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

Members, the House is in committee on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a few remarks before we start. I want to, first of all, place on record again—I’ll keep on doing this—the names of the people who have been so much concerned with this bill. First of all, Ashley Jones, who is a woman who had the courage to bring this to a local MP and then to see it through, and, before that, Charlotte Abrial, who brought a petition to this House—both women who had experienced family violence and felt that they ought to be able to leave their civil union or marriage long before the two-year period of separation.

From there, I wish also to commend the Hon Chris Bishop, who worked with Ashley Jones and was also instrumental in getting—maybe not this particular bill—this idea to the House, and, especially, my dear friend and former colleague Angie Warren-Clark, whose bill this was, when it was drawn out from the ballot. It’s a real honour to be taking it through the House on behalf of Angie. This is one of those bills where the House is entirely in agreement. It’s obviously something that is needed, when the entire House agrees on it.

Just a quick reminder to members of what the bill actually does: what it does is it ensures that, in cases of family violence proven by there being a final protection order against either one or both parties, the person who is being given protection by the order can apply to have a marriage or a civil union dissolved immediately rather than waiting for a two-year separation period to occur. It moves us away from no-fault divorce, which is, in some ways, a shame because there’s some real merit to the notion of no-fault divorce, but it’s also an indicator that our law around divorce is perhaps in dire need of being updated. So, although it does move us away from no-fault divorce, I think it is a move worth taking.

The Justice Committee did some really good work with the bill. They tidied up a lot of the provisions while making sure that the intent remained intact. In particular, the tidy-up was around ensuring that the cases where a person can apply to have their marriage or civil union dissolved immediately only applies in the case of a final protection order, not a temporary protection order—you have to wait until all the appeals periods have finished. Those are the major things that the select committee did to ensure that this piece of legislation worked as intended. I’m very grateful to the select committee for working so hard on it, and thank you to James Meager, who chairs that select committee. So, with those remarks, I’m happy to take members’ questions.

I rise to speak, and I have spoken on this bill, and we are in support, but I rise to speak in support of an Amendment Paper that we have submitted. This amendment is seeking to insert an additional clause in 39A, and, effectively, it’s asking to seek a protection in place for the applicant, that we have some insurance that legal advice has been obtained. I would like to preface this, in discussing that, and I would be grateful for the member’s response in terms of this. We are putting this amendment sincerely because we believe there is some risk here.

I think if we go back to the purpose of the bill, it was to seek to reduce harm caused by family violence. That is the key point on which we have reservations. I think it’s our duty in this House to really carefully consider the practical implication of the decisions that we make. That is why I’m talking about this amendment. We know that the volatility and the level of concern that exists—heightened emotions, the vulnerability of victims of family violence—and that in the effort to flee the shackles of that relationship, decisions will be made. It applies to the fight or flight nature of taking decisions. Our concern is that in this emotional time of seeking to terminate a relationship as quickly as possible, there is risk of additional victimisation through the fact that we have failed to ensure that the victim in this scenario is afforded full protections, because in the nature of property settlements and in the nature of this terminating of a relationship, we can end that bond but it doesn’t end that abusive relationship.

I think we would be deceiving ourselves if we said the dissolution means that that abusive relationship ends because then it’s terminated. If that was the case, we wouldn’t have the need to continue protection orders. We know that, at the termination of dissolution, that abusive relationship can continue, and, therefore, we want to make sure that there is some level of protection. If there’s property, if there’s custody issues of those things, in the speed and haste of terminating the relationship we aren’t further victimising the applicant in this matter. This is why I’m talking about the risk around—you know, the termination of a relationship is a business; it is a process. Under the two years of separation of that process, you could work through all of those issues around property and selling businesses and ensuring that you get the right legal advice and ensuring that you are not acting emotionally and agreeing to things. We just want to end it. So, yes, I’ll agree to “You have this and I have this and you have that.”, and we just are in an emotional state of risking rushing through decisions that will impact your life for a long time.

I think I’d go back to the point that we’re making, and I say this sincerely: we absolutely, New Zealand First, are totally committed to doing anything we can to ensure we reduce the impacts of family violence. But I think we’re being disingenuous if we suggest that the dissolution is “That’s it. You’re free and clear.” We know that’s not the case. Therefore, because it’s not the case, we need to make sure that when we go through this process, there are full protections—that there is no risk that a rushed decision is being made; that there’s no risk that we are allowing an emotional state, a vulnerable state, to be the method under which this marriage is dissolved. That’s why we’re seeking this amendment to look at an opportunity to give pause so that we know that the applicant is required to get independent legal advice, that there is some level of protection through this process. We are absolutely in the best interest.

I think we have to be really honest when we make these decisions, that this dissolution is not the end of the story and that the risk of an elevated volatility and the dissolution has to be considered. Therefore, we want to make sure that there is some protection in place. That’s why I hope the amendment will be considered.

I thank the speaker Casey Costello for the points she’s made. I’ve had a look at the amendment that’s been proposed, and I take the point about not acting in haste.

We’re about to go to the dinner break, so I do want members to think about this during the break, because the point raised is a good one. However, I just want to raise a couple of other things that people might like to think about. One of the characteristics of family violence is that the abuser can hold his or her victim in thrall and can put up all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that a person is held in a relationship against their will. I note that in the proposed Amendment Paper, it says that each party has to receive independent legal advice and each signature has to be witnessed by a lawyer, and so on. Now, I can foresee a situation in which an abuser would just refuse to get the legal advice, so it would hold the process up. It would actually just defeat the entire purpose of the bill because it continues to hold the victim in the thrall of his or her abuser. Again, I’ll be anxious to hear what other people think about this, but I think for that reason I couldn’t support this amendment as written.

Two other points: one is that, typically, a temporary protection order comes in first. If it is undefended, it becomes a permanent protection order at three months. It’s not an immediate emotional reaction. There is a three-month period in which there is time for people to work through some of the issues. In terms of the custody of children, I just want to direct the member’s attention to the bill. Clause 6 in the bill introduces new section 39A into the Family Proceedings Act 1980, and that new section 39A(6)(c) says that the matters in section 45 of the Family Proceedings Act have to be addressed, and those are the matters around the custody of children. Right—so there is protection for custody of children there.

That leaves only the property matters—good point, but I am concerned about the fact that this amendment would actually just defeat the entire purpose of the bill by ensuring that the ties to the abuser remain in the abuser’s control, and that, I think, becomes worrying. I’m looking forward to hearing what other members have to say to that when we return to this bill after the dinner break.

The time has come from me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Members, the committee is resumed. Just as a reminder, the question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

It’s always great to come together when there is unanimous agreement across the House. It always feels nice. Of course, today, we’re here because we are wanting to reduce the harm that family violence causes, and we all know how long these ramifications can go on for—trauma for a lifetime, in some cases.

I just wanted to ask the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell if she had considered whether there are any specific procedural safeguards in place to ensure that the application process does not further endanger any party involved, and what measures are in place to protect the safety and confidentiality of individuals involved in the dissolution process, particularly if there are any concerns about potential retaliation or further abuse. Thank you.

I thank the member Kahurangi Carter for her question. I think the protections that are in place are the standard protections that are in place for a temporary protection order and a permanent protection order. If a dissolution is applied for on the grounds of having a permanent protection order, it is not so much the dissolution itself that is providing the protection, or the processes around that; it’s the processes around the permanent protection order.

The question is that Jamie Arbuckle’s tabled amendment to insert new section 39A(10) in clause 6 be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.