Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start with the women who made the case for this law change, the women who gave us the way forward to ensure that we would move from a divorce law which insisted that they wait in abusive relationships for two years before they could obtain a divorce. This bill enables people to move on immediately, and it came about because of three women.

The first is Charlotte Abrial, who brought a petition to this House in 2020, and brought the petition asking that in cases of relationships where there had been domestic violence, instead of waiting for two years for a divorce to become final, in fact that could happen within six months. In Charlotte’s words from the petition, speaking from her own experience, she said that the two-year stand-down period makes leaving an abusive spouse even more difficult because victims feel an obligation to go back and try to work things out. She said that, in many cases, each time the victim returns is worse, as the abuser’s control increases. She also commented that some women are not able to leave again because they may not survive the abuse. Thank you, Charlotte, for bringing the petition to the House and for making the House take notice of this matter.

The second woman I want to refer to is Ashley Jones. Ashley put together a petition and worked on it but, eventually, was unable to get it into the House, because she simply didn’t have the capacity to at the time. She persisted with her work, and when this particular bill was finally in front of the House, she came and submitted to the committee and told us her story. She put in a written submission. From Ashley’s submission: “Any woman (or man) that has reached the painstaking decision to leave their marriage, has already reached the realisation that there is no reconciliation possible, especially not in cases where abuse is prevalent. But the reality is, for abuse victims the current divorce process is not as simple as a 2 year stand down. For me, someone with a protection order in place, no contact or knowledge of the other parties whereabouts, it took a painstaking further 10 months to be granted my dissolution. That was a further 2 years 10 months of mental and emotional anguish on top of everything else that didn’t need to happen.” Ashley, thank you for your work in bringing this legislation to the House. Here, I’d also like to thank the Hon Chris Bishop for the work that he did to support Ashley as she was putting together her work in this area.

The third woman I would like to thank is a woman whose name has not been said in this House, because initially we kept her name very, very quiet. She did not want her name to be out there, because of some of the danger attached to it. When Angie Warren-Clark MP first brought this bill to the House, in her speech in the first reading, she referenced, obviously, Charlotte Abrial and Ashley Jones, but she also referenced someone who’d come to talk to her and told the story. I’ve been in contact with this woman today, and she sent me some words of her story too, and she gave me permission to use her given name. So, Adele, today we name you in the House, and we recognise your courage.

In Adele’s words: “It took two years, one month, and one day to get a divorce when I needed it desperately to get it before my then husband got out of prison. It was hard, it was terrifying, and so stressful to get it done in time as the Parole Board had phoned me three times, saying they were releasing him early and that he had rights. I had to plead firmly that they support my rights to feel safe and to not release him early so that I could be safe. It was a hard battle, a struggle mentally, emotionally. The fear was huge. I knew I needed the divorce as a boundary line by law for him not to seek to claim me as his property. I pushed so hard I even had to plead with the prison to deliver the divorce papers into his hands before he was released. I got my divorce with one day to spare only because I pushed and growled and defended the rights of victims of domestic violence.” Adele, thank you for those words.

These women all made the case that where there is family violence, a person should be able to obtain a divorce without having to wait for two years of separation from their former partner. The reason is that that two years holds the tie. It binds the victim to their abuser. That should not be the case. We simply need to change the law, and, today, I know that we’re going to do it so that, in cases where people have separated and where there is domestic violence, instead of waiting for too long and instead of waiting for two long years in which the victim remains tied to their abuser, a divorce can be obtained immediately. Thank you to each of those three courageous women.

Two members of Parliament have had a very strong hand in bringing this legislation to the House. I’ve already mentioned the first, the Hon Chris Bishop, who supported Ashley Jones as her electorate MP when she was first working on this issue, and when the bill came into the House, he enabled it to go through with his support. Thank you to the Hon Chris Bishop. But I especially wish to recognise our former colleague Angie Warren-Clark. Angie put together a bill on this particular issue, and it was drawn from the ballot, and it had its first reading on the very last members’ day before the former election. There was a lot of support for it across the House then. After the election, Angie asked me if I would take it through the remaining stages. Angie, my darling, it has been an absolute honour to shepherd this bill through the House for you. You know, it’s a bit hard to make a mark as a Government backbencher; Angie’s done it.

It’s really interesting to reflect on where our divorce law has come from. In 1980, we had a radical divorce law reform. Instead of having tawdry cases of deception or of adultery or whatever trailed through the courts, we opted for what is now known as “no-fault divorce”. If couples wanted to separate, it was taken to be the case, and they could obtain a divorce. The only evidence that was required was two years of separation. It was a very radical law reform in its day, but now we need something different. I think part of what this legislation, going through today, tells us is that, actually, we need to have an overall look at our divorce law. In the meantime, this change helps victims of domestic violence. Obviously, for the three women who fought for it, the change hasn’t come in time for them. They’ve got the change now for other women, women like Kate, who phoned into Newstalk ZB today—I want to thank Kerre Woodham for forwarding the clip to me—who talked about the feeling of relief and freedom that would be available to her with this law change.

Thank you to everyone across the House who’s worked on this bill, especially the members of the Justice Committee. Thank you to all those who have supported it. I did say the Justice Committee? Good, OK. I got there. I’m going to end with Adele’s words again and what this legislation means to her: “Now, all my pain and grief of the vicious domestic violence I went through has been transformed into legislation today, a law that will support many victims for days, years to come. What a legacy we gift them all today. So many lives will be saved.” Charlotte, Ashley, Adele, thank you.

Can I start by acknowledging the excellent speech from Hon Deborah Russell in support of this bill, and also start by saying thank you to her for her work shepherding it through its final stages. That was a very heartfelt and meaningful speech and I’m sure people will really appreciate it. Can I also start by acknowledging Ashley, my friend who’s in the gallery, who, as Ms Russell has noted, has played a really important part in the genesis of this legislation.

Today is a very satisfying day, because it’s really Parliament at its best and it’s Parliament coming together—I believe it’s going to pass unanimously, which is a wonderful thing—to fix a problem. We get a lot of grief from this place, probably sometimes fairly, about being fixated on things that don’t actually matter that much—and maybe that’s true; maybe it isn’t—but this matters, this legislation matters, and this issue matters, and today we’re doing something about it, and that’s a good thing. It’s precisely what members’ bills should be about. It’s a very satisfying day.

Can I start by just acknowledging the three women that the Hon Deborah Russell noted, Ashley Jones, Charlotte Abrial, and Adele—who’s now read into the Hansard—for their courage and bravery and determination to try and make a difference for victims of family violence in the future seeking to get out of the marriage or the relationship. Can I acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, who did the heavy lifting to introduce this bill into Parliament in the first place. I hadn’t actually realised until Deborah Russell mentioned it that it was the final members’ day before the 2023 election. I didn’t actually realise that. I’m sure that Angie is watching, and she should be proud of her work in introducing it to Parliament.

