Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I follow on from our previous speaker, Kahurangi Carter, in speaking to the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. Firstly, I would like to echo what the previous speakers have said already, which is our gratitude towards both the Hon Ginny Andersen for bringing this bill to the House and then the Hon Paul Goldsmith for carrying this bill on, as well as for the fact that we have support from all parties on this particular bill. This bill is incredibly important because it allows us to make further improvements to our court system, where victims of family violence are being further abused, or are further experiencing trauma as a result of everything they have already been going through, in what the commentary on this bill has mentioned as being litigant abuse.

In terms of this particular bill, there are a number of areas that we wanted to highlight in terms of the fact that it does allow judges to provide this order in order to prevent such litigant abuse that may be used, and there are some measures being put in place if a judge is satisfied that it’s not going to be done in a way that is going to cause the victims further trauma. There are, obviously, some concerns around this, particularly when it comes to the fact that this may allow for more unrecorded incidents of family violence and domestic and sexual violence. I think this is somewhere that we need to be quite vigilant and keep monitoring, and to also keep supporting and keep raising awareness and be proactive in our approaches in preventing such domestic and sexual violence—approaches undertaken by both the previous Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence as well as the present Minister.

The other couple of areas I wanted to highlight as well are that in this particular case, what is really important in this bill is that it will help victims to regain trust in our court system, knowing that the court system is sympathetic, and it is also really, really important that we do take a very victim-centred approach when we are looking at victims of family violence. One of the things that I would like to see is this, and this is carrying on from other bills that we have been speaking on in the House as well, particularly when it comes to the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I think that the whole idea here is that we want to make our court system and our justice system one that is approachable and that is welcoming. So I would also like to see things further improve in the context of what has been released in the Turuki! Turuki! report, particularly around having access to something like a Whānau Ora navigator, which may be able to help victims of family violence to also navigate the court system in a way that means that they are able to go through that process with dignity.

I think that this bill is pretty straightforward and it has got everyone’s support. The Green Party supports this bill, and we commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It seems like just yesterday we were debating this bill, so it’s a great pleasure to be back up and continuing the cross-party support fest that we’re having this afternoon, because we have another bill which has been well received by the House and well supported across the House. So it is a real pleasure to be able to speak to this particular bill.

This is, of course, one of the many bills that’s come through the Justice Committee, and I wanted to thank the members of the Justice Committee—the busy and effective Justice Committee—for their ongoing collegiality and hard work as they work through these bills.

It’s interesting because we had, actually, a number of bills in this space. As the previous speakers mentioned, the bill was actually brought to the previous Parliament just before it dissolved last term on 29 August and has made its way through to this Parliament—so it’s been picked up by Paul Goldsmith. One of the things I wanted to point to was, throughout the debate on this bill, it’s one of a few family violence and sexual violence bills that we have considered as a committee and it became known as the “Litigant Abuse Bill” because of the title. We had very similar titles. We had the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, we had the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, and then we had this bill. And because of some of the confusion around which particular bill we were addressing, this bill became known as the “Litigation Abuse Bill”.

That’s important, because one of the changes that the select committee actually made throughout the process was to change one of the terms in the bill from preventing “abuse of the court” to what it is actually intended to do, and that is preventing abuse of individuals, harassment of others through litigation and through use of the court’s processes. And that’s the real intent of the bill: to protect victims of family violence and to protect individuals from harassment, from intimidation, and from annoyance from estranged spouses or former partners or other family members by using and abusing the processes of the court. That’s the key part or the key purpose of this bill.

The other thing that this bill does is it makes a couple of further changes. The bill originally removed a provision around vexatious litigation. We decided to actually make sure that that term wasn’t removed from other pieces of legislation because it’s still important that those processes or that vexatious litigation can be prevented. This particular piece of legislation won’t prevent that because that’s the instance when you are, maybe, a self-represented litigant or you are repeatedly processing applications on your own behalf and you become vexatious, not necessarily with the intent to abuse or harass others.

