Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to speak in this debate, on behalf of the National Party, in support of the second reading of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for shepherding this member’s bill through the House.

I do want to also place on record my acknowledgments to Angie Warren-Clark, who introduced this bill in the first place, on the very lucky last day of the last Parliament. I was fortunate to work with Angie Warren-Clark for several years on the Social Services and Community Committee, and I know how tirelessly she worked in the area of family violence, and how pleased she would be to know that this bill is progressing.

There are many origins of members’ bills. As the member before me, who is in charge of this bill, said, sometimes it comes through a petition. In this instance, there were two petitions. I want to acknowledge Ashley Jones for taking this issue to her local member of Parliament, to my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop. I had the opportunity to meet with Ashley when I was the Opposition spokesperson for family and sexual violence, and it was a pretty harrowing discussion when she was talking about her experience and why she felt it was so important to get a change.

I do feel really fortunate to be able to now contribute to this debate that started with an issue that someone who was so deeply affected by family violence and was frustrated by her inability to not just escape the relationship but actually legally escape her marriage, that she brought the issue to her member of Parliament, took the time and effort to bring a petition to Parliament, and then to contribute to this member’s bill process. I want to acknowledge her for that.

I think the reality is that we only get a law change when, in this case, strong women are able to stand up and talk about what they have gone through. It’s bad enough that a woman has to endure family violence, but then to feel that the very legal system entraps them further and doesn’t enable them to complete that process to free themselves of what is just an incredibly awful situation. As my parliamentary colleague Dr Deborah Russell, who spoke before me, said, it is such a significant point for someone—and it is predominantly women, so I will use “woman”—when a woman makes the decision to leave that abusive relationship to then find that there are significant legal barriers, and, actually, that is when the risk is high.

I think it is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to do everything we can to make that journey faster, to ensure that there are sufficient legal protections, and although one could say the divorce legislation is completely outdated in the scheme of how bad we are in terms of family violence in this country and , you know, does it really make a difference? Well, it will for the women who see that the very reality of having to wait for two whole years—that’s a very, very, very long time to continue to be controlled in a relationship that you wish to exit and are powerless to do so. I think this is a really sensible bill and a really important one.

I do think the area of family violence is an area where there are greater opportunities for our Parliament to work across the House, across Government, across party to actually take sensible, practical steps that improve the lives of family violence victims, and to take steps and measures that make it easier for someone to stand up to choose to end the relationship and to give them every single support to do that, because, too often, whether it is Women’s Refuge or the Backbone Collective, organisations like that, who give example after example of a system that seems to do everything against a woman’s ability to leave. I do think this is a sensible, practical step that we can do to protect those who are our most vulnerable and to ensure that, actually, our legal system serves them as it should. The reality for many victims is that the prospect of having to navigate a complex and often intimidating legal system to dissolve their marriage or partnership just adds another whole layer of stress and trauma at the very time that they’re perhaps least able to take on an additional burden.

Family violence is incredibly harmful to the person experiencing that violence, but we also need to acknowledge that, too often, there are children involved in the family who witness it as well. We do know that when children see violence at home, it can have implications across their entire life course, so we must do everything possible to break that intergenerational cycle. I think if you think about that additional challenge for a woman who’s trying to free herself from a relationship where violence is used, then in terms of that process to separate and dissolve marriage, where children are involved is that much more challenging. We cannot, in good conscience, allow our legal system to add to the suffering of those who have already endured so much.

Looking at addressing some of the barriers that are in place, I think, is important so we don’t put additional hurdles in place. This is a very sensible one. It’s quite often that people will say, “Why isn’t this already the law? Like, why doesn’t this already happen?”, because it seems such common sense. But this process and members’ bills, I think, are a really good opportunity to solve some of those problems that everybody thinks are already done, and is a common-sense thing to do. You see that with support across the House today.

The proposed changes to the Family Proceedings Act will obviously be a practical step, but we do know, in the area of family violence, that there is so much work to do. This is a simple step but actually a very, very important step for the victims of family violence that will find life that little bit easier in terms of breaking the shackles of a violent relationship.

My colleague Chris Bishop spoke in the first reading of this bill. We all know that legislative change is only one small step in the battle that we must make, which really is about a significant cultural change. That is made more possible when we make law change, when we highlight issues, and we demonstrate some of the practical steps that we can make as well. We know that, in New Zealand, we can and must do better to reduce family violence, where everybody has the opportunity and freedom to lead happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives, and everyone should have a life and a home that is free from violence. With this very simple step of simplifying the divorce process for victims of family violence, we can ensure that they are not burdened further and that we can help break the cycle of intergenerational family violence and abuse.

With that, I fully commend this bill to the House. I acknowledge any work that our Parliament can do to make women safer and fewer victims of family violence. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tēnā anō tātou katoa i tēnei pō. E mihi atu ana ki a tātou ki runga i tēnei kiri pae āhua me tēnei ture, ki mua i te Whare.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and greetings again to us all here this evening. Acknowledgments to us all here and this bill present in the House.]

On behalf of Te Rōpū Kakariki, I stand and I wish to extend my thanks and gratitude that we are all united on the importance of this legislation. I have a speech prepared and it’s got all of the main key points, but I just want to recognise Auntie Angie and Auntie Debbie for leadership on this matter. Angie Warren-Clark worked with my mum many years ago and my mum is a refuge worker. We have been raised, as wāhine Māori, picking up the pieces of broken families for far too long. As a young woman, my mum would take us to help get mothers and children. It impacts you because you know that woman is stuck.

This legislation is about time. It’s probably 20 years late, but we’re here now and it’s awesome that we are united in moving forward on this to allow women—and other spouses; you know, tāne mai, wāhine mai—the ability to leave according to their own tikanga so that they can escape family violence in the home and that our babies can be raised in loving whānau where they will not fear violence tomorrow.

I recognise Ronnie Albert. Te Whakaruruhau—biggest women’s refuge in the country—all the women’s refuges across the country who help whānau gather back up the pieces and try to get them to make good decisions. The decision to leave is so hard, and when they do make that decision to leave, they’re stuck because they cannot divorce. That is used as a tool for power and control over the woman for two years, so this legislation is about time.

I think of Waitomo Papakāinga in Kaitāia. Katie Murray, she’s hard out and she’ll tell you a few straight facts. She is on the front line. She is the chair of Te Rarawa and she is committed to the elimination of family violence and sexual violence in Kaitāia. Our whānau need this legislation now and into the future, and I’m so grateful that we’re here standing together to move this forward at pace.

Te Whare Ruruhau o Meri. Another social service in South Auckland, but also they have branches in different parts of the country, Front-line services who have done so much to awhi whānau; to support wāhine and tāne to escape the clutches of family violence in the hope that they may make the decision to break free. But, when they have to go back, those services are still there and they don’t cut the connection to that whānau. As you know, that wrapping around the whānau of this nature is required until such time as we can support the wahine or the tane to make that courageous decision to break the chains of a relationship of power and control.

This legislation here was well supported, as we’ve heard from members in the House. Multiple agencies, community groups, everyone is committed and supports this through the select committee process, and many submitters shared how they are front-line and how they are seeing the impact of family violence day after day.

The issue with having to wait for two years and the ability for a woman to divorce her husband is a noose. It’s a noose around the neck of the woman who tries to break free when you’re stuck with Family Court processes; when you’re stuck with protection orders; and you’re trying to manage and keep your kids stable, in school, while dealing with a man who could be stalking you. I raise this because this is the reality of many women today and it was in the experience of many yesterday too. This legislation helps them escape and it helps them break those shackles and that noose that ties them to a spouse who exercises power and control over the wahine and the fear of the tamariki.

When we come together in this House—and we are discussing and I’m so grateful for the kōrero that we’re hearing and the sincerity of the way that we are putting the whānau in the middle of this decision and thinking about ways with which, through this legislation, we can empower wāhine mai and tāne mai to make the decision; that the legislation will be there ready for them. That they don’t need to keep emailing Debbie asking when is this going to happen. That they don’t need to have their family lawyer there trying to navigate and move around a system whereby they are still stuck legally in a situation that is not healthy for them or their whānau.

This bill is essential and it is great to see we all support it. By and large, our families will benefit from this legislation now and into the future. Our efforts—our collective efforts—to stand together in unity tonight on the issue of family violence and sexual violence is something; let’s take a step back and say, “Can we do this more? Can we do this more and look for a unity on things that are important for our communities?” I ask that because we’re having challenges, but when we put the whānau at the centre of our thinking and we look at the impact of family violence or whatever the issue might be, surely we can find a way that we can awhi and work together to find common ground of our “how?” How do we provide support? How do we provide legislation that can help uplift family and also, like this legislation, break the shackles of marriage?