I think members might know that it was sort of an interesting process of events where Ashley came and saw me when I was the list MP based in Hutt South in 2021. I was actually looking up the news stories at the time—it was over three years ago; it was June 2021. She said, “I’ve had this idea, I’m going to do a petition.” I didn’t know that was the law—I mean, MPs can’t be expected to know everything about everything; there’s too much law already—and I couldn’t believe that you had to wait two years if you’re a victim of family violence. I just couldn’t believe it. I said, “That can’t be the case; it is the case”—but after today, it won’t be. She said, “I want to do a petition.”, and I said, “I’m very happy to support that, it’s a great idea.” We had over 5,000 people sign it, on the online petition. That was three years ago and I’ve been asked a bit by the media over the last couple of days why is it taking so long, and sometimes the wheels of justice move slowly and it’s been a bit frustrating.

Anyway, as she presented the petition, unbeknownst to me, Angie Warren-Clark was working on the issue as well and I didn’t know that, and then the bill got put into the ballot and then it got pulled. National was proud to support it back in 2023, and now, of course, it’s going to pass into law.

Can I thank the Justice Committee for their work on this bill. It’s a really good committee, very competent members of Parliament on the committee. I know they’re a very busy committee with the inquiry into the election and quite a bit of other law and order legislation making its way through—

James Meager: 21 bills.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: “21 bills”, says the chair—thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for your work and your support. Thank you to the Justice Committee. Thank you to Angie Warren-Clark. I want to thank Deborah Russell for picking it up. She’s been a very diligent, conscientious member in charge of the bill, so thank you.

It is a very satisfying day. Really, if you think about it and if you just step back a bit, what it’s actually about is fundamentally making a difference to reduce the harm caused by family violence and make it easier for, primarily, women who are the victims of family violence to move on—closure. It’s about closure and making it easier for people to not remain trapped in a relationship that has broken down in the worst way possible, for the worst reasons and in the worst way possible—making it easier for women to move on, gain closure, finality, and take the next step in their journey and their life.

I think that’s what it was about for Ashley, and I think it’s what it’s about for many women who have been through the enormous trauma of abuse or family violence, where the law says currently you have to remain tethered to your abuser for two more years until you can leave and formally make into law what is the practice—make the legal reality what is, in fact, the reality. That’s a really powerful thing—that’s a really powerful thing.

Today, we are righting a wrong. Deborah Russell talked about future reform to divorce law and she canvassed some of the history. That’s for another day, and reasonable people can disagree about some aspects of it, but what I don’t think people will disagree on is this change, and the fact that it’s passing the Parliament unanimously, I think, speaks to that. It’s interesting, whenever you raise it with people, people are quite staggered to discover it’s not the law. They expected that Parliament would have fixed this before now, and it turns out that we haven’t, but now we have an opportunity to do it.

I don’t want to take up much more of the House’s time. I know Ashley would tell me, “We just need to get on and pass it, it’s taken long enough already.”, and on that, I agree with her. I just want to acknowledge you, Ashley, and thank you for your support. It’s been wonderful to have you here over the last two or three years that this bill has been making its way through the process.

I want to acknowledge Deborah Russell: thank you for the bipartisan nature with which we’ve approached this issue. It’s been really heartening, actually, and it’s really, I think, proof positive that when Parliament turns its mind to something and wants to do the right thing, despite all the noise out there, actually, we can. It’s a really great thing.

Thank you, Deborah. Thank you, Ashley. Thank you, Charlotte. Thank you to Angie Warren-Clark as well. Today is a good day. It’s a satisfying day. We’re putting right what is a wrong, and I look forward to its passage through Parliament and then coming into force in due course. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia ora; thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m really happy to rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki, the Green Party, to offer our wholehearted support for this mahi. I want to begin by acknowledging the powerful wāhine who brought this to the House today and have endured over the last three years, just patiently waiting for this to happen—and to see the fruits of your labour, the fruits of your courage, the fruits of your bravery happening before us today. We lend our wholehearted support to your mahi and acknowledge you for all of the work. It would not have been easy to put yourself out there, to have your own personal stories out there in the media. That would have taken a huge amount of bravery, so thank you so much. As we’ve seen, every progressive step that we’ve seen in the prevention of family violence in this country has always been as a result of the courage and bravery of survivors like yourself. Thank you for your mahi.

I also want to thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for all of her mahi on this bill and bringing this forward, and Angie Warren-Clark and Chris Bishop as well for the collaborative mahi that we’ve seen here and for fronting up to the Justice Committee and answering some of our more detailed questions about what more we can do to improve the bill or not even necessarily the bill, but what we need to look to for the future to provide other means by which people can provide that evidence that family violence has occurred. We can have a world where there isn’t family violence and where there isn’t sexual violence, and it’s all of these incremental steps that will lead us to that point.

I’ll keep my contribution to the point and brief, but I’ll just say that this bill does mean a lot to me as the child of a solo mother who also escaped an abusive relationship. I know how difficult it can be particularly for those women to free themselves of the shackles and the binds that attach them to their abusers and to be able to move forward with their life without fear, without living in constant fear that they might be contacted or that there will be more opportunities for their abusers to be in contact with them and just more binds to those abusers. We really appreciate this bill.

What we would like to see next is whether we can incorporate different forms of evidence to prove that family violence has taken place. Obviously, this one focuses on protection orders, which is great. That’s one mechanism, but also how could we open up that scope of evidence to include things like written evidence from doctors or police or other trusted people that are involved in those processes. We can look at that evidence, but today is such a crucial and important first step towards that. We won’t solve it all today, but this is a really good and earnest step towards solving these issues.

When I looked at the Women’s Refuge website, I saw a figure that said that sometimes it can take women up to seven attempts on average to leave an abusive relationship. That just shows how deep some of those binds go. I think that this bill at least removes one barrier for those survivors and it makes it—for people experiencing abuse—a lot easier to unshackle themselves from that abuse.

As you know, I just want to mihi to my colleague Marama Davidson for all of the work she did around Te Aorerekura and looking at how we can totally eliminate family violence within our country. I just want to acknowledge that that strategy still stands and that we’re still looking at all different options and tools that there are available to eliminate family harm in this country.

Thank you to the wāhine who have spoken up and made this a reality. Thank you to Dr Deborah, to Angie, and to Chris Bishop for all of their mahi on this. I like to see that collaborative approach across the House, and I like to see the things that we can achieve when we put our politics aside and work together for something that I think we all want in this House, which is a world free from family violence. That is our contribution, and I’m proud to say that we fully support this bill. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support this bill. I would like to thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for the work she has done on this bill, and also Angie Warren‑Clark, the previous member in charge of this bill, and Dr Deborah Russell for carrying on with the workload that came with this bill going through the select committee process and then going through the second reading and now coming to the third reading. I want to acknowledge your efforts.

I heard that Ashley is in the gallery, so I want to acknowledge Ashley, and I also want to acknowledge Charlotte Abrial, as Dr Deborah Russell acknowledged. I want to acknowledge them and also want to acknowledge all other courageous women out there—those who have made efforts at their level. It takes the effort of many, many women for that to come to this level, so I want to acknowledge everybody who has worked in the background as well to ensure that this bill comes before Parliament and that we are at the stage where we are agreeing to pass this bill.