There were a number of submitters who thought the bill didn’t go far enough and who made some very strong and valuable submissions around whether or not we could expand the bill to cover off instances of stalking, because New Zealand doesn’t have a stalking law. It’s interesting because I think that was met with a lot of approval across both sides of the committee, to the point where I’m sure it wouldn’t be out of turn to say that we were considering drafting a member’s bill around stalking. And then, lo and behold, Ginny Andersen beat us—or pipped us at the post, to use a better analogy—before the end of the year. Then, of course, Minister Goldsmith has also indicated that the Government may be interested in picking up a stalking bill as well.

So there is some further good news to come from this particular piece of legislation. It’s been well supported across the House. I look forward to seeing its passage through second reading, through committee of the whole House stage, and through the third reading. With that, I will commend it to the House.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to rise and take what will be a brief call and contribution on this bill. It’s one that we do support because, as the member who’s just resumed his seat indicated, it was one that we introduced because we saw that there was an issue, and this was a way in which this particular issue could be fixed.

The fact of the matter is that when we look at the issue of litigation, most people in our community would think and expect that those who are involved in litigation do so with good intent and good intentions, but the reality is that there are some in our community for whom they utilise litigation for other means and other purposes to perhaps not seek justice, which is what this is all about, but to rather try and continue to exert a level of control, harassment, or just being able to continue to have some level of communication or contact with those who in many circumstances, sadly, are their victims.

What this bill seeks to do in one particular element is it allows the presiding officer of proceedings to actually adopt a fairly broad view when it concerns the issue of an individual’s conduct. Rather than looking at a form of behaviour or conduct in isolation, this bill will empower those judicial officers who are making decisions to actually step back if they need to and to look at a broader range. If there are sustained patterns of behaviour, that would give them rise to take a particular course of action, rather than looking at just the one issue of behaviour in isolation, on its own merits. This bill will amend a number of pieces of legislation that relate to courts within the hierarchy of courts, really, in New Zealand to achieve that.

It’s also important that the bill, as I understand it, introduces a new section 12B into the Family Court Act. We’re looking at Family Court judges who, let’s face it, often deal with circumstances and cases that are extremely difficult, that relate to familial relations, whether those are wanted or unwanted, in some circumstances. This will give the Family Court judge presiding over a matter the authority to, basically, call a halt or a stop to proceedings if they think that a party to proceedings is actually using that process as a way of abusing the system. Those are just two examples, but it is great to see that this is well supported across the House. I commend this bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I too would like to share my support for this bill, the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. We’re in the second reading, and I tautoko what my colleagues around the House have been expressing about this bill. I’d like to turn our attention to the key themes that emerged from the submissions during the Justice Committee stage. These five things were that litigation abuse is indeed an issue, access to justice needs to be maintained for both parties, children’s welfare and best interests need to be considered, there are concerns that measures could harm victims, and systematic change is needed to enhance the protections the bill offers.

Here, I’d like to just highlight one of the submissions, by Backbone Collective. They submitted that in their 2017 Family Court survey, involving 496 victims/survivors who had been involved in Family Court proceedings, 50 percent said that they experienced litigation abuse. This amendment bill is absolutely needed, and, indeed, with our victim-centric approach, this will help make sure that victims are put at the forefront when it comes to addressing their needs and their concerns. It’s to strengthen the court’s ability to respond to litigation abuse. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s great to have so much cross-party support for this important piece of legislation. It’s excellent to see the survivors of family violence being supported in this way. I have to say, as mental health Opposition spokesperson, it would be better to see more support for the mental health elements that concern family violence, and particularly with the links to suicide. Doing this one tweak, while it’s good, is not going to solve some of the problems.

We’ve heard a lot about what the bill does, but I think it’s timely, in a way, just to be aware of some of the statistics which link family violence through to suicide that have come out from Women’s Refuge. This is important because it shows how important it is to have a bill like this that supports survivors of violence. Each year, more women die of suicide than of homicide. Suicide after family violence is one of the leading causes of death in New Zealand, and about half of women accessing mental health services have experienced current or recent family violence, according to Women’s Refuge. So I would like to acknowledge the 47,000 people who die globally each year from family violence, the nine women and the two men on average that die each year.

I say this because we need to strengthen all areas that can support the wellbeing, including the mental wellbeing of families, so that they are not made more vulnerable. This goes one step, but we need to see far more support because what we have seen from this Government is the pulling apart of the Suicide Prevention Office. We’ve seen gaps in responses to 111 calls, which often emanate from family violence situations where we don’t know who’s going to be there to pick up the pieces. Will it be the police or others? We’ve seen no workforce plan yet in the mental health sector, and we have a Minister that doesn’t know what his budget is.

So, great to have the piece of legislation. I look forward to this Government looking at the totality of the links between family violence, suicide, and mental health so that we can get some real progress in this area.

It’s with great pleasure that I stand here in support of the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. This reflects our victim-centric approach from this Government that has somehow stretched out and won support across the aisle. I am very pleased that here on the last day of our sitting this winter that, again, we have got support across the House. It also shows people listening to “truth radio” or watching Parliament TV, they can see just how much we as a Government are focused on not just a victim-centric approach but on law and order and on cracking down on law and order.

It gives me great pleasure to support this bill. This bill will, of course, make amendments that strengthen the court’s ability to identify and to respond to instances where an individual attempts to use court systems and family proceedings to harass, annoy, harm, or psychologically abuse people.

There were not a lot of submissions, but in the submissions that we got there were some key themes that I just want to touch on. Submitters said that litigation abuse is a frequently occurring family violence issue. There are a number of comments relating to justice rights. Approximately a quarter of submitters raised concerns about the bill’s impact on children. Submitters also expressed concern that the provision could harm victims, and submitters also highlighted the need for systemic change.

The Justice Committee recommended refinements to the bill to ensure the new provision better recognises the impact of litigation abuse on victims. In response to submitters’ concerns, the revised bill now focuses on the harm to the targeted party rather than focusing on this behaviour being in the abuse of the court’s process, and uses wording to further signal the serious nature of litigation abuse, while still ensuring protections and access to victims.

To wind up, the bill will make amendments that will strengthen the court’s ability to identify and respond to instances where an individual’s attempt to use the court system in family proceedings to harass, annoy, harm, or psychologically abuse people is limited and victims are protected. I finish as I began: the focus of our approach as a Government is not on defending the offender or protecting the offender but protecting the victim. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, a bill introduced by the Labour Party in the last Government. It’s no surprise to the last speaker, Cameron Brewer, I hope, that the Labour Party is supporting this bill. He makes it sound like we’ve suddenly come to our senses, when, in fact, of course, this cracking good idea came from the Labour Government and also from the advocacy and knowledge of Dr Emily Henderson, a Labour MP in the last Parliament. I want to recognise the work that she did.

The overall scheme of the bill has been well traversed. Can I just thank the people who did come to the Justice Committee to submit, both those experts, the advocates, and also those who had real, personal experience of litigation abuse. I think it’s one of the real conundrums of the court system that we hold very dear this almost ancient concept of free access to the courts and the idea that any person can come to the courts to air their grievances and seek redress. But, in throwing the doors of the court wide open, that right, that entitlement, can be abused. Whilst, in some contexts, it’s perhaps not too harmful—in commercial law, perhaps even in the law of political questions that the courts might be considering, we can put those vexatious claims to one side. But when we’ve got people who are vulnerable—they’re not necessarily victims here in the sense of criminal law, and I was a bit perplexed by the last speaker’s constant reference to victims. These are disputants, largely, to family proceedings. Yet, it is the case that those proceedings can be used to harass, annoy—and, as we noted in committee, that doesn’t really pitch it high enough. I can assure you that legal proceedings are annoying at any time, but the concept of abuse, of that harassment and annoyance reaching a level where it is intended to cause actual harm, psychological harm, to the other party.

I just want to touch on one other thing, and that is actually quite an important point that hasn’t really been focused on. Traditionally, vexatious litigants have been seen as abusing the process of the court, and the kind of party that is wronged has generally been considered the court or even the justice system, or whatever. On reflection, that’s not really appropriate in the modern world, because the real person who is harmed is the litigant who is being harassed. That’s why the language was changed away from it being an abuse of the procedure of the court, or an abuse of the court, to being an abuse of the other party to the litigation. I think that’s a really significant and important shift. It’s actually a shift of the philosophy underpinning this kind of vexatious litigant or abusive litigant problem. Now, the question isn’t, “How is the court harmed?” or “How is the administration of justice harmed?” At least in respect of this piece of legislation, the question is, “What is the degree of harm being caused to the other party to the litigation, and does it reach an appropriate threshold?”