Timing is important because, as we’ve heard in this House, for a woman or a man who is in a family violence situation, they may not have a tomorrow. When you’re a victim of family violence, you live in fear all the time. I texted my mother and I said, “Oh, I’m going to be speaking about family violence and this new legislation that’s coming through.”, and she was like, “Yes, awesome. About time.” For far too long we have seen wāhine stuck and they don’t know how to get out.

Thinking also about those in the system and those who are the perpetrators, with us a couple of weeks ago receiving the report into State abuse and faith-based care abuse. Many who have been impacted in those systems often either become victims in relationships or they become the perpetrators. We have broken families that are at a point where they go like this [Brings two fists together], and I think that that’s something that we can—we need to have that wānanga as a House in terms of how do we grow the whānau, how do we rebuild the connection so that legislation such as this and others are not required into the future.

I stand today on behalf of the Green Party to say we absolutely tautoko. Marama Davidson isn’t here, but Marama Davidson in her capacity and thinking about the advisory group that she put together as the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence would definitely be saying “Awesome! We’re there.” I’ve texted Katie Murray to say, “It’s happening and it’s going through the House.”, and I’m sure tomorrow she will give me a text and say, “About blinging time.”

On behalf of my whānau—because my whānau have been impacted by family violence for a long time—I say thank you, and I say, “Let’s do this again.” Let’s look for common ground where we can work together on matters that impact our whānau and our tamariki mokopuna.

So, on behalf of the Green Party, we support this legislation. I give thanks to the select committee who held the hui; listened deeply to those who gave submissions, the sincerity of community, of whānau, and those who are working on the front line who said, “Yes, please move forward.”, and then now we’re here at this point. It’s a wonderful thing. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege to be standing here today on behalf of the ACT Party to support this bill, and also in my role as the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. I really do think that this bill will make a big difference in a lot of lives, so I really, once again—and this is important to repeat—want to thank all of those who have been involved to get this bill to where it is today. That would be Charlotte Abrial, Ashley Jones, the Hon Chris Bishop, Angie Warren-Clark, and now the Hon Dr Deborah Russell.

It just goes to show the power of one person’s voice, the power of a strong woman that’s willing to stand up and fight for what she believes in and fight to make change within the community, coming with a petition—two petitions, from memory—to say that enough is enough and we need to make some changes in this space. That’s why this place is so special: where one or two voices can put together a petition like that, and be so strong and powerful in the message that they’re bringing here, that they can bring the whole of Parliament together and united to make a real change within this country. I’m really proud of that, that we have come together across Parliament to support such an important piece of work. I just felt that had to be said again. It really needs to be emphasised that your voice is powerful, and we’re here to listen to the voices of people who come here and want to make some real change in this country.

I was listening to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell speak, and I think there were a few really important points that were made, and those were going back to how hard it is to leave a relationship where you do feel isolated, where you do feel controlled, and where you are being hurt and harmed on a daily basis. Not only that, you’re also struggling with trying to hide that because you’re full of shame that this is actually happening. There shouldn’t be shame in that; it’s not your fault and it should not be happening. I think the key message is that women and people who suffer from this often leave up to seven times and go back—seven times—and then they keep going back. Now, we also know that the greatest risk of death from being killed by a partner is when you leave, so if you’re leaving seven times, imagine the fear each and every time you walk out the door, wondering if this will be the day.

Then we have a situation where the courts become another barrier to leaving, because you are tied to a person that has already isolated you, controlled you, and made you fear for your life each and every day. We really should take a long, hard think about how our courts are working and whether, actually, some of the legislation—and this one in particular—is causing more harm than good in the way that it works. I’m really, really honoured to be part of this today, because this has taken far too long, and it seems so obvious. It seems so obvious. Why are we making victims be tied to somebody who has hurt and harmed them for two years? Two extra years of having to tolerate that. Two extra years of having the person that you have finally, finally managed to free yourself from, and now you’ve got the court saying, “Sorry, you have to wait two years to cut that tie.” That’s not OK. I can’t wait for the final reading of this legislation, when we table this completely, and we can actually stand up and celebrate that that will no longer happen to any other victim of domestic violence.

The next point I would like to make is around the children. No one wants to have a child be in a home where they are either witnessing or experiencing family violence or harm—because it doesn’t just affect the children that day; it affects them tomorrow, it affects them next week, it affects them next year, it affects them for a lifetime, and it can often interfere with their own relationships when they grow up, later in life. Knowing what a healthy, happy relationship should be is important for our next generation to break that cycle of family violence and harm. And I do believe that this bill will go a long way to contributing to breaking that cycle of harm, by allowing a woman or a man to make a choice to leave a relationship and not have a court make them stay when they shouldn’t.

This bill also, I think we should add, doesn’t just cover marriages; it covers civil unions as well. I think that’s important to point out because civil unions have a similar tie, when it comes to being able to leave, as well. So both marriage and civil. What I would say is, when you get married, it’s meant to be the happiest day of your life. Marriage is a positive thing. Marriage should be the happiest time of your life. It shouldn’t be made to be the most torturous time of your life, trying to leave.

I really hope that those who contributed to this bill, across the House and the names that I have mentioned, really do applaud themselves and pat themselves on the back for having the courage to come forward, to speak up about things that must have been very traumatic for these ladies—facing demons not only for themselves but for the whole country, when they were standing up and speaking before the Justice Committee. So thank you. We appreciate you, and we hope that you can see we all in this House support what you brought to us and hope it makes a real difference to many more in this country, in the future.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for bringing this bill to the House. I also would commend Hūhana Lyndon for her commentary, and I will make sure that I tell Mum that we did agree in the House, and she will stop yelling at me for not being nice to you—she gave me very strict instructions that we had to find reasons to agree.

Hūhana Lyndon: Thanks, Auntie Maryann.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: New Zealand First stands firm on principles of fairness and justice and the protection of all New Zealanders. We are deeply committed to addressing family violence and supporting victims. We also want to prioritise ensuring that our legal processes are fair, balanced, and do not erode the rights of any party involved.

I’ve spoken in this House previously about my experience in the Police. I was in the front line in the 1980s, dealing with a process of change as we went through the family proceedings legislation and the continuing tweaking and adjusting of orders as we started to better and more clearly confront what violence was to our communities.

Unfortunately, the reality is the dissolution of a marriage does not always end the control. The protection order will remain in place; the level of control will exist. I recall, we realised that one of the changes in the reality of women was that occupation orders and trespass orders weren’t enough, because a woman that I dealt with—after we got her out of the house, the husband went in and set fire to all her clothes and all her personal belongings, and we could not prosecute him for anything because it was marital property. We have to then keep adjusting and modifying the way we respond to domestic violence.

Over last week, I had the pleasure of travelling around the country and meeting with front-line social services, front-line workers, that were doing their bit to try and address family violence in a practical way. We know we need to put protections in place, but we also know we need to fix broken people—that there are men who have no concept of what a loving relationship looks like. They don’t know anything but violence, and therefore create violence. When we deal with these issues, I think we have to have a balanced conversation and give an opportunity to be able to rebuild relationships. We have to fix broken people, protect our whānau, and protect vulnerable children, and maybe sometimes we have a chance of rebuilding a family.

When New Zealand First looked at this legislation, although we support it wholeheartedly and recognise the importance of putting these protections in place, we still think we need to address some concerns around the unintended consequences that might occur. That’s why we look to the committee of the whole House to really have those discussions and make sure we are considering where there may be unintended consequences. From my perception, the risk is that when you make the protection order a permanent protection order and that is the opportunity to dissolve a relationship, then we’re moving the urgency, the desperation, to a point of the protection order. Is there a risk we will create more contested protection orders? Is there a risk that we will move up or speed up the level of desperation and pressure?

We’re not opposing this legislation, but we hope that, as we move forward, we can consider whether there are some things we need to do. I think that I have dealt with men who have done horrible things, but they have felt horrible and destroyed, and in some circumstances have ended their own lives. I think we still need to keep the open door to fixing family violence by reducing violence. And, yes, we balance that with putting protections in place, but I hope, as we go into the committee of the whole House, we look at this holistically and understand that there may be opportunities to save families, there may be opportunities to fix broken relationship, there may be opportunities to talk to those who know nothing but violence and give them hope to rebuild a relationship. In some instances, that two years can be that opportunity. As much as I would like to think that the dissolution of a civil union or a marriage would put the vulnerable person in a state of protection, we know that doesn’t always