In short, this bill is to actually provide relief to victims of family violence, because this is to see that they are not tied in that relationship for two years and complying with that requirement of separation of two years before they can get a divorce. As the member from the Green Party said, it takes seven attempts for a victim to leave their relationship, and that is true. It is not an easy thing for anybody to leave their relationship. As humans, we have this nature where we always want outside to look as if everything is going fine, even if behind closed doors there is a lot of violence and a lot of suffering that goes on. As soon as we open those doors and come out in public, we want to pretend that everything is going fine behind those closed doors and nobody actually wants to admit it, because it’s not an easy thing.

I was chair of an NGO helping victims of domestic violence, and I didn’t work directly with any of those victims, but, obviously, because I was involved in that organisation, I used to hear a lot of stories. I also know that after women come out and seek help, then also the abusers, if they reach out to these women, they will try to mend the relationship, they would like to reconcile, and then they would like to behave as if nothing has happened. Then, after these women, these victims, go back, again, the abusers would come back to their original behaviour in just a few weeks’ time, and those women used to be back there seeking help again. Sometimes with this system, it feels that they are going through this process again and again, but I think it is really important for us to realise their situation and see what they are going through. This bill is going to provide huge relief to women—those who are really wanting to come out of that trap, come out of that relationship, and start their lives again.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Todd Stephenson, who is a member of the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge all of the members on the Justice Committee as well for their work on this bill. The changes that the select committee has made on this bill are really commendable. It actually really solves a lot of issues that were not originally addressed in the bill, and that is the job of the select committee process. This bill actually has come out looking much, much better, and it actually has covered a lot of ground.

It has also covered ground about what kind of protection orders are going to be considered as evidence in this case. It is quite clear that it is the final protection orders, not the temporary protection orders. Also, there were some discussions—as I have read the report and have seen—about if there was opportunity to broaden the kind of evidence that could be used in this process. I think the select committee landed at a very good decision that the idea of this bill is to not elongate the process. The idea of this bill is to simplify this process where there is a genuine reason for somebody to come out of that relationship. In that regard, the select committee has done a commendable job.

I want to again, finally, acknowledge Dr Deborah Russell and all those courageous women, those who worked behind the scenes to bring this bill to Parliament. The ACT Party supports this bill. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation, and I thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for her careful consideration of our amendment and, I hope, the appreciation of the concerns that we have on this legislation.

I suppose I would like to put some context in this legislation: we have an abhorrent amount of family violence in New Zealand. We know that, and we know that we need to do better in our protections. The tragedy of this legislation is that we have had women with protection orders in place who have not been protected. They have felt still under the control and bond of a relationship that they have exited and have still been under that level of control. Our concern in this legislation has been that even with a dissolution of marriage, it does not negate the need for a protection order to remain and it does not negate our responsibility as a country to ensure that we are doing better.

I suppose I would go back to my first encounter of this reality as a very young police officer when I was called to attend an incident where a woman had called the police because her ex-husband, who had just been released from prison after serving a life sentence or serving a serious sentence for the manslaughter of his second wife—within two days of being released from prison, he was back at the home of his first wife. Therefore, it showed to me that not only do protection orders, not only do dissolutions of marriage, not only does the threat of police presence, not only does the fact that she had moved and changed addresses provide or afford her the protection that was necessary in that case—and that instance is over 30 years ago, and I don’t think we have got much better.

The environment is such that we have serious issues with families that are broken, with women that are broken, but we also have an instance that men are broken. We have men and families that have no concept of what it is to be in a family, no concept of what it is to be in a loving, supportive relationship. Those are the areas that I think—this is not the end game, this is not the destination we need to be.

We support any protections that would give women the opportunity to feel safer and feel protected, but the concern in this conversation is that, at the same time, women will be making decisions in highly emotional and vulnerable times. As we said when we sought some sort of resolution to provide an assurance that women would be given, or the vulnerable person in the relationship would be given, protection—an assurance that they were given proper legal advice, that they were not making decisions about property, about support, about custody in an emotional state, and that the escalating of a dissolution created some vulnerability, that those decisions would be made at a volatile time.

That is all we’re seeking: to ensure that we are not, in the solution, creating further problems down the track; that we need to know that we are also working on a holistic approach. We have the family violence and sexual violence work programme that we are working on, and there are a number of areas we know we need to fix. But I have real concerns that we are seeing this as a solution, and I hope that is not the case; that we are seeing it as an important step and a protection and an assurance to brave women who have felt this terrible burden of the bond of a relationship, but that we need to continue to work on this space and make sure that women who are the subject of a protection order—or anyone who is subject of a protection order—know that the protection order means something, know that they do not have to live in fear, that we are doing better to ensure we’re doing more.

Not all relationships that are in this volatile and violent environment are marriages and, therefore, we need to be sure that we are balancing this conversation. The other concerns that we had are that we have allowed the protection orders to create that degree of separation, but when the protection orders are put in place, it is a volatile time, it is an emotional time, and we know there is generally an escalation of violence and concern at the time those protection orders are issued. If the protection order is seen as a flag to end the relationship completely, are we creating risk of escalating violence when there hasn’t been a cooling-off period before the dissolution of marriage?

I only say things like this out of caution. I only say this in the hope that we review this legislation; that we continue to review the impacts that are occurring; that we do things cautiously and with consideration; that we also look at the same time to the ways that we can strengthen families; that we can empower women, that we can make sure that they know that when a protection order is put in place, it means something and there are serious consequences for breaching it; that we also give an opportunity to those who are the perpetrators of violence to be given some level of intervention; and that we recognise that we need to rebuild families. We need to provide some level of support and counselling before the marriage has ended, because there have been instances—and I know this has occurred in my own family—where there has been a very volatile and turbulent relationship that, through alcohol help, drug rehabilitation, a whole range of counselling, a family has been turned around and saved.

I just hope, when we work through these processes, that we have a real recognition of the whole problem and that this is an important piece of legislation, and I acknowledge all of the people that worked towards bringing this legislation forward—it is important that you have the freedom to choose the dissolution of your marriage—but I want to know that you also, when you go down this path, have sufficient counselling, have sufficient legal representation so that you are not deprived of property, of financial interests, of custody rights, of all of the things that go towards the dissolution of a marriage.

I truly recognise the effort that was brought by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell and for Chris Bishop and the ladies who have helped this legislation become a reality, but I hope we continue to have a conversation. I hope we recognise that there is risk in what we’re proposing here and that we do work to stem that risk and we do the work that ensures that we are still recognising the importance and value of family, that families will go through terrible times, there will be horrible situations, but sometimes there’s an opportunity to rebuild.

I hope, as we do this piece of legislation, work forward, as we continue to focus on family violence, that we have a real chance to recognise that no family is beyond redemption and that we equally balance the ability to dissolve a marriage with the ability to rebuild a family, and as we move forward, that we recognise the importance of marriage, we recognise the importance and solidarity that comes from a strong family, and we do all we can to ensure that is protected, moving forward. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā hoki tātou. Kua riro māku ēnei kawenga o Te Pāti Māori e tuku ki to tātou Whare. Nō reira ka tukunga i runga i te reo Māori, i roto i te reo Māori, kia kitea ake rā te rerekētanga o te whakaaro Māori i tō te whakaaro Pākehā.

Inā tētahi kupu kōrero nō te iwi Māori e mea ana “Taku wahine pūrotu, taku tāne pūrotu, kōrua ko te tau e”. Inā anō hoki tētahi kōrero e mea ana “He wahine, he whenua, ngaro ai te tangata”. Arā kē pea te kōmata o ēnei kōrero e mea ana “He wahine, he tāne e ora ai te iwi”. Nō reira hei reira te pūnaha, hei reira te puna o te whakaaro nui o te iwi Māori ki ēnei momo whakaritenga, tōna manako nui he tiaki i te whānau.

Nō reira kia tiakina ngā whānau ka tika, taha tāne, taha wahine. Engari ko te mea nui ko te taha ki ngā uri, te taha ki ngā mokopuna, te taha ki te whānuitanga o te whānau e hōrapa nei i ngā tahataha o te tangata kotahi kia ea ai te kōrero “Ko taku toa, he toa takitini, he toa takimano”.

Nō reira kei te tautoko atu mātou i tēnei ture. Kei te whakanuia tonutia ngā ringaringa, ngā waewae i oti nei i a rātou te whakakaupapa i tēnei ture. Hei aha? Hei hāpai i te oranga o te tāngata ka tahi; o te whānau ka rua; otirā o ngā tamariki mokopuna ka maua ki te kupenga o aituā, o raruraru, o aha rānei.

Nō reira e tika ana ngā whakanikohanga kua oti nei i ngā komiti te rāwekeweke, kia kaua rā e āhei te kaupēhipēhi, te kaupatu rānei kia tūkinotia anō e te kaihara. He ara e whai mana ai te katoa. He ara e whai mana ai te taha ki te whānau, otirā te taha ki te tāngata, i te mea kua aupēhitia e tētahi atu.

Kāore au mō te kī atu nā te ringaringa o te tāne, nā te ringaringa o te wahine rānei. Engari i te mea kua aupēhingia. Kia ahatia? Kia whitikina ki te ora, kia kaua rā e noho ki te pōuriuri, e rua tau te roa, neke atu. Me tō tātou mōhio, mō te iwi Māori, ēnei tūāhuatanga ka taka mai i roto i te pōharatanga, ākina e te waipiro, e te tarutaru, e te kore mahi, ēnei tūāhuatanga katoa.

Ō tātou koroua i haere ki ngā pakanga o te ao, i hoki pakaru mai, kīhai i āwhinatia. Ko tō rātou āwhina kei te puna o te pounamu waipiro, nāwai nāwai ka heke mai he taonga tuku iho te inu waipiro me ngā mahi katoa haere tahi me ia.

Nō reira ehara tērā i te kaupare atu i te tikanga whakatika, whakarauora i tō tātou whenua, i tō tātou iwi Māori, otirā ngā tāngata katoa e noho nei i roto o Aotearoa. I te mea ehara i te mea ko te pōharatanga he taniwha ka ngau i te Māori anake, kao. Tērā tētahi tokomaha e noho nei i roto o Aotearoa e patua kinotia e te pōharatanga, ngā māmā, ngā pāpā, ngā whānau, ngā tamariki, ngā mokopuna, ēnei tūāhuatanga, ākina e te waipiro, ākina e te tarutaru, ākina e te kore mahi, ēnei āhuatanga.

Nō reira kei te tautoko ake Te Pāti Māori i tēnei o ngā pire e mea nei tēnei taha, oti nei te katoa, arahina e tētahi, me taku mōhio he pire ā-mema tēnei. Nā ka whai hua, ka whai hua ngā inoi a te tūmatanui o waho, i roto i ngā pire a ngā mema nei. Nō reira he akoranga, tāku e whakapae nei he akoranga kei roto. Nō reira kia kaha tātou ki te manaaki i te tono o te tūmatanui ki te whai i ngā tikanga i waiho mai e ngā mātua tīpuna o ngā taha e rua o tēnei Whare, me te whakairo i te ara e ora nei te katoa.

E āmine atu. Tēnā tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all. It has fallen to me to convey to our House the responsibilities of the Māori Party. And so they will be addressed on the foundation of the Māori language, in the Māori language, so that the differences between Māori and Pākehā thought processes can be seen.

There is a saying of the Māori people that says, “My beautiful lady, my handsome gentleman, both of you are beloved”. There is another saying that says “Women and land are worth a man’s life”. And perhaps the highest form of these expressions says, “By women and men together the people will be well”. So therein is the system, therein is the source of wisdom of the Māori people for these types of arrangements, its greatest desire is to protect the family.

So it is appropriate that the family should be protected, both male and female interests. But the most important thing is the interests of the descendants, the interests of the grandchildren, the interests of the entire family that is spread out on all sides of the individual so that the saying will be realised “My strength is that of many, that of thousands”.

So we support this legislation. We continue to honour those who worked so hard and were able to complete the formulation of this legislation. For what purpose? To promote the health of the people, in the first instance; secondly, of the family; indeed of the children and grandchildren that have been caught in the trap of calamity, of difficulty, and of whatever else.

And so the enhancements that the committees have crafted are appropriate so that oppression and assault are not enabled so that they can again be abused by the offender. This is a path on which all maintain their mana. A path on which mana is maintained with respect to the family, and the people, because they have been oppressed by another.

I’m not saying that it was done by the hand of a man or by the hand of a woman, but because they were oppressed. What is to be done? Transcend to health so that they don’t remain in darkness for two years or more. And we are aware that, for the Māori people, these circumstances fall out of poverty, assailed by alcohol, drug abuse, unemployment, all of these types of things.

Our forefathers that went to global conflicts returned broken, and they weren’t assisted. The help they received was at the bottom of a bottle of alcohol, and eventually alcoholism became an inherited problem, and all the activities that go along with that.

So that is not a deflection of restorative procedures, healing our country, our Māori people; indeed, all people that reside here in Aotearoa, because it is not like poverty is a demon that assails only the Māori people, no. There are many people that live here in Aotearoa that are seriously beset by poverty; the mothers, the fathers, the families, the children, the grandchildren, all of these, assailed by alcoholism, assailed by drug abuse, assailed by unemployment, all of these things.

So the Māori Party supports this bill so says this side, indeed all of us, led by one, and, as far as I know, this is a member’s bill. And it will be of benefit, it will bring to fruition the requests of the public outside, within these members’ bills. And so there are lessons here, I put forward that there are lessons in this. And so let us all strongly support the requests of the public to follow the procedures that were left to us by the forbears of both sides of this House, and to carve a path by which all will benefit.

I am in support. Greetings to us all.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill.

I acknowledge, as the speakers before me already have, the genesis of the bill. I think it’s important, particularly as parliamentarians, that we do acknowledge the members of the public and ordinary New Zealanders who take it upon themselves to create extraordinary change. I certainly pay tribute to you, Ashley Jones, Charlotte Abrial and Adele for the work that you’ve done. I pay tribute to all the 5,000 people who’ve signed the petitions, and I pay tribute to all 32 of the Justice Committee submissions. I think being involved in the democratic process is a really great way to make change and we’re seeing it happen today; although, it has taken quite some time. I think the ability of ordinary citizens to create extraordinary change is something that we need to celebrate and it’s something that not every country is able to do.

I’m a member of the Petitions Committee and we were visited by a delegation from Laos and I think they were quite amazed at the level of access that the people had in New Zealand to change the law and to access their elected representatives. In that vein, I want to acknowledge the elected representatives whose work has led us to this point: the Hon Chris Bishop for receiving this petition; Angie Warren-Clark; the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for continuing this work; James Meager for chairing the select committee; the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual violence, Karen Chhour; the previous Minister, Marama Davidson; and the previous under-secretary, Jan Logie.

I’m really happy that the House is coming together on this. As the Minister the Hon Casey Costello said—and this is probably one of the few times that a Green MP will agree with something that Casey Costello said—this is, and should be seen, as a first step, an important first step, towards solving this issue. I’m sure we can all agree that this is just a step towards the broader problem of addressing family and intimate partner violence, but, none the less, a very important one because we shouldn’t need to wait two years to separate from abusive partners. This bill changes that. This bill is an important step towards removing those kinds of levers of control that violent and abusive people do exercise towards their partners, whether they’re male, female, or non-binary.

I want us as a House to consider the other factors that do exacerbate violence, and I do want us as a House to work together to continue to overcome and address some of those factors that do cause and exacerbate family violence. I want to ask: are we, as a Parliament and as a society, doing everything we can to ensure that victims of family and partner violence are provided access to assistance and support? Yes, family violence protection services, Women’s Refuge, women’s shelters, men’s shelters, and help signs, but also material support to enable people to transition people out of these violent situations. Are we, as a Parliament and society, doing everything we can to minimise the socio-economic conditions that exacerbate family violence? I was reading a paper earlier today in preparation for this speech and I think there was something that was quite alarming: every percentage point that unemployment increases is correlated with an increase in men being violent to their partners. We can’t just divorce what’s happening in households to the conditions of the wider society. This is the most important thing of all: are we building a just society that upholds and enhances the dignity of everyone, particularly our most vulnerable? I think all members would agree with me that we do want to see more action, that we all can do better.

Again, I want to pay tribute to those who brought this petition here: Ashley Jones, Charlotte Abrial, and Adele. Thank you for the work that you’re doing. And thank you to all the members for working together on this very important first step so that we can overcome the scourge of violence in our society.

The current law requiring a two-year wait period before you grant divorce in cases of family violence is not just outdated; it is dangerous. It keeps victims tethered to their abusers, prolonging their trauma, and it puts lives at risk.

As we’ve heard in submissions from submitters and from experts in the field, the period immediately following separation is one of the most dangerous and volatile periods that there can be for family violence. By mandating a two-year wait, we have run the risk of extending this period of heightened risk up until today.

This bill seeks to change that. By allowing for the immediate dissolution of a marriage or civil union upon the granting of a final protection order, we are granting victims a clear path to safety and to freedom. We are saying unequivocally that the State will not be complicit in keeping victims bound to their abusers.

Today is the conclusion of a long journey for victims of domestic violence and for the advocates for survivors of domestic abuse. Today represents a small but significant step towards empowering those trapped in abusive and violent relationships to extricate themselves, to break free from control and abuse, and to regain autonomy of their own lives. Importantly, this legislation does represent a collaborative, cross-party effort to continue to combat family violence and protect those most vulnerable in our society.

We all know here that family violence is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. This bill is not all of the solution; it is an important piece of the puzzle, though. By removing this barrier to leaving abusive relationships, we are sending a powerful message to those in those relationships, and that message is that we believe them, we support them, and we will not let legal technicalities stand in the way of their safety and their freedom.

It is worth noting that this legislation today has received broad support from across the political spectrum and from a wide range of community organisations. That consensus reflects the urgency and importance of this issue. It shows that when it comes to protecting the vulnerable and standing against family violence, we can come together to find common ground, and many speakers today have referred to that very point.

Like many of those speakers in the House today, I did want to acknowledge those individuals whose courage and determination have brought us to this: Charlotte Abrial; Ashley Jones in the gallery, who initiated petitions calling for this change; and another name to read into the Hansard is Adele, as Dr Russell mentioned earlier on. It is their bravery and their willingness to share their stories and their experiences of the abuse that they suffered, the sense of being trapped and shackled in relationships which were controlling and manipulative, which have enabled this change. By custom, we tend not to address visitors in the gallery, but I’m hopeful that we can relax that custom somewhat today so that we can acknowledge those true drivers of change—the Charlottes, the Ashleys, and the hundreds of others who have advocated and supported change for many years.

Change can take a long time and sometimes it seems frustrating that appeals to Parliament seem hopeless and fruitless, but the efforts of the likes of Ashley and Charlottee and Adele show that change is possible through the democratic process in this House. A petition can lead to a member’s bill, which can lead to scrutiny by a select committee, which can lead to positive law change that we are seeing in the House today. I’d like to say to those people that their voices have been heard and their advocacy has made a real difference.

Like many others today, I’d also like to acknowledge the hard and collaborative work of the Justice Committee. No doubt, anybody who experiences legislation done by committee can experience the frustration of trying to get things perfect and trying to produce a law which avoids all unintended consequences.

No doubt, there will be some people out there today who feel that this bill doesn’t go far enough. We’ve heard a bit of that today as well. I think, during the select committee process, of some of those proposed changes around the evidence requirements that were mentioned by Tamatha Paul; concerns about whether people will be rushed into decisions about relationships that might have impacts on spousal maintenance or property or custody. But underlying all those concerns, we must always be aware that, in striving to achieve perfection in bills, we’ve got to keep in mind the policy intent, which is to protect and support those in abusive relationships, to regain control of their lives and not be told by the State that they must remain legally connected to their abuser. Every individual and every free adult has the right to associate and not associate as they see fit within reasonable limited justifications. In my view, giving the State control over whether you remain legally connected to an abuser is not a justified limit on that freedom, and today that will change.

We have heard some criticisms throughout the process about the bill overturning our no-fault divorce system and slowly eating away at that otherwise clean system, but, of course, we don’t actually have a no-fault dissolution system. There is a requirement in our divorce and separation laws that couples must prove irreconcilable difference before they can obtain absolution. The only way to demonstrate irreconcilable differences is two years of not only emotional separation but physical separation. Yet we don’t stipulate those same controls or protections in place when people enter into relationships. In fact, we don’t even require formal documentation for legal obligations to arise in the case of de facto relationships. It is almost as though it takes two minutes to tie the knot but two years to break the shackles. I’m not entirely convinced that the State should continue to play such a controlling role over relationships and over our private lives, especially when violence and especially when abuse is present. Perhaps there is scope for further progress in this area, but perhaps that will also need to wait for another day.

Like others before me, I will acknowledge the Hon Chris Bishop, who supported Ashley’s petition, who raced Angie Warren-Clark to get a bill into the ballot, and who was pipped at the post. I’ll also acknowledge Ms Warren-Clark for her contribution in getting the bill in the tin and into the House. I wanted to pay particular respect to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, who has brought the bill through the House from Ms Warren-Clark. Dr Russell joined our committee on a number of occasions as we considered the bill, and I always found her contributions, at all times, of the highest quality, always insightful and thoughtful, and we were very grateful for her contribution and her advocacy on this issue and on this bill. It’s fair to say that New Lynn was very well represented on our committee, actually, with both Dr Russell and the member for New Lynn, my colleague Paulo Garcia, being a permanent member of the Justice Committee. The folks in West Auckland should rest assured that they are very, very well represented in this House by two very capable and competent advocates in their area.

I, finally, wanted to just acknowledge the tireless work of our front-line services and our front-line workers—those in Women’s Refuge, Victim Support, the National Council of Women, women’s organisations, men’s organisations, and countless others across the country who work every day in stopping-violence programmes and in family protection programmes. They are the ones who support victims of family violence, day in and day out. They are the ones who know that this legislation will be another small tool to help protect women, families, and men who are victims of violence. I want to acknowledge their advocacy throughout the submission process, their contributions, which have also led to progress in other areas of protection in the law, including stalking laws, which the Government has indicated it will be introducing later on this term. That is another outcome from the submission process that we can draw our attention to and point to as a positive, another contribution that the likes of Ashley have made to this House.

As we move forward, we must continue to work on making protection orders more accessible and more equitable. I think we should consider the recommendations from the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group’s report, which have suggested streamlining and reducing costs for protection orders and applications. Of course, our work is not done. Passing this bill is an important step but it must be part of a continued commitment from all of us to address family violence in all forms. We must remain vigilant. We must be ready to make further changes as are needed. We must commit to working together and commit to providing the resources necessary to make these legal protections a reality on the ground. This bill does represent progress. It represents compassion. It represents our commitment as a society to stand against family violence and to support victims of family violence.

I want to address those who may be listening who are currently in abusive relationships. This legislation is for them. It is a recognition of their struggles and it is a tool to help them find safety. I want them to remember that a protection order or a dissolution of marriage is just a small part of that journey. There are services and support available for them at every step. Please reach out. Please ask for help. They are not alone. There is more to be done, and we here across the House are ready to do it. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. This is a good bill that intends to reduce the harm that family violence causes in New Zealand families, by allowing a party to a marriage or to a civil union to be able to apply for an order dissolving that marriage or union if they have been a victim of family violence inflicted by the other party in the relationship.

I’d just like to acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, who supported, during her previous work with Women’s Refuge, also a whole range of women and families experiencing family violence—the support she gave—and she also took that experience and brought it to this House. I’d like to acknowledge Deborah Russell, who took this bill up and continued to pursue it through the House, and I’d like to acknowledge all the parties that are voting in favour of this bill today. I’d like to also acknowledge all those victims of family violence, including those women that inspired this bill. Your continued fight for having greater rights for victims in New Zealand takes another step forward today.

As already noted, there is support right across the House for this bill, and we’ve also seen support across the House for work kicked off by Labour and the Greens, Te Aorerekura, which is New Zealand’s first national plan for reducing family and sexual violence. It’s really important that we continue to have cross-party agreement on big issues such as family violence in New Zealand, but with that comes a word of caution, when we’re operating currently in an environment where police are now attending calls of family violence only if there is a high level of risk or threat to life or a seriousness that reaches a threshold, which no one can explain clearly and that must be very difficult to ascertain for a 111 call responder via telephone—to try and ascertain what the level of risk is.

On top of that withdrawal of services we’ve seen by police due to pressure on the front line, we’ve also seen a retraction of Government funding in the area of Oranga Tamariki preventative contracts that go into those whānau who are, more often than not, experiencing high levels of family violence and provide essential services such as counselling and support for families to be able to work with children and to enable children to remain within their whānau and not be uplifted due to unacceptable levels of either family or sexual violence. The withdrawal and the ending of many of those contracts compounds with police withdrawing from attending non - threat-to-life family violence call outs.

This, for me, raises real alarm bells for us here in New Zealand if we are serious about making our country violence-free for the next generation of rangatahi, for young New Zealanders. When someone reaches out for help in New Zealand, when someone is a victim of family violence, we need to be able to respond, and currently in New Zealand, there has been no additional resourcing for family violence support services to fill the gap left by those cuts to Oranga Tamariki and left by that withdrawal of service by New Zealand Police. That means we do have young people growing up in New Zealand being exposed to unacceptable levels of family violence on a day-to-day basis. I believe it is unacceptable that violence is normalised in young people’s lives. It contributes to a whole range of negative factors, and it also drives crime within New Zealand. If this Government was truly serious about reducing crime, it would also take family violence more seriously than just voting for a member’s bill.

I join others in rising to support this third reading of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. As the Hon Chris Bishop said earlier, what a satisfying day this is in Parliament, and this is all about the essence of Parliament coming together to fix a problem. I want to commend and acknowledge the three brave women that have done a lot of the heavy lifting in those early days with their advocacy and their work: Charlotte, Ashley, and Adele.

It goes to show, also, the work that a member of the public can actually do and the results that they can achieve when there seems—as all of us MPs get it from time to time—a level of cynicism in the community, period. That when you suggest, “Oh, why don’t you write to your MP?” or “Why don’t you make a submission?” or “Why don’t you put in a petition or why don’t you take it further?”” that, “Oh, nothing will change. I’m too small and too small a cog in the wheel to make change.” Well, Ashley Jones, in particular, has made a real case for others that if you’re prepared to do the work, you can change laws in the New Zealand Parliament through advocacy and through working with members of Parliament.

I want to acknowledge also Angie Warren-Clark, the former Labour member who introduced this bill just before the Parliament finished up in 2023; and our colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, who shepherded it through the Justice Committee in the past 12 months. She conscientiously worked alongside the Justice Committee in a—as has been acknowledged—bipartisan and productive way to get this in as good a shape as a bill could be to make it legislation.

Just to take people back—because I always think it’s important that everyone makes a slightly different contribution so that those that might be listening on radio or in the gallery or watching Parliament TV get a sense of just what’s come together to produce this third reading; this piece of legislation—I go back to the petition on the parliamentary website of Ashley Jones in 2021: “Change our archaic divorce laws so abuse victims can be free of their abuser”. Petition request: “That the House of Representatives review our current divorce laws in New Zealand and consider changing them.”

Petition reason: “Abuse is about power and control. I strongly believe that the laws stating I must be separated for 2 years before my marriage can be dissolved have allowed many occasions of power and control. It feels like the system has allowed him to abuse me further. We as a country pride ourselves on being anti domestic violence, yet I feel our laws are allowing it. We care about mental health, but being stuck in this state of limbo is damaging mine. Other countries have made [changes]; it’s our turn now.” So that was the purpose of the petition; that was the title of the petition back in 2021. According to the parliamentary website, the number of signatories was 5,310.

As well as that, I want to give an example not only of a member of the public or members of the public doing some of the heavy lifting but, really, the role of an MP in responding to that and taking it a step further. I want to read out an excerpt from Chris Bishop’s Facebook back in June 2021—and there’s a picture here of the Hon Chris Bishop and Ashley Jones. Chris is in a blue top, by the look of it.

“Meet Ashley”, says Chris on Facebook underneath that picture. “Did you know that in New Zealand, you need to be separated for 2 years before you can file for a divorce, even in the case of family violence?

“Ashley wants to change that and she’s put forward a petition to Parliament … which I’ll be proud to present to Parliament soon. [Link in the comments]

“Ashley has very bravely put herself forward as someone who has been affected by abuse within a marriage. She says that the current law allows abusers to continue to have power over former partners for up to two years, and that in some cases it keeps people in abusive relationships because it feels like there is no way out, or causes those that do try leave to be sucked back in by their abuser.

“Lots of other countries have exceptions to the stand down period for divorce for those that have suffered domestic violence. If you agree, please sign Ashley’s petition.

“The petition closes on 22 June [2021] and after that I will present it to Parliament.”

As they say, the rest is history.

I just thought it was important to take you through that early process and how it can be done on other aspects of our law in many different areas, in many different fields where the public can still put up legislative change. That is the benefit of private members’ bills—now commonly known as members’ bills—where if something has seemingly fallen through the cracks almost or hasn’t been acknowledged, a petition like Ashley’s can be positively responded to. This amendment bill, as we see today, will pass its third reading unanimously, by the look, across the House.

The National Party supports this bill as it introduces measures that make it easier to get a divorce in the case of family violence—that is the bottom line. We also, as has been alluded to by others, acknowledge the appalling rates of family and domestic abuse in this country, and we all know across this House that we want to address that and get better results for New Zealand families and New Zealand children. As has also been said, our work is not done. This is important to this Government. Hence, you see it as the fourth out of nine Government public sector targets where we want to reduce the number of victims of violent crime—people who are victims of assault, robbery, or sexual assault, for example—by 20 fewer victims.

This Government is committed to not only joining the forces across Parliament and around Parliament today in passing this legislation that Ashley and others have advocated for some years now but we are committed as a Government to making sure that the fights that we had during the election, with the public where they told us that they wanted us to crack down on the escalating criminal activities and level of violence and level of retail crime and level of assaults and level of serious assaults, ram raids, family violence—the public sent a clear message to this Parliament. While we acknowledge the success of getting this over the line shortly, our work has just begun.

I wanted to finish by assuring the House that this Government—a coalition Government of National, ACT, and New Zealand First—is absolutely committed to carrying on the work of cracking down on law and order, of getting some results for the New Zealand public, and of making New Zealand community and family a safer place for future generations. I commend the bill.

Thank you. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s a funny day in many ways when we’re doing something as important as this. I can imagine for those looking on for whom it’s been a long journey through what’s a pretty labyrinthine process to find themselves here and hear these speeches which, to be honest, are a little bit repetitious, because we do all agree with the process here.

In some ways, what’s going on in this place right here today is a bit of a formality. It’s an important formality, but I think it’s really important to recognise that this process—this formal process here today—actually represents a huge amount of work by a large array of people, and, most importantly, those women who came to this House and presented a petition and really just asked—I mean, what a great democracy we have when someone can come to this House and say, “Look, I think this is wrong. Can you fix it?” And someone picks it up and says, “You know, I think we can.”

As many have said, this is only one small part of what we need to fix, not only in all of New Zealand but just in the whole sphere of domestic violence. I’m proud of what the last Government and my colleagues and colleagues in the Green Party have done and are doing in the domestic violence space, with things like Ginny Andersen’s stalking bill, which the Minister of Justice has picked up and said he’s going to actually progress as a Government issue; and, of course, Angie Warren-Clark, who brought this bill to the House, and Deborah Russell, who pursued it; and the domestic violence leave bill, which I think Jan Logie brought and was picked up by the then Government as well—all really important things.

I think what this does—and what this bill, in particular, does—is kind of shift the thinking around what domestic violence is and what its consequences are and recognise that physical violence is only a small fraction of the harm that comes from domestic violence. Controlling behaviours and that kind of exertion of control from a distance, which is exactly what this bill is seeking to address, is as harmful in many ways as the physical violence itself, and as oppressive, and interferes with the leading of a normal and fruitful life just as much. This is just a small step. This is a formality, but an important one.

I just want to recognise once more the hard work that’s been done by everyone who’s contributed to this process. Along with the rest of the House, I won’t take up any more time, but I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to rise and stand in support of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill at its third reading, and I just wanted to reassure the member opposite, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, that this won’t be a repetitive speech because I have not spoken on this bill in this debate.

Look, this is a good change. It’s one tool in the toolbox to help those with domestic violence issues to gain freedom and move on. It’s a change that I think most New Zealanders would be shocked to learn isn’t already law, because of our high rates of domestic violence in New Zealand. We have one of the worst rates of domestic violence in the OECD. There’s about one-third of all family violence that’s reported, which means that two-thirds of all family violence in this country is not. Police attend a family violence episode every four minutes in this country, and 16 percent of all front-line police call outs are, in fact, related to domestic violence. Two-thirds of all family violence incidents have children present. The impacts of domestic violence are hugely disproportionate for Māori, for those with disabilities, and for children, with deep social and mental costs, not to mention economic costs.

This is a good change to enable the dissolution of a marriage without evidence within two years. It will enable those who have been through domestic violence to have the opportunity to break away and apply for divorce immediately, thereby freeing themselves of the harm and the pain that they’ve gone through.

We must do better as a society—we must do better as a society. We must move away, in my view, from the view that this is OK and thinking that “I’m a victim, and it’s OK for me to do this.” It is not OK to have domestic violence of any form—physical, mental, or other. Us men have to do better. We’ve got to do better in terms of role-modelling better behaviour, and we have to do a better job of taking personal responsibility for our actions, right across this country.

It is my privilege to commend this bill. I just want to acknowledge, of course, everybody that’s been in the discussion in the debate which I’ve heard today. It has been very moving. To all the petitioners—Ashley Jones, Charlotte, and Adele—thank you. To Angie Warren-Clark and Dr Deborah Russell, Chris Bishop, the hard-working Justice Committee, and all the petitioners—this is the result of your actions in signing those petitions, year in, year out. It has led us to this law change today, at the third reading.

I think the vision is quite clear for what we want the future of our country to look like: a safer country. For me, on this side of the House, it’s a country where personal responsibility is at the fore of all human interactions, and a society where there is zero tolerance of domestic violence. With that, I wish to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s getting quite late in the process and I’m very conscious about not unnecessarily delaying this formality, as my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb described it, or standing between the celebration that all of the people who have been involved in this process very richly deserve to have. I will be very brief, I promise. I just want to say a couple of things and then also pass on my thanks to all the people that are involved.

I think the no-fault system—if we cast our minds back, some of us—was introduced in the 1980s; in 1980, I believe. As laws often do, it improved the previous situation where the judge no longer had to consider the role of one party or another and who was at fault. Our divorce law is more than 40 years old now, and, as has been noted by several people who have made contributions through this process, it does need to be reviewed and it does need to be looked at. But that is not for today.

Today, we are thinking about this particular bill, the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I think that so many other people have very eloquently summed it up and have provided illustrative examples and provided nuance and perspective that I’m sure the Hansard will reveal, in due course, as being a worthwhile debate.

As a society, it sort of beggars belief that we’ve got to this stage and still rely upon those antiquated ways of thinking, but it’s part of a much bigger suite of antiquated ways of how we position intimate relationships and violence and dependency and gender roles and all those various sorts of things. I very much look forward to the fact that this bill—whilst it’s profound, while it’s impactful, and while it’s really important—may kick off a wider conversation about various other things.

I would like to acknowledge the Justice Committee. I would like to very, very sincerely, and most importantly, acknowledge Charlotte, Ashley, and Adele for all that they have done. I think it would probably be with the passing of time that they will fully appreciate their contribution, because I’m sure, at the moment, it feels as if a small thing has happened and, as time passes, they will realise that it’s a very large thing indeed.

I’d like to tautoko my colleagues the Hon Deborah Russell and the Hon Chris Bishop for what they said in the House today, and to particularly acknowledge the Hon Deborah Russell for her work that she has done in shepherding this bill through, very graciously always acknowledging everybody else’s contribution. That’s much appreciated. And, importantly, I just also want to acknowledge and congratulate Angie Warren-Clark. This was a real passion for her, and if she sees something is wrong, she’s one of those people that inevitably has to correct a wrong. She was very passionate and really proud to put this bill in the biscuit tin and very proud when it was pulled from the tin, and she got, I think, the privilege of being able to introduce it on that last day of the previous Parliament. So congratulations to everybody. It’s a good day, and I hope everybody is able to celebrate in their own way. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as the final contribution in this long journey for many women and men and children—but in particular, women, if you would allow me to say—across New Zealand and across the world, those that are the victims of family violence in its many forms. It’s a sombre conversation we’re having today, and rightfully so. It’s created a sombre mood because family violence is sombre. Family violence is one of those things that affects so many people and, for the most part, they travel through their days as though they’re not experiencing it, because you’ve got to put on a smile for the world.

I’m Lebanese. I was raised in a Lebanese traditional Catholic household, and I remember going to my Lebanese Catholic school in Punchbowl in Sydney back in the day when divorce was absolutely taboo. Of course, we’ve moved from that, in many respects, but I remember the few friends that I had in school whose mothers did insist that they leave their husbands for reasons of family violence, and the stigma that was attached to them because of the views of society.

We need people that are brave to call out that stigma and to say that stigma shouldn’t exist. We need people like Ashley Jones—thank you for being in the gallery again today—and that courage that I referred to in my second speech on this bill because some people don’t have that strength, because of the circumstances they find themselves in.

Family violence is about harming, it’s about controlling behaviour. What can this look like? It can be physical, it can be emotional, it can be psychological, financial, sexual, a combination of all of these. It could be as simple as giving someone the silent treatment for two years. Controlling behaviour; what can that look like? That can look like making sure a partner knows the password of their spouse’s phone, checking messages, checking social media pages, telling the partner what he or she should not wear, telling them who they should be hanging out with, who they should be having coffees with, who’s allowed to come home and visit them, telling them that they’re not allowed to watch TV—in fact, they should be doing other things—and telling them many times in a way that’s aggressive or passive aggressive. That’s what controlling can look like.

When I reflected on Minister Bishop’s first speech with respect to this bill, the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, the Hon Chris Bishop referred to culture change. He said—if I may quote—“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 … used to say, it will take a lot of cultural change as well.” My colleague Dan Bidois, the MP for Northcote, referenced that, but there’s a lot that we can do. There’s a lot that the gentlemen—or not so gentle men—in Aotearoa can do with respect to leading that cultural change. Again, I thank you, Ashley Jones, for being one of those leaders in this kaupapa.

Essentially, if we can wrap up for anyone listening from home, watching from home, this legislation, as we mentioned, was introduced into the House by MP Angie Warren-Clark, the former Labour MP, but there’s a lot of people that really put their hands together to make it what it is and to get it to where it is. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in this regard as well, and the Hon Chris Bishop.

As we’ve mentioned before, but I think it’s important in our wrapping up, the intention of this amendment bill is quite clear and quite succinct: to amend the Family Proceedings Act 1980, and the amendment will be that a party to a marriage or a civil union who has been the victim of family violence—who finds themselves the victim of family violence inflicted by the other party in the relationship—can apply for an order from the Family Court to dissolve their marriage or civil union, and that is to get a divorce without having to wait, as they do now, for two years to pass. This bill will remove the requirement for these parties to live apart for two years before a dissolution can be acquired.

In researching more and deeper about the need for this change, it’s interesting, and if someone has a spare 10 minutes on their hands, they can look back to the history of divorce law in New Zealand. It was referred to as divorce in the past, but then it became dissolution of marriage. It kind of started around 1867, formally, technically, and people had to, basically, go through Parliament, at first, to get a divorce. I’m sorry to my male colleagues in the House, but women, you know, men could get divorced from women if they were unfaithful, but women couldn’t necessarily get divorced from men on those grounds, and I’m not saying that I’m condoning any type of unfaithfulness, but that was the case, and we’ve come a long way. Then, in 1981, the Family Proceedings Act 1980 came into effect and it moved divorce from the High Court to the newly created Family Court—just a bit of history there. From that date, for legal purposes, divorce became known as how we’ve been referring to it, as “dissolution of marriage”, again in the Family Court.

As we conclude this final contribution on this bill, I would like to say that, on a personal level, as I’ve mentioned, I was raised in a household where divorce isn’t very common, and I’d like to read a quote, if I may, because I understand and I agree that in the situations that we’ve canvassed over the three stages of this bill, there’s an absolute need for this change to take place. But I’ve also seen families that try and work through it together, and this is where this quote comes to mind, a quote by Mother Teresa: “It is easy to love the people far away. It is not always easy to love those close to us. It is easier to give a cup of rice to relieve hunger than to relieve the loneliness and pain of someone unloved in our own home. Bring love into your home for this is where our love for each other must start.”

I encourage people to step out of themselves and look into themselves—are they abusing? Are they the perpetrators of violence?—and think about quotes like that. Thank you, Ashley. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill.