Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

On the last member’s bill day of the 53rd Parliament, it is my honour and utter privilege to rise for the first reading of this bill in my name, the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. This bill has its origins in the work that I have done in the family violence space for many years. I’ve volunteered, I’ve worked in paid employment both as a domestic violence Act adviser and managed Tauranga Women’s Refuge, and I also grew up in a home where family violence was present.

The violence I experienced growing up has shaped my life’s work to break the silence, the shame, the stigma, and the myths of family violence. May my voice in this House give courage to others that they are not alone. One in three women are affected by violence in their lifetime. One in four women are affected by sexual violence in their lifetime. Disabled people report significantly higher rates of intimate partner violence than those without disabilities. Our rainbow community are more than twice as likely to experience intimate partner violence. We have the worst statistics for family violence in the OECD. Our police force spends 50 percent of their time on family violence; in 2022, there were over 175,000 investigations. Our families are harmed. Murder of women and children and men happens with shocking regularity, and we live steeped in a society where the gendered nature of men’s violence against women and children is in every walk of life, social strata, ethnicity, and age group.

However, we also have world-leading legislation that supports a wider definition of “violence” than in many countries. We have a community that calls for help from the police and intervenes. We have an exceptional strategy in Te Aorerekura, which seeks to eliminate family and sexual violence. We have a Minister focused on the work, and a joint venture Te Puna Aonui across the whole of Government to ensure work has progressed across the State sector to support the community to live free of violence. There has been record investment in the front-line expert services in the last six years to ensure that they are able to focus on the prevention and intervention of family violence.

So we now come to the origins of this bill and the reasons why I want it to progress. When I was first an MP, a woman came to see me. She told me of her horrific experiences being married to a very violent man. He hurt her physically, broke her bones, cut her, isolated her, drugged her, sexually assaulted her, hurt her pets, abused her children, held her captive, systematically stripped her of her rights and her sense of self. She finally fled and he was eventually held to account for his violence and was jailed. Throughout his stay in prison, she remained married to him and terrified of his release date. She knew that her tormentor would further abuse her when released, but she was afraid to file for divorce. Upon release, he did indeed stalk her, destroyed her credit rating, and took it upon himself to systematically degrade her online and in public. When she eventually built up the courage to file for divorce, while in hiding and terrified he would find her, he went to ground as a tactic of abuse and could not be found to have the divorce papers served, and it took her an incredibly long time to divorce him. It cost her financially and emotionally; and, remember, she remained terrified that he would find and kill her, as he promised to do.

She came to me years later, strong, fierce, and rebuilt, to ask why, since he had been so violent and abusive, did she have to wait two years to get free of him? Remaining married to him, including the time it took to get the divorce, caused her fear and anxiety and destroyed her credit rating by using their joint names and their marital status, and he kept her at his mercy. I do not forget that story and her experience.

Fast forward to 2021, and Ashley Jones and her petition to “Change our archaic divorce laws” so abuse victims can be free of their abuser. I mihi to you, Ashley, here in the gallery. You’ve risen above your experience to make a change for all victims and survivors of violence. Thank you, Ashley, for bringing your petition.

While Ashley was bringing this petition, I was coincidentally working quietly away on this legislation. I made contact with Ashley to let her know I was in the last draft stages of this bill. Ashley, your story of abuse and frustration was the final piece of motivation for me to lodge my bill into the ballot. Thank you for sharing your story with us, and for your strength.

To Chris Bishop, thank you for your work with Amber to support her to bring this petition, and indeed to all the members of this House who will support this bill at first reading. Family and sexual violence should be universally condemned by all here, and we should all work together towards ending the legacy of hurt.

Divorce, decree nisi, and dissolution orders in New Zealand have an interesting history. The Family Proceedings Act 1980 set up the Family Court, which became a closed and private court and resulted in no-fault dissolution—a far cry from the distasteful voyeurism previously experienced. We now have a very simple no-fault divorce system. This means that the couple wanting to end their relationship by a dissolution order—a divorce—have to meet a set of basic criteria. Once met, if both agree, or, despite one of the parties not agreeing, a dissolution order is possible. Divorce or dissolution for marriage and civil unions have two criteria in the Family Proceedings Act: that there are ir-re—I knew that I would do this—irreconcilable differences, and those differences are evidenced by a separation of two years. My bill seeks to amend the primary legislation by removing the mandatory period of two years from separation where there is clear evidence of family violence, thus taking away an opportunity to further abuse the victim/survivor.

There are a few clauses, but I’ll focus on the important ones. My bill amends the Family Proceedings Act in the following ways: clause 4 amends section 38, which is the powers of the registrar to make an order for dissolution of a marriage or civil union where the application is uncontested. Family violence becomes a ground for dissolution by an accompanying affidavit. Clause 6 inserts new section 39, which is the real essence of this bill and states, “(1) Despite section 39, an application for an order dissolving a marriage or civil union may be made on the ground that a party … has been the victim of family violence inflicted by the other party.” The grounds are established if they are “a protected person under a protection order or under a registered foreign protection order; and (b) the other party is the respondent”—i.e., the violent person.

Further, the bill describes the evidence needed for how that would be proved. The evidence needed is either the copy of the decision or a copy of the order—so quite simple. “(4) Where the ground … is established, the court shall … make an order dissolving the marriage or civil union.” To avoid doubt, which is a favourite clause of mine, there is no requirement for the parties to live apart for two years for that ground to be established.”

Madam Speaker, members of this House, this is a relatively small bill which covers those married or in a civil union who are victims of violence, who apply for a protection order in the Family Court, or one that is granted in the District Court, who seek to end their relationship with the other abusive partner. This bill supports those women to do so without having to wait in limbo for two years. I commend this bill to the House.

Members, the House is adjourned for the dinner break and will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

The House is resumed. Members, when we broke for the dinner break, the House was considering the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I call the next speaker, Chris Bishop.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Can I just start by acknowledging Angie Warren-Clark, the sponsor of this member’s bill. Isn’t it a lovely thing that, in the final two days of the Parliament, we can come together in a collegial, good-spirited way and pass through at first reading a member’s bill that is very worthy and has quite a storied history?

I want to acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark for the work that she’s done on this, which, I know, is something that she cares very deeply about. I’d also like to acknowledge Ashley Jones, who has had a bit of involvement with both Angie Warren-Clark and myself. A couple of years ago, Ashley approached me to accept a petition—she was a local Hutt Valley resident at the time—around, essentially, what has become the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I was very pleased to accept that petition on the steps of Parliament alongside my colleague Chris Penk, who’s our shadow Attorney-General and courts spokesperson, and also the Hon Simon Bridges, who was our justice spokesperson at the time. It’s feels like Simon left a long time ago, actually, and it has been quite a while since that petition was accepted.

We were very pleased to accept it, and we indicated then that the National Party would support measures to make it easier to get a divorce in the case of family violence. I set upon writing a member’s bill, and little did I know that my colleague across the House—Angie Warren-Clark—was also writing a member’s bill. I was all set to lodge it in the members’ ballot, and then a press release appeared from Angie Warren-Clark, saying, “Bill to make it easier for victims of family violence to get divorced.” And I thought, “Oh, I’ve been beaten to it! This is terrible!” It sat in the ballot for quite some time, and it’s been pulled out, and I’m very, very pleased that it can get a first reading, just at the tail end of this Parliament. Angie Warren-Clark and I have met with Ashley this afternoon and this evening, and we got a photo by the Kate Sheppard statue on the black and white tiles, which I think is appropriate, because I think this will go down as “Ashley’s law”. That’s highly appropriate, and I hope that it will be able to make its way through into law, in the third reading in the new Parliament.

I also want to acknowledge Rachel Williams from the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge, who has done an enormous amount of work on this issue and supporting Ashley as it goes through the process of the petition. It’s not easy for people to present petitions to Parliament. It’s easy to get something up online these days—you don’t have to go through the forms—but it’s not an easy process to present it and then speak and have it considered by the committee. Actually, I think we need to do a bit of work on making it a bit easier, actually, but that’s a side point. But I acknowledge Rachel and all the work she’s done.

The thing about this bill—and the issue—is that, when you explain to people the origins of it, they say, “But I thought that was the law already.” They’re genuinely astonished and stunned to discover that victims of family violence have to go through the quite convoluted proceedings to get a divorce, and they have to wait the two-year standdown period. People are genuinely astonished. I have talked to so many people in the community who say, “Oh, that can’t possibly be the law.” But it is. The Family Proceedings Act is now 43 years old—so 1980—and it’s probably in need of a rewrite, which someone will have to do at some point.

Anna Lorck: Hear, hear!

CHRIS BISHOP: That was a “Hear, hear!”, was it? Very good. See, look at this crossparty bonhomie breaking out across the Parliament. It will need a rewrite, but this brings the law into line with community expectation. That is really important: the law should always keep pace with the desires and expectations of the community, and that’s, ultimately, what the Parliament is all about. I think many people are shocked to discover that it’s not the law already.

Can I say that it is too hard for victims of family violence to get a divorce in New Zealand, and that is the fundamental aim of this bill. Angie Warren-Clark has outlined for the Parliament the background to the bill, and I mihi to her for her quite harrowing explanation of some victims and the experience that they have gone through. I don’t traverse that again but just acknowledge her and the words that she said, and acknowledge Ashley, whose story is on the public record. Family violence is a scourge in New Zealand, and as I think Angie Warren-Clark said in her contribution on the bill, it’s not really an issue that should be political, actually. It’s not really an issue that should be the subject of party political debate. The solutions are challenging and multifaceted, across multiple different parts of Government, and, actually, one of the good things this Government has done is to pick up a lot of the work that the last National Government did around family violence and continue the cross-Government coordination efforts across the social services, justice, police, and multiple Government agencies involved in that space. That has been a good thing, and Marama Davidson has led some of that work; Jan Logie before that, in the Parliament before now.

There’s no one simple solution to this issue. If there was, a politician would have sorted it out a long time ago. There is no one silver bullet to it. What it will take is sustained effort over many, many years, across multiple agencies. As Amy Adams, who did a lot of work in this space from the National side of the benches, used to say, it will also take a lot of cultural change as well, and that is harder to do. The Parliament and the law can lead culture, but it’s also the other way around, and we need our communities to step up as well. I don’t say that in a way that disparages all of the extraordinary community efforts that are going on in many communities around the country—many, many community-led efforts that frequently are more effective at addressing this problem than Government is. It is a scourge, and it is a blight on our society. This bill falls within the ambit of improving the situation for, let’s face it, women—almost overwhelmingly women—who are affected by family violence, and that is a good thing.

Finally, can I just say, in my final couple of minutes, that I do think we need to improve the way our court system operates, in terms of accessibility and usability; I say that, cognisant of the comity between Parliament and the courts. But, at the end of the day, it’s Parliament that funds the court system, and Parliament, I think—and the Government—is entitled to expect a certain level of service from the courts. Too often, in my experience as an MP for nearly nine years now, people find it too hard to engage in the court system. I don’t mean the filing fees and legal fees; they’re too expensive as well. I just mean the simple act of engaging with the registrar and visiting the court to file documents and forms—the endless forms that people are required to fill out, which are sometimes available electronically, but more often than not are not available electronically—and the times they are required to be filed. I think the system could be easier, and I think there could be more of a customer service ethos in the court system.

I know that my colleague Chris Penk has been doing some thinking about that. I don’t say that to disparage the staff at the courts in particular; they work hard. It’s just that the system needs an improvement and the IT needs an upgrade. The system has not kept pace with technology. The general usability of the courts needs to be better. I have been talked to by many people, including those who have dealt with the Family Court and divorce law generally, who have found it very difficult. I think that’s something we could all aim to improve on over the next few years, no matter who is in Government, or indeed in Parliament. But tonight is all about this bill—this important bill—to make a progressive step forward for family law and divorce law in New Zealand. And, in particular, it’s about Ashley, who brought it to Parliament’s attention and showed that one person with a good idea who’s prepared to speak to it and prepared to show determination and enthusiasm for something that is important can help change the law. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s the job of members of Parliament to do all we can to help make people’s lives better, and to do that, many of the changes that come to us come from people’s experiences. To know tonight that this is Ashley’s law, someone who I haven’t met before but someone who I have heard a lot tonight is courageous—and there will be many, many women in this country now who will be grateful for you stepping up and doing this work. One person can, in New Zealand, change a law.

Another way that MPs can help is through their own experiences, whether that is in the work they do or whether it is in an experience of a family member. In this case, it’s important to acknowledge my colleague Angie Warren-Clark and the work that she too has done in the area of family violence, an area that needs so many people like Angie to be helping women and families and children and, most importantly, to be able to bring things to Parliament so we can, as MPs, do what the key role of our job is: help people so they can get on better with their lives.

It is extraordinary that you do have to wait two years before you can get divorced when you have experienced family violence. Some parts of our divorce law—I agree with Chris Bishop, it is probably time that we had a really good look at it. Part of this legislation is that to enable a quick divorce, you first have to go to seek a family protection order. That’s something that I hope through the select committee we discuss, because for some people in these relationships that is a challenge in itself, and we should be, as I said, making it as easy as possible for people to get out of relationships that are breaking families and let them be able to know that we will, through this Parliament, help them to do so.

A member’s bill is an opportunity for us to change, shape, improve, and bring ideas, make it simpler, make it easier, and do good things, and to see tonight that we have the whole of Parliament on the second day before the 53rd Parliament rises—that we are coming together on something like this, that is so significant. So in my last comments on this, again, I would like to congratulate you. I know that when I go back and talk with some of my legal friends they will say this is one of the best things, best pieces of legislation, we can do. I know that there will be many more people out there, Ashley, who through this will come and make a contribution. And I hope, and I know that my colleague Angie Warren-Clark does too, that we will even make it a better bill if we can and how we can. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT to support this bill. I’d just like to congratulate Angie Warren-Clark for having the opportunity to put this through just before we rise. I really appreciate that we can have these conversations, because they’re often very difficult and people don’t know how to have these conversations. This is the second time today that we’ve had a conversation around family harm and violence, and ways that we can make it easier for people who have suffered at the hands of others, and I really appreciate having a chance to discuss this matter.

I’d like to begin by saying that the opening statements in your general policy statement say it all: “Everyone deserves to live a life free of violence and all people should have the right to feel safe in a relationship and to leave that relationship if they experience family violence.”—that says it all. It’s really hard for a person to leave a relationship like this. There are so many barriers that are in place that make it very difficult to make that decision in the first place, and it takes great bravery to walk away. There’s the fear of the unknown. Often, you have children in those relationships. Often, you may not be working. You may be the main caregiver of these young people, and the fear of not knowing where the pay cheque may come from—or living a completely different style. It can be quite a traumatic experience in itself. So if we can find a way to make it easier for that separation process to happen so that there is not an imbalance of power—somebody holding power over you and holding you closer for longer than needs be—that is a great thing.

We need to be able to take control of and have self-determination over our futures. Family violence is not only harmful to the person experiencing that violence but it’s harmful to the people that are seeing that violence as well. Many times that’s our young people. We know that when our young people see violence within home life it can actually affect their futures, growing up. We want to make sure that our young people have the best start in life and that we can empower parents to make those decisions. If we can allow a parent or a person who is a victim of family violence to have freedom a little bit quicker—I appreciate that.

I have seen the devastation that family violence can cause. I know of many situations where it’s gone on longer than it should. Applying for restraining orders and making sure that that person can’t come near you sometimes just isn’t enough. We want to feel like we can move on; move forward. The longer you’re having to wait for this divorce process to go on, you kind of feel like you haven’t moved forward—there’s still something holding you back. This is a great way to help those people to move on, to heal, and to create a better future for themselves.

It also protects them from things I heard Angie Warren-Clark talking about: loans being taken out—joint loans—putting people into debt that they can’t afford to pay back, which makes creating a new future very difficult. So when that marriage is still there, there’s the opportunity for the perpetrator to punish you and to make your life very difficult. So this will help stop that problem and that issue. I hear that quite a lot—where debts arise that the victim did not know about, and when they try and get a loan to rent or to buy a new property, they’re stuck with this debt that they had no idea about. So, hopefully, this can help with that problem also.

So thank you. I appreciate that we’ve had the opportunity to speak to this, and I hope this makes life just a little bit better for those who have suffered from family violence.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill, and just to acknowledge my colleague Angie WarrenClark—and congratulations on getting this bill to this point. We know this is something that Angie Warren-Clark’s very passionate about after having spent many years supporting those impacted by family violence. So congratulations—it’s great to see it coming through.

Now, this is a very important issue. The Petitions Committee recently considered not only one but two petitions in this area—and I know a number of colleagues have acknowledged Ashley Jones and the role she’s played in raising this issue here in Parliament; so it’s really great to have her listening in tonight, but also there was a second petition by Charlotte Abrial, who looked at the same issue. What she was asking was that legislation be passed to shorten the time required for separation, just down to six months in situations where there’s family violence.

This is an incredibly important issue for so many people, because if you look at the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, what they estimate is one in three New Zealand women have experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence in their lifetime. But when you include psychological and emotional abuse, that rises up to 55 percent. So this is something that impacts many, many people.

As we know—we’ve had it traversed a bit tonight—New Zealand’s got a no-fault system. What that means is a judge doesn’t have to consider why a marriage has ended or the role that either partner played. The only ground, really, is that the marriage or civil union is irretrievably broken down, and that needs to be established by the judge understanding that the couple have lived separately for two years or more—and that needs to have happened immediately prior to them putting in their application. We think back, “What was the original aim of that?” I think it was really to make sure that people had made up their mind and that decision was final. But in a situation where you’ve got family violence, then reconciliation may not either be appropriate or desirable.

I think for many people, having to wait two years because they’re meant to make that decision is not really appropriate. I think this is reflected in some of the comments that were included in the written submission for one of the petitions considered by the Petitions Committee that was just talking about the impact of having to wait two years in a context where somebody could then take that and use it as a way of staying as part of your life; and, as people have mentioned, the risk of potentially having somebody taking out loans or financial implications for that. One of the other quotes basically just said that the mental battle of knowing that it’s for two years makes trying to get counselling and healing to move on really impossible. So just that whole situation was difficult. Another comment that was made was that you can also see it being a barrier for people leaving domestic violence situations if they have to contend with the situation for another two years.

So in response to Charlotte’s petition, in August 2022 the Petitions Committee recommended that the Government review the requirement for the two-year period between separation and dissolution of marriage. This bill is a very important step in that direction, because what it means is that people will be allowed to apply for an order to dissolve their marriage or civil union if they’ve been the victim of family violence and that family violence has been inflicted by the other partner in that relationship.

It actually will allow the marriage or civil union to be dissolved immediately—not waiting for that two years or even for a shorter period of time. But for that to be established, the court will have to make sure that the grounds are there. So what you’d need is a copy of the court’s decision to make or register a protection order under the Family Violence Act 2018 or the Sentencing Act 2002, or a copy of the order itself. That would be required just to demonstrate that family violence has occurred. But apart from that, there wouldn’t be any requirement for you to wait for any period of time.

Just one note, though; the commencement is delayed by six months just to allow courts to be able to put the necessary changes and processes in place. This is just a really important bill. Again, congratulations to my colleague Angie Warren-Clark, and I’m very, very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I really want to congratulate Angie Warren-Clark, who we know has a strong, robust experience and commitment of longstanding both to safe responses to domestic violence, family violence, and also the prevention work. I was really pleased when, earlier on and last year, we were able to have the conversations about getting this bill through the House. So I’m rapt it’s here. Of course it absolutely aligns with making sure our legislation and our laws are cognisant of the harm of family violence and how we can perpetuate that as a system, as laws, and how the laws can actually cause further damage. So this is ka pai and, of course, the Greens will be supporting it.

One of the key principles our responsibilities must recognise is how important it is to empower and protect victims of family violence and that our laws should never enable abusers by leaving victims of family violence tied to abusive relationships—of course, in this case for two years or in some cases longer. Being forced to remain in those relationships, it also sends, unfortunately, an abusive message to the rest of our community about what people and women are supposed to put up with. So it’s really important that we all support this bill.

There was a particular part of the legislation—and I really look forward to the conservations, particularly with the member, about the evidence requirements. And I did want to draw to the attention of the House, for example, that in the residential tenancy space, we have amended the Residential Tenancies Act so that a victim of family violence can withdraw from their tenancy with a much shorter notice—I believe it’s two days. That allows for people, once again in abusive relationships, to not be tied down by legislation to those relationships and living circumstances. And I’ll be really upfront; I am not aware of where the conversations have landed to date. I can see in the bill that currently the evidence requires a protection order or an order under the Sentencing Act or the order itself. I know the member understands this and has currently still really strong relationships with the sector. It will be really good for us to be able to work with the sector on evidence and understand their expertise and their guidance about the burden of evidence and making sure we have the right balance.

I’m aware that we all want to be wary of willy-nilly applying for dissolution of marriage and divorce, etc., but that’s not a big risk to be afraid of. I think it takes a lot. It’s actually more the case that victims of abuse in abusive relationships actually just find it hard to speak up at all—to make changes at all. So I do look forward to seeing whether or not we are able to make sure that we aren’t placing undue burden on what the legislation currently includes as sufficient evidence. I’m really pleased that in the tenancy withdrawal example, victims can work with doctors, their GPs, with family violence organisations and expertise to get written evidence and written support. Basically, it makes it much easier. We all know, we all understand, how hard it can be for protection orders and orders under the Sentencing Act, for example. So just wanting to make sure that that threshold of evidence doesn’t place an undue burden. [Tāmati Coffey stands to take the call] Oh, look at that. I really commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can tell that it’s serious by the tone of the contributions in the House. Sometimes in this place, we are loud and boisterous and we are looking forward to a good old head to head. But when you’re talking about things like family violence, it becomes really serious. You can tell that, because all of the contributions that have been held in the House tonight have had a certain tone about them, because we all know that family violence is real and that it’s in our communities.

I look around the House and I think about the different areas of the country that we all represent, but, actually, it doesn’t matter which part of the country that we represent. This is an issue that means a lot to New Zealand and it is befitting that we’re able to stand here and talk about family violence in an open and honest way, as parliamentarians, to talk about this bill sitting in front of us at the moment.

Can I thank Angie Warren-Clark, who has been a comrade of mine since 2017, when we first came into this House. She’s brought this bill to the House, which has been great, but we knew when she came in that she was passionate about family violence and making sure that we were doing as much as we could as a Government to be able to turn around the plight that women face against abusive partners.

We know that it is prevalent. I visited Tauranga Women’s Refuge and I’ve seen the work that they do in Rotorua, where I live. I’ve seen the work that the Rotorua Women’s Refuge—Waiariki Women’s Refuge—do in our space looking after women who, for better or worse, have found themselves in an abusive relationship and are looking for support and comfort from people who have worked in the sector. Whether you’ve been the chief executive officer of a woman’s refuge, like my colleague has, or whether or not you are just a member of the community, it’s really, really important.

Today, I was delighted to see a press release from the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge talking about exactly what we’re talking about tonight in terms of this bill, and talking about the plight of a person called Ashley Jones, who left her marriage in 2020. She was then subject to the rigmarole, the process, of having to go through to be able to divorce her partner, who was clearly abusive, who she no longer wanted to be with in a committed relationship, who had broken the vows of being a good and honest and faithful partner. She wanted out of that relationship.

What happened was that she was subject to blockades at every turn. She was subject to the process and the agencies saying that she had almost like a stand-down period to be able to “work this through” with her partner. It was through her frustration that she rallied and it was the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge that came to meet with parliamentarians and politicians to say: this should no longer be something that we have to deal with. If you have a woman that is clearly from an abusive relationship and wants to exit that marriage as quickly as possible, the law and we, the parliamentarians that execute that law, should be trying to make life better for her, whoever she is and wherever she lives.

It was the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge that got behind Ashley Jones, brought this to Parliament, brought it to the attention of people like Angie Warren-Clark, and it’s for that reason that we are discussing this right now. Ashley Jones should be free to be able to leave her marriage, leave her relationship, if she is being abused by her partner. Other women out there should be able to leave their relationship because it’s not a good relationship and it does not add to their wellbeing. And, even worse, if there are children involved and children are watching this unfold in front of them, nothing scars children like being able to see their parents fighting, like being able to watch their mother being hit by their father.

For that reason, it’s upon us as parliamentarians to be able to change the law. What’s been brought before us tonight is the right thing. I thank Ashley Jones, I thank the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge, and I thank Angie Warren-Clark for bringing this to the House. I commend it.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s a huge honour for me to speak on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I, too, agree that all people should have the right to feel safe in a relationship and be safe when they do decide to leave.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the leadership of Angie Warren-Clark because she has, through her leadership, brought this bill into this House. Using her experience as someone who has worked in the women’s refuge area, she actually brought insights into this work, and I want to acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, who also chairs the Social Services and Community Committee. I want to acknowledge Ashley Jones for the courage that she has taken to, first of all, make the steps to seek help and depart, although she wasn’t safe from her partner.

Usually in this House we talk about other people’s experiences but I’ve been sitting here contemplating whether I should talk about mine or not. So, at the age of 18, I got married and then at the age of 20 I realised that I actually wanted to end the marriage. So, when I did that, my former husband at the time wasn’t violent but he became violent when I made the decision to leave. So then I went through the whole process of the Family Court where I got a protection order; we had two children at the time. I think what this bill does is bring in dissolution for family violence, bring in the conditions, the grounds that a person requires for a protection order, and the other party is the respondent. I think there are different levels of violence. Whether that violence is physical or whether that violence, as in my case, is psychological, with verbal threats. This bill provides an opportunity for people, as in my case, who have decided to leave the marriage and would like to end it within the two years because the former partner or husband has become a person they didn’t know, has become violent. So that’s what I think this bill acknowledges: there are different stages of family violence. Family violence is not only physical but also is psychological, and sometimes that psychological harm lasts longer than the physical.

I want to acknowledge that there are three grounds, like I’ve said before—a protection order, the other parties and the respondent, and sufficient evidence, providing a copy to the registrar. Often in these cases, and like in my case as I’ve shared—I had two children both under two at the time that I had to think of. So for all the people who are currently in a situation where they’re making a decision whether it’s safe to leave or not to leave, this bill is sending a signal that you can do that, that one can do that. If you want to end the marriage—get a dissolution of the marriage sooner than two years—then you can do that.

In my case, I got the protection order because the former husband became threatening. I didn’t seek to have an early dissolution, because he left for Australia and then I didn’t go through that process—well, he actually sent the dissolution of marriage across the Tasman to me. So I want to just acknowledge that there are different stages where a relationship does become unsafe. But, going back to the essence of this bill, it is talking about making sure that all people should be safe in the relationship and that when they do decide to end the relationship because they no longer want to be in that relationship, they should be able to leave the relationship safely.

Usually the people that are caught in the middle are the children, and I want to acknowledge all the children and my kids for being in those situations. The people who have courage to leave a threatening relationship or a violent relationship—it does take a lot. It is not something that you do at a whim and it’s not something that you want to go through the Family Court to share all your secrets that happen behind closed doors. It is a serious decision that you want to make.

Again I believe that all people should have the right to feel safe in relationships and I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

Thank you. I rise as the last speaker for the National Party and it’s important for New Zealanders to know the extent, the reach, the breadth of family violence in our country. Each year, New Zealand police conduct more than 100,000 investigations—and that’s only of reported incidents—related to family violence. It is estimated that one in four women and one in eight men experience family violence in their lifetime. Madam Speaker and New Zealanders listening in, this is a very important piece of proposed legislation: the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, first reading.

First of all, I acknowledge Ashley Jones, supported in the gallery, because it was through the harrowing lived experience of what you’ve been through that this legislation is now going to change the lives not just for you but for many other victims of family violence. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe.

I also acknowledge the proponent of this member’s bill, my colleague Angie WarrenClark, and also my colleague Chris Bishop, both of whom were available to Ashley at some point in time during this harrowing journey. The point of this legislation is for those persons who have been the subject of family violence and in a marriage or a civil union. This bill will enable the expedition of the dissolution, once upon a time framed as a divorce; so a dissolution of that civil union or marriage. It will expedite it. Because what the law requires at the moment, presently under the Family Proceedings Act—the grounds to be satisfied are that there’s been an irreconcilable relationship or the nature of it is irreconcilable and it has irretrievably broken down. And also the legal requirement is that there is a period of two years of separation, of living apart, before in the eyes of the law it will validate that dissolution or divorce—previously known as—of the marriage or civil union.

What will be interesting, when this bill does come to select committee—and that will be in the 54th Parliament, and this being the 53rd Parliament to see this introduced at the first reading and to ensure that it gets carried through—is the submissions from the sector that deals in family violence. And anticipating that there may well be a submission from Ashley at some point in time, but also a submission around the relevant parts and componentry of this proposed legislation to do with the meaning of a protection order. Because the facets of a protection order, for those of us who have practised in the Family Court and also in the Criminal Court, there’s a temporary protection order that can be made on a without notice basis, where the other party to the proceedings does not have their evidence heard, and the judge will make a finding of fact or determination based on one party’s view. And often that will be the victim or the person subjected to the family violence. Then there’s what’s known as a final protection order, so it will be interesting to hear submissions, anticipated submissions from the New Zealand Law Society, from the family law section of that New Zealand Law Society, and also the criminal bar.

But importantly, this legislation is recognising that the victims of family violence who are in a legal relationship, defined as either a marriage or civil union, are locked into that. So I listened to Ms Warren-Clark’s context and background of Miss Ashley’s journey to get to this point and stage in the harrowing lived experience of the violence. And although the perpetrator of that violence had been imprisoned, the victim or subject of the violence was imprisoned in a legal relationship. The whole point of this is to expedite the termination or the dissolution and the completion of that, to be able to be removed from having been incarcerated also through that legal relationship.

The other point before closing, is that as an advocate for my lifetime for children and young people, there’s a particular and an important component of this bill that addresses the fact that children who are part of that relationship, arrangements for the welfare of the children on dissolution, is to be considered. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wouldn’t say it’s a pleasure but it is a privilege to take a call on this bill tonight, and I acknowledge my colleague Angie Warren-Clark, who is the member who is progressing this bill through the House. Like other speakers, can I also acknowledge Ashley Jones for her bravery and tenacity bringing a petition to this House and seeing this through and being willing to tell her story publicly, because that requires a significant amount of bravery.

I think most members in this House will have experiences and stories that they can share that would explain why a bill of this nature is so important, and I certainly have one. When I moved to Nelson, where I’m the MP now, nearly 15 years ago, the first friend I made when I moved to Nelson, who is now my very best of friends—we became good friends, and within a couple of weeks of that friendship beginning it became clear to me that she had sought me out because she needed to leave her relationship. It has led to years and years of both my husband and I providing support to this very dear friend of mine and her wonderful children. She still hasn’t actually finalised that divorce, yet she suffered for years and years, and from time to time today still suffers as a result of that. There were so many circumstances where protection orders were breached, where rocks were thrown through windows into children’s bedrooms in the dead of night and nails put under my husband’s and my car tyres, things that can’t really be mentioned were left in people’s letterboxes, people were chased with vehicles, and people were threatened and assaulted in multiple ways. If a law like this had been in place at the time, it would have been so incredible and it would have created so much freedom for her for the fact that it doesn’t require the respondent to agree; it just requires there to be that protection order sitting in place that has been put in place by a court.

I think that this is why so many of us come to this House. It is because there are so many stories of people where it’s actually so clear that the law needs to change to make people’s lives safer and to bring justice to people and to make children’s lives safer. It would have made my friend’s life and her children’s lives much, much safer if she had been able to dissolve the marriage at the time that her protection order was put in place. It also had a massive impact on issues to do with matrimonial property, because there were so many threats that if the divorce was carried out more violence would occur or that the issues to do with matrimonial property would be held up, would be fought back against. So it was used as another form of power and control in the relationship.

So I really do commend my colleague and the many MPs who I know have a background in this area and who have worked on this bill. It is good to see that there is support across the House for this bill tonight. As the bill states, everyone should have the right to have a life free of violence. It’s fundamental, I think, to what we all believe in, in this country, and anything that we can do as a House to improve the law so that people’s stories aren’t just stories, they actually have meaning in terms of changing law—that is why we are here. We come to this place to make New Zealand a better place for people who are suffering an injustice.

So my thanks again to Ashley for bringing your story to us. Often through members’ days, this is where we are taking bills like this through the House on behalf of people who have shared a story and inspired a law change. So I thank you for doing this. It will mean a lot to a lot of people in New Zealand, and I commend this bill to the House.

Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes in reply.

It is such an honour to stand here and to thank this entire House for their support of this bill. I do like the name “Ashley’s Bill”—we’ll perhaps work on that.

This has been probably a very serious matter in the House tonight, and just before I start my full contribution, I’d just like to correct the record in one respect, and that is the member Harete Hipango made reference to Ashley’s story but conflated it, unfortunately, with a previous story of another woman. I just want to make it really clear, Ashley’s story is very different from the one that I told, and that is for Ashley to correct the record publicly when she is ready, but I wanted to acknowledge that in case there was confusion from anyone.

Madam Speaker and members of this House, this is a relatively small bill, which covers those married or in a civil union who are victims of violence who apply for a protection order in the Family Court, or one is granted in the District Court, who seek to end their relationship with the other abusive partner—that is it, simply. The bill supports these women and people to do so without having to wait in limbo for two years.

This bill could go further, and I acknowledge that there are many, many people who do not apply for protection orders as their fear is too great, the effort is too insurmountable, the abuse may escalate, and they worry about that, or that the courts are a system, an institution that they themselves don’t trust. There are many reasons.

I also note that there are a number of family and sexual violence offences that could be captured that have not been. I’d like to think the Justice Committee and the community who submits into this process could canvass these views, and I want to acknowledge the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, the Hon Marama Davidson, who came and spoke tonight on this bill, for her good work in Te Aorerekura and as the Minister. I think she has raised a great point and one that I thought long and hard about when we put the evidence together.

So just for the record, in 2022, there were 4,463 protection order applications, and 1,900 of those were granted, and in the criminal court there were 897 granted, so that is not a lot of people that this bill would cover. So I want to just put on record the consideration and the discussion around that point, noting as well that I was involved in the tenancy legislation where we put the two days in for victims of family violence. So I do think that that is worthwhile having that discussion.

What we don’t want to have, however, is the removal of no-fault divorce in this country. We want it to be a simple process so that we don’t go back to the time where evidence had to be provided—who was at fault and those kinds of things. So we have a very fine line to walk, and this is where I landed in terms of where I thought we could go. But I am completely open to the views and the values that are presented from the community, from the Justice Committee, our officials at the Ministry of Justice, and, in particular as well from the community who does the work. I want to end by thanking that community, the refuges and the stopping violence services and the sexual assault support services that have, essentially, uplifted and held the victims of family and sexual violence.

I want to acknowledge them, because often they do the work. They ask and ask and ask for things to change and nothing does. I was one of those people and I am asking for this change, and I’m very pleased to be able to do that as a member of Parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.