Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 17 to 22, “Consequential amendments”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Well, first of all, I wouldn’t mind putting on record that it’s extremely disappointing that the Minister of Justice didn’t answer a couple of genuine questions from members, from the Hon Ginny Andersen and myself. Certainly, no objection would be made from this side of the Chamber were he to leap to his feet to answer those questions. It certainly would show good, accountable governance if he were to do so.

Given that we’re now talking about “Consequential amendments”, which also deal with proceedings of an abusive nature, including vexatious proceedings in the Family Proceedings Act and similar provisions in the Care of Children Act, I think the question still stands: what’s the scope of this, and how do we ensure that this form of family violence, which is controlling and abusive behaviour, in courts other than simply the Family Court is captured? This was needed for a reason. This whole idea not of abusing the court process but abusing a participant to the court process—it doesn’t just sit within the family jurisdiction; it bleeds into other areas of the courts’ jurisdiction. An answer to that would be appreciated.

Sorry, I apologise to the members, I was slow to get to my feet previously, but in terms of the question around whether it applies—

💬 Hon David Parker: I thought you were a martial arts expert.

—to other areas—yes; seen better days. It won’t apply to other jurisdictions outside the scope of this bill, but protections around vexatious litigation do apply in the other areas.

Another question was asked around the amendments, whether they had arisen from departmental reports or drafting instructions. My advice is that the changes came after drafting clarifications rather than departmental reports.

The question around the issue of whether this bill would sort of capture unintended people involved in the process—look, that’s always a challenge in all legislation, because, in litigation, who the victim is is obviously always an argued point when you’re dealing with relationship breakdowns. Humans have the capacity on all sides of arguments to act in inappropriate ways. In terms of the procedural safeguards to protect the right of justice, to prevent it being used against victims, there is the requirement for evidence that the party’s conduct demonstrates both the intent and the effect of litigant abuse, and there is also judicial discretion about whether or not to make an order. So we do have confidence in the ability of the judges to recognise litigant abuse from whichever direction it comes in the given circumstance.

In terms of how the bill will be monitored, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the implementation of the bill, including evaluation. I think, overall, it’s good practice, and I think all members of the House, across all administrations, will be conscious of the need for good stewardship of existing bills and regular assessment of their effectiveness. That will certainly be our approach.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for those responses from the Minister. I was looking at the regulatory impact statement which specifically refers to name suppression, and in that statement it does say that, “We assume that most adult sexual violence complainants want to keep their automatic name suppression in place [come] the trial, but that in explaining the options for lifting name suppression some will want to apply at that time, while others may choose to apply in the post-trial context.”

Now, this bill directly overlaps with another bill that is currently before the select committee, and I wanted to, I guess, get an update because the issue of name suppression and the ability for victims of sexual violence to be able to have power over whether their name is suppressed or not is a very important issue that overlaps directly with litigation abuse. I do note that we’ve been surprised that the Minister has twice written to the committee asking for an extension on that particular issue. I would like to know: did he consider, when making amendments at this committee stage, whether it was possible to also make those required changes in relation to name suppression, given this is a specific bill designed to assist victims of family and sexual violence through the court process, and what are, in fact, his intentions in and around the ability for victims to have name suppression lifted through the court process?

My second question to the Minister is in relation to when the committee received submissions on this bill, the most striking thing was the deep lack of faith, particularly with the Family Court. We know that people are typically not satisfied with the court process, but specific to the Family Court, there seemed to be an inordinate amount of dissatisfaction particularly from victims who go through this process, particularly with the way they are treated through the system, and an inability for their voices to be heard. We also really heard through that process about how there was an inability for the process to be explained to victims of family and sexual violence—they’re simply being given a time to turn up, and whatever.

If we are through this, turning our minds to the fact that we want to give a better victim experience through the court system, particularly for family and sexual violence victims and if we want to be able to prevent them from having the court process used as a tool to revictimise people, I would like the Minister to speak to the point, which also relates to my first point in terms of name suppression. What other actions can he do, or is he considering, alongside of this legislation that will further address the direct concerns raised through the select committee process in relation to this legislation?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask for some clarification from the Minister, looking at clause 18 in subpart 1 of Part 2, around “Amendment to Family Proceedings Act 1980”, in particular around vexatious proceedings. The previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen, has already possibly mentioned an element of this, but one of the things I would still like clarification from the Minister on is: when we are looking at this particular bill and also other aspects of the vexatious proceedings within the Family Proceedings Act, it’s still within the context of behaviours or acts that are sort of, I guess, with the knowledge of the judge or with the knowledge of the court.

As we see on page 4 of the bill, particularly when you’re looking at aspects outside of the proceeding and around stalking abuse, I want to get clarification or some guidance from the Minister that although he mentioned that there will be a member’s bill around this—and I think it might be the Hon Ginny Andersen’s member’s bill—it hasn’t really, as far as I know, based on the Order Paper, been drawn from the ballot. What is being done or what considerations are there currently, looking at litigant abuse outside of that system, particularly when it comes to stalking?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My next question to the Minister is really looking at how we can increase reporting rates for victims of family and sexual violence. If we look at particularly sexual violence, a rape trial can take up to two or three years for that to play out, and that can be really retraumatising for the victim. Similarly with instances of family violence, whether they be child abuse or other intimate partner violence instances, the number one ideal or objective we should be aiming for as a country, I believe, is to increase reporting rates of sexual violence and family violence.

My concern—and the Minister may want to speak to this—is that while this bill is great because, I guess, it tinkers at the edges by enabling judges to make a call about when a potential offender is using the very structure of our judiciary to attack or victimise someone repeatedly, I would like a level of confidence from the Minister about the changes made by this Government; specifically, that police don’t attend family violence unless it’s at a certain high threshold, which is difficult to unpick explicitly, because that has to be a serious offence or threat to life before police will attend a 111 call in that space.

Secondly, the fact that a lot of the contracts that provide counselling to families who may be undergoing high levels of family violence, it is largely community providers that received funding through Oranga Tamariki and other Ministry of Social Development - type (MSD) services; those are the ones that go into those families and provide that help and assistance. Both Ministers responsible for those contracts, Oranga Tamariki and MSD—there’s been a statement pretty much that, particularly for children, they will only be given assistance if they’re in State care—nothing more, nothing less.

If we know that the main reason people don’t report family violence or sexual violence is because they’ve previously asked for help and not received that help, and then we have an approach by this Government where ability to ask for help is being curtailed or shut down, how is that going to assist increasing reporting rates of family and sexual violence and how are we ever going to get on top of this issue as a country? While it might be great that we all agree on the fact that the court can be used as a tool to revictimise families—women and children more so than others, given the statistics that I have seen—really, is this bill a drop in the bucket?

The Minister may have a view, given the fact that this Government has taken significant steps back from finding out where that hurt is happening and resourcing the ability to address those family problems. It’s almost like if violence happens in a street, we care about it then, but if it happens in someone’s home, that’s not our business. That seems to be the overarching business that if that’s domestic violence, we just don’t go to that unless we see it. My concern is that this sends a message out to people going through difficult times in their family—people who want some assistance and don’t know where to turn. Often they do call police, who then could refer on to another agency, if possible. There does not seem to be an overarching approach that there’s no wrong door for family or sexual violence, and that is a real concern for advocates within this sector. I think it is a real concern for the next generation of young people growing up in New Zealand if we aspire as a country to be violence free.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2