because I think the thing that most excites me about this piece of legislation is the fact that it recognises that one size doesn’t fit all—that domestic violence manifests differently in different communities.

There are two points specifically that I want to make and to draw our attention to. This piece of legislation makes forced marriage an offence, and it also amends the definition of family violence to explicitly include dowry-related violence. Now, dowry is actually a practice that has changed over time. It started out as a sum of money, typically, or assets, that were passed to a bride. It was meant to keep her safe. It was meant to keep her financially independent, but that changed over time to become a sort of “bride price”, and it is a practice that happens here in New Zealand as well, but one that many haven’t heard of.

This is a sensitive topic to many of our ethnic communities, and for good reason too, in a sense, because for many years, historically, our communities haven’t talked about family violence because there is a huge amount of fear that the entire community would be tarred with the same brush. But of course we know that not all families practise this, and yet there are some that do, and there must be remedies for those who are victims of this form of family violence. It’s no longer a cultural practice. It was outlawed in countries like India back in the 1960s. So it is a form of family violence, and we need to speak about it in a way that is sensitive, because if we don’t—and if we get the backlash that I often do when I talk about these issues on social media, which is to say “Let’s keep migrants out.”—then that is unfair, it’s an inaccurate portrayal of what happens within these communities, and it’s dangerous to the women who are seeking to end those forms of violence as well.

Violence exists everywhere. Many of the tools of power and control are the same, but some differ, and we must have this conversation in a way that recognises the issues that are specific to some communities so that we can address them and keep people safe without marginalising communities that often already feel like second-class citizens.

I want to thank everyone—the former Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams; the current Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little; and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Jan Logie; submitters; officials; those who have advocated over decades; and the Justice and Electoral Committee that addressed this legislation—for the work they’ve done.

As we stand here today and celebrate the festival of Diwali, which celebrates the triumph of light over darkness, knowledge over ignorance, strength over weakness, and good over evil, I am proud to support this legislation, which will go a long way to dispel the darkness that is family violence. I commend this legislation to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just following on from that last speaker, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, there will be support across the House for this bill. It is something that all New Zealanders and all politicians take very seriously. For those that have constituents that have suffered from family violence, it is something that when, as politicians, we have the ability to assist those families in those communities, and especially the children involved, it will be something that makes a big difference to our communities and something that all members of this Parliament, I’m sure, will be in support of.

This is a bill that has its genesis in the previous Government. A lot of work had been done at that time and has been followed on in the current Government. There have been some changes to this bill made by the current Government. Some of those changes National supports and some of them we don’t necessarily think are an addition to the bill, but they are part of what the Government has put forward for this legislation and will be debated in their entirety as part of this bill.

Some of those changes that we have seen coming through relate to the duration of public safety orders from five days to 10 days. The current maximum length was five days and now is going to go to 10 days under the bill. That’s something that National will be able to support and live with. It’s not something that was in the original concept of the bill, but it is a change that has been made and, in the end, is something that will be supported through this House.

There was another change in the patterns of behaviour to clarify what may be seen as cumulative in those behaviours, and that is something that will, of course, be supported as we look at those cumulative actions rather than just one-off actions that an individual may engage in.

There are other principles relating to patterns of behaviour, clarifying that family violence often includes coercive or controlling behaviour. Again, that’s another change that, in essence, is something that all members of this House will agree with as something that will assist in how we apply this bill.

We had another change in regard to dowry-related violence in the definition of family violence. The last speaker spoke passionately about that from her connection with the Indian community. And we take on board the comments made. That is something that I think members of this House will want to see: that that cultural awareness is there in the legislation to make sure there is that protection in all our communities throughout New Zealand.

There’s another change in regard to carers and the recipients of care. That’s something that hadn’t actually been promoted in the original bill, and it’s something that has been added to it. It does take the bill to another level, in the sense that it includes a wider group of people in that relationship issue. We understand the reasons the Government may have sought to do that; however, it is one of those areas of a point of difference between the parties as to whether that extension is required.

Another one where there is a point of difference is requiring family violence assessors and provider to take into account a victim’s views—that’s safe and appropriate; we do support that—but the amendment of the title of the bill is something where there is a bit of a point of difference between the parties.

So this is to repeal and replace the Domestic Violence Act with a more modern, accessible Act, which is definitely needed. But it also amends the jurisdiction in which police safety order breaches are heard: from the civil court the criminal court. And that’s another issue where we did have a point of difference, the civil court being the appropriate court to hear this, and that was what submissions and the intention of the bill originally was. But the current Government has moved that to the criminal court as the mechanism.

There’s another change or two in regard to the Minister of Justice being able to issue codes of practice—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe the member’s time has expired. We got off to a false start because at the very start of this, when you reintroduced the bill, you should have announced that Raymond Huo had eight and a half minutes—

The member will resume his seat. It’s not been the practice in the last year where members who are absent are called. Chairs or I, certainly, have always looked to see if the member’s absent. I haven’t drawn attention to the absence of a member. When the bill was being called, the next person just takes a call. If the member really wants to have another five minutes, I’m prepared to seek the leave of the House for that to happen. But I will remind members to stay alert to the fact that they should take the call. I seek the leave for David Bennett to have another five minutes. Is there any objection?

💬 Michael Wood: Yes.

There is none. David Bennett.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Mr Speaker, there was objection from Michael Wood.

No, no, there wasn’t. I think it was just—[Interruption] Order! Order! Did a member object?

💬 Michael Wood: Yes, I did object, Mr Speaker.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you may well be correct in your understanding of the practice of this House but I can tell you that the other presiding officers have continued the practice of announcing that there is some time to go and then checking whether the member wanted to continue the call.

I would also further add that a change of that nature is usually set out in some kind of announcement or amendment to Speakers’ rulings. I’m not sure that the House has actually seen that.

Well, I certainly haven’t announced that. I just work on the basis that a member who isn’t here can’t take the call. It’s relatively simple. Unless it’s a Minister who is in charge of a bill, and that is a different situation because the Minister’s time, of course, can be picked up by another Minister. Now, and I know it’s an unusual practice and it’s irregular, I’m going to look at Michael Wood and I’m going to put the question again and seek leave for David Bennett to have a further five minutes. Is there any objection?

💬 Hon Member: Go, Michael.

Where did that come from? I call David Bennett.

I find myself in a very unusual position in this House of thanking the Speaker. Maybe it’s because of the bipartisan nature of this bill that parties come together, and even the greatest enemies can come together and share a moment of hilarity. But it won’t last—I’m sure of that. But thank you, Mr Speaker—back to normal tomorrow at question time.

💬 SPEAKER: No, just speak to the bill now.

💬 Michael Wood: This is torture—I wish I had objected!

Yes. But I was nearly finished, Mr Wood. I was on the last point, so I won’t take too much longer. Your objection wasn’t really needed; it would’ve been a short resumption of the call anyway. I had been aware it was a 10-minute call, so that’s why my guidance as to the timing wasn’t so important.

When we come to the Minister of Justice—this is the last change—having the ability to issue codes of practice relating to service delivery, that’s something that on this side of the House we didn’t think was, ultimately, necessary as part of the review of this bill.

But, in essence, I think there will be a lot of people in this House and in the communities that we serve that want to see change in this area. It is something that creates so much harm in our community. It can lead to so many lives being lost, in the sense of opportunity and chances for people to succeed and actually become the best they can, through family violence. So I think anything we can do that is jointly supported through this House is a good move and a good sign to New Zealanders that we take this issue very seriously and wish to have the best solutions for our communities that we can.

So, once again, thank you, Mr Speaker. We will resume our normal code of practice tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the family violence legislation. In order to look at the issue of family violence—but before I say that, maybe I should comment on the fact that it’s really heartening to see agreement across the House on these bills, because these are incredibly important pieces of legislation for New Zealand’s future. This Government has been loud and clear in its commitment to making New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child—and how important it is in a child’s life to grow up free from violence.

Probably the most damaging thing that we can see in our homes is that not only are children exposed to violence and abuse in our homes but they’re also witnessing it. And as a former employee for the New Zealand Police, the number of accounts of times when children hadn’t been direct victims of family violence but they had witnessed family violence on an ongoing basis—and these are the sorts of things that create a next generation where there are issues that are really difficult to get to the bottom of and to address and to enable everyone in New Zealand to do the best they possibly can. So to have legislation that really goes to the heart of who we are as New Zealanders to try and give our kids the best possible start in life—it’s great to see strong support from both sides of this House.

One of the important things that this bill does is it really focuses on early intervention, and that’s what is probably the best way of getting to the heart of giving kids the best start. It’s early intervention that enables police, other services, NGOs to get in right at that early stage to prevent ongoing instances happening. And so what we had in the past was a PSO, the police safety order, which enabled a member of the police to come at a point in time that was heated, to ask the person who was, typically, the one accused of offending to vacate premises for 24 hours, 48 hours, for a period to cool off. Typically, that is a male in the household, and what has been happening in the past, from front-line experience that I’ve heard, is that typically that person goes down to the pub and they drink further and they cause further issues that the police then pick them up again for. So the underlying causes of that family violence aren’t being addressed by simply telling someone to leave their home—in fact, it can even make them more angry or not address underlying addiction, anger, or other mental health issues that might be contributing to that family violence.

So what this bill does is it actually goes further and it requires police to order the offender to undergo a risk and needs assessment right at that first instance to see what else can be wrapped around that person to give them the most support possible for that family to start healing and to be working together in a better way than they have. And it also enables the victim at that point in time to go through a risk and needs assessment. So I think that’s a huge improvement from the current situation. It enables NGOs and other services to be able to provide that sort of assessment that can look at why the offending is happening in the first place, to try and stop that from being a repeat issue, and to stop children from repeatedly being exposed to family violence instances within their own homes.

The other key area that I’d like to speak about is the definition of family violence. Now, this has been one that has perplexed people for a long time, in terms of officials and different agencies: how we actually look at what family violence means and defining it. It includes coercive and controlling behaviour—so not straight out violence but looking at the behaviour of offenders to see what classifies as that. It’s really important to recognise that people can be controlled through the restriction of finance, of food, of love, of conversation, and controlled through hurtful words. Those are all very much controlling and harmful behaviours that are working at the same time as violent acts, and it is important that these pieces of legislation acknowledge that there is more to family violence than just straight out violent action.

It’s important to show that we are recording the statistics of family violence in a really clear way. So having those definitions enables the Government to better record what’s happening in New Zealand homes. And some recent research that’s been publicised by the Women’s Refuge has shown the extent of how depression and high rates of self-harm and even suicide are very much prevalent in those people who are victims of ongoing family violence. So in order to make sure that we are on top of it, as the Government understands what’s happening in people’s homes, it’s really important we record those statistics accurately to know where things are happening.

Just as an interesting point, it was only when on the first family violence form that was filled out by police when this was happening, like eight or nine years ago now—for the first time people were asked about strangulation and it was very surprising how much that was happening. Previously, we did not know how much strangulation as a violent act was happening within family violence occurrences. And so there is a new offence created that takes that even further, a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, and the evidence shows that it is a common tool of abusive and coercive behaviour. So adding that to the offences within this legislation assists police and other agencies to accurately respond to instances and to hold offenders accountable. But it is more important to say that it’s great to see that we’re having a coordinated response—that NGOs, that police, and that all agencies are working collaboratively together to make sure we do the best possible job to reduce all instances of family violence in New Zealand, and I’m proud to see that this bill goes again. So I commend this bill to the House.

Before I call the member, our adjustments earlier have, I think, probably resulted in two National Party members thinking that they’ve still got the call. And I want to indicate that I will call both of them before—[Interruption] No, we’re not taking that approach. I will call both of them—full calls—in a row before we revert back to the last speaker.

E Te Māngai, good evening, sir, and to members of the House. I’d considered that this was going to be a brief call, but if I am permitted some extra time, I’d certainly be indulged. So having dedicated a good part, or a significant part, of my professional working life as a lawyer to helping others in this space—children, youth, women, men, families, communities, victims, the afflicted, and perpetrators of violence—it is somewhat poignant that I do have the ability to be able to address the House this evening.

So, Mr Speaker and members, what started out at the first and second readings as the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Amendment Bill has since been changed through the committee of the whole House, as everybody is well aware, and been divided into two pieces of proposed legislation, or bills. So we have the Family Violence Bill, which is an overhaul of the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and then we also have a Family Violence (Amendments) Bill. That’s an omnibus bill of amendments to the Bail Act, the Care of Children Act, the Crimes Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Evidence Act, and the Sentencing Act—all pieces of legislation that I’ve represented clients under. National supports these bills, as is well known, this evening.

So this third reading is a debate and a speech summarising the bill. However, with the indulgence of the Speaker this evening, and prior to commending the passage of the bill into law, I reflect back to a passage in time 23 years ago, one year before the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act. It was a time when the New Zealand public—our consciousness was confronted and challenged by an epic New Zealand movie, exposing a brutal and raw face of violence in New Zealand society. A number of us may remember Once Were Warriors. It exposed to a sanitised New Zealand mainstream the raw and repugnant, vicious brutality of violence in Aotearoa New Zealand, in our landscape and in our “familyscape”, and this is the scape that I’ve committed and dedicated my professional working life to. So this movie, many people deemed to be a fiction. However, it was so real and so raw for many families in Aotearoa, and perhaps for some of us as members of Parliament who have experienced that, if not directly, indirectly through our family lives.

I now turn to the bills. So, as was stated, the Family Violence Bill is an overhaul of the Domestic Violence Act. Twenty-three years, that has been in the making. So the key messages that come about are that the reforms contained in the bill strengthen family violence laws for a better understanding and response, and that response is about earlier and more effective intervention, better services to reduce and prevent future violence, and keeping victims safe. Undoubtedly, family violence has a devastating impact on our society.

So, in summary, the changes in the bill are about making it easier for victims to apply for protection orders. Over the decades, I represented many women and, at times, men—but seldom—applying for protection orders, and sometimes children, as counsel for the child. The bill is also about clarifying that the protected person can consent to contact with the respondent or the perpetrator of the violence, whilst supporting the victims and their children to have ongoing relationships with the perpetrator if they choose. This is something that, again, having advocated and represented children, as well as women—when those orders were made, it would often be a blanket prohibition for children, preventing any form of supervised contact with the perpetrator, and that in itself often victimised a number of child clients or children.

Another element of the bill is about improving the effectiveness of parenting orders to better recognise the risk of violence and protect the victims. Also, I’ve noted within the bill itself that it states there is a purpose and there are also principles. When I glanced at this, the format, the formula, was very similar to what had been outlined in the Care of Children and previously the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act at a time when I was representing and advocating for clients. So there’s a particular provision under clause 4 of those principles, and paragraph (l) is about increasing the provision of tikanga-based and culturally appropriate services for victims and whānau experiencing family violence. This was not an element or a principle previously within the domestic violence legislation. So clause 4, paragraph (l) talks about: “responses to family violence should be culturally appropriate and, in particular, responses involving Māori should reflect tikanga Māori (Māori customary values and practices)”.

Importantly, also, in the principles under the bill, there is recognition that decision makers should collaborate, and something that I experienced, again in the time when I advocated and practised, was the difficulty in accessing information from respective Government departments that would be of benefit as evidence placed before the court, in terms of a child’s interests and welfare. So, “decision makers should collaborate, whenever appropriate, to identify, stop, prevent, and otherwise respond to family violence”. Importantly, clause 4, paragraph (o): “access to the court should be as speedy, inexpensive, and simple as is consistent with justice”—such significant principles to change the shape and the face of what previously were our domestic violence laws.

So may I, just in closing, share with members of this House and our public the simple message that I put out to us all—a simple yet powerful message:

Kaua e patua. [Stop the hitting.]

Kaua e mamae.[Stop the hurting.]

With that simple yet poignant message, may I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you for the opportunity also to speak to the Family Violence Bill and the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill. Sir, you’ll be aware, and the House will be aware, that we are, at this particular stage now, as a result of Supplementary Order Papers at the committee stage of this bill, dividing the original legislation into two bills. The fact that that has been necessary is, I think, not just an interesting aspect of parliamentary procedure, but in relation to all the different amendments that are needed to other Acts, that indicates, actually, something significant in itself, which is the breadth of reform that is needed across our legislative framework and, indeed, the challenge to our social framework in all the different ways that we need to consider how the scourge of family violence affects our law and our nation.

I’ll take a minute as well to acknowledge the Minister presiding over this bill, Andrew Little, his colleagues, and also his predecessor in the role of bringing this legislation to the House, the Hon Amy Adams. I also acknowledge and thank those who have contributed to the broader process of discussing what is needed to conclude this item of work—those who have shared knowledge generously. I’m sure that many who have considerable knowledge of family violence wish that that were not so, but nevertheless they are prepared to speak of their experiences and share those with us in the hope that together we can do something to at least allow a framework such that there will be less violence in our society going forward.

I acknowledge speakers in this House who, from lives previous to entering Parliament, have particular knowledge. My colleague Harete Hipango, for example, has spoken of her expertise, and earlier we heard from Priyanca Radhakrishnan with her particular experience and knowledge in the area of dowry violence, among others—those encapsulating the bill, but they have been well covered already by those other speakers, so I don’t propose to do so again in my time.

So, having referred to the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill that, in turn, amends various other Acts, I’ll just touch briefly on some of those, in particular the Bail Act, the Crimes Act, and the Evidence Act. It is partly within the realm of criminal law that family violence legislation does sit, so it’s appropriate that those are amended to take account of this new framework; however, it’s not only in the criminal sphere, of course, but also the civil sphere and the family sphere as well. The dates of some of those provisions coming into force are different according to different Acts, for reasons that have been well canvassed at previous stages of the legislation.

As for the substantive work in the Family Violence Bill, amending and overhauling the Domestic Violence Act, I’d like to focus on a few aspects that seem to me particularly important as we’re at this third and final reading, and hence the concluding stage before this becomes law.

One is to note, just in general terms, that the aim is very much to break the pattern of family violence and reduce the harm and cost inflicted on those who suffer as a result. And one word that seems to me very significant in that is the word “pattern”, and it’s quite deliberate and meaningful that within the legislation the notion of patterns of violence and not mere individual acts that are significant in themselves is really a key item of understanding whereby the legislators, including ourselves and also those who’ve contributed more broadly to the process, are trying to understand the way to break the cycle. The number of ways that that happened, I will come to if time allows.

But, first, let me just mention, at least in passing, the bipartisan nature of the process that we’ve embarked upon. I don’t believe there’s a member in this House who wouldn’t support the general aim of reducing family violence, but it’s pleasing too that we appear agreed on the way in which this can occur here today.

The reason I think that it’s important is partly symbolic. We’ve got a non-adversarial process for a piece of legislation that’s designed to reduce violence, and that, perhaps, is significant in itself. I think of the phrase that we might be said to be “giving peace a chance”. And just as the word “peace” can be defined either narrowly, in the sense of being the absence of war, we can also take a more holistic view and talk about serenity in general. And so it is too that the abuse that’s defined within this legislation and prohibited and precluded by this legislation is not just abuse in, perhaps, the traditional understanding of physical violence, but also psychological violence and other forms of violence as well.

Particular emphases of the bills that I’d also like to touch on include the emphasis on early interventions—the early stage of the intervention, of course, being very much directed at reducing harm. And that’s important not only in so far as the actual harm itself, whether physical or psychological is concerned, but also recognising the fact that the longer harm is allowed to continue within that environment, the higher the stakes become in the sense that justice, in the traditional way that we say must be seen to be done, really elevates the seriousness, in a way, of offending that is being carried out. So, if you’ll excuse me—resorting to cliché—prevention is better than cure, and so too a cure of a relatively minor harm must surely be better than reducing further harm if it is allowed to flourish?

Part of that, in terms of what the bills actually state, revolves around police safety orders. These are, obviously, an important mechanism that already exist within our system—the idea that we can take a person out of a violent environment, typically, or inevitably the person causing such violence, whether male or female, and that’s an aspect, again, that my colleague Harete Hipango has touched on. Discussion was had at an early stage about the length of that. On this side of the House, we did express some hesitancy about the fact that the maximum time frame for which a police safety order would apply was being increased from five days to 10 days. That point was acknowledged by the Minister in the chair at the committee stage. He did acknowledge, as I say, the fact that that is a considerable curtailing of a person’s liberty and it’s not a step that is being taken lightly as this bill progresses with that particular change being made.

However, he did point out—and I think in a way that was ultimately acceptable to this side of the House—that, in balancing the particular harm of family violence with, on the other hand, the curtailing of a person’s freedom in a way that hasn’t been through a full judicial process, was a reasonable balancing act in the way of preventing and reducing the harm that I’ve already mentioned.

Part of the other rationale for the police safety orders, it seems to me, is reducing the fear of violence. And the fear of violence, in the way that psychological abuse is abuse no less than physical abuse is, could be said to be a form of violence in itself. And if it’s true that fear is itself to be feared, if you’ll excuse the nod to Roosevelt, then so too we should fear a situation in which our people in New Zealand are afraid of their loved ones—and I use that term deliberately, understanding that oftentimes, in fact, inevitably, in a family violence situation, the persons concerned are loved ones to each other, or at least should be. And it’s the exceptional nature of family violence and the desire to bring back the norm such that family members would be loved ones to each other and not abusers and abused that we must work so hard to ensure that these provisions will be successful.

Please allow me to finish by noting in particular the comment that I made before, regarding patterns of behaviour and, more particularly, the fact that these bills contain definitions that recognise patterns of behaviour that might appear trivial in isolation but the cumulative effect of which is clearly abuse. And so too acknowledging that coercive or controlling behaviour can be abusive in the way that it subjugates and subjects the person who is being abused and is restricting them from being free in the way that we would expect and hope our children and adults of this country should demand and we should demand on their behalf.

So, with that, I think I’ve covered enough detail to illustrate the more general points that I’d like to make and that others have made. I commend them for doing so. I commend those who have contributed at earlier stages of the process. I’m very pleased to join others in this House in supporting and, indeed, commending its passage, and I look forward to the day that we will have to spend less time discussing this but, in the meantime, it’s been a very useful exercise and I congratulate all involved.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity in concluding the speeches on these particular bills—excellent bills. I want to congratulate the work of Jan Logie and, of course, the Hon Andrew Little for ushering these bills through the House. It is a momentous occasion for this country, when we can actually take these matters very seriously. So I do want to commend these bills to the House.

Bills read a third time.