Look, it’s worth noting that it has to be significant; it has to be more than just annoying, because the consequence is a very significant limitation on the right to go to court and ask for a remedy and to raise concerns of breach of rights or law. I think we’ve struck the right balance, and obviously, from here, this bill will be discussed further and may be subject to further improvement. It is good that this is a bill which has crossed Parliaments, crossed parties, and is still being supported around the House.

So, with that, I’ve identified those matters I did want to highlight. Once again, thanks to Emily Henderson for the work that she did, and I think she should recognise this as a legacy that she left the last Parliament and this Parliament. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take the final call on the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.

Last Friday, I had the privilege of having the Minister of Police and Corrections in Whanganui, and it makes me reflect on the victims that are going to experience the new justice hub, Te Puna Hapori, in Whanganui that’s currently being constructed. As this bill navigates its way through the House, I’m looking forward to the opportunity that victims who present at that new court space, as it’s built, are going to be able to feel like they are the centre of focus, because we are bringing in legislation that is focused on victims. I really like the language that my colleague and great MP Rima Nakhle spoke about before, when she said that this is a victim-centric bill. I think, as we take this through the House, it’s really important to remember that victims are at the focus of this bill.

The bill strengthens the courts’ ability to respond by removing individuals’ attempts to use the courts to harass, to annoy, to harm, and to psychologically abuse others. You know, New Zealand is not the United States; we’re not a litigious nation. We shouldn’t put victims in a space of feeling like the law can be used against them—that they can end up, ultimately, feeling like they’re in the United States because there’s this litigious focus that they can get caught in, in court proceedings that are only designed to batter and wear them down. This bill addresses that challenge.

Given the second reading of this bill has been broken over two days, I thought that it would be valuable as part of the conclusion of the speeches in the second reading to reference back to Minister Goldsmith yesterday, who talked about the purpose of this bill. It is about ensuring that we don’t have the misuse of court proceedings, particularly when it is about disturbing or is intended to hurt victims. The purpose of this bill is to, as I said, strengthen the court’s ability to respond to litigation abuse, and the Minister spoke yesterday about that. It gives the courts a tool to protect victims from litigation abuse. It focuses on the harm to the targeted party rather than the behaviour, and this, I think, is a key distinction of the legislation. It shows the focus that we have on the victim—the target of the harm, if you like—rather than on the behaviour. It’s intended to capture, and I quote, “a pattern of behaviour that leads to litigation abuse”.

This has been through select committee, as we know—the hard-working Justice Committee, which I have the opportunity to serve on a regular basis as a sub-in. There were two key changes—

Cameron Brewer: Honorary member.

CARL BATES: An honorary member—my fellow colleague here, Cameron Brewer, says—of the Justice Committee. I always look forward to my opportunity to participate, because they are engaged in ensuring that the best legislation is presented to this House, and I just want to acknowledge the chair of the Justice Committee who’s led that, James Meager, member of Parliament.

The two key changes that came through that process were, firstly, to better recognise the impact of litigation on the abuse victim. Now, that was a key change that came through the opportunities that they had through the submissions that were provided to the select committee, when they weren’t interrupted—the select committee submissions. And then, secondly, to focus on harm to the targeted party—and that required just some changes in the wording to ensure that that was clear and articulated well. The bill would focus, as we said, on the victim’s rights and prevent the repeated—and I think that’s key to this bill: the repeated target of threats, assaults, and serious physical violence.

I haven’t been in the position that I’ve had to worry about this situation. Just reading the bill, reading the submissions, reading the notes that have come with this, I would hate to be in the position of one of those victims who is the target. That’s a pretty strong word in the context of this legislation—the target of threats, abuse, and serious physical violence. I think that we need to fix that. While I acknowledge that the Opposition brought this bill into the House prior to the last election, like many things, it is this Government that is delivering and getting it done. This is, as my colleague Cameron Brewer said, a new dawn as we come through the end of the winter session of this House—a new dawn for victims so that we can ensure they no longer have to feel like the target of this abuse.

Finally, if I can just acknowledge once again the hard work of the Justice Committee, thank them for getting this to the House, and just say that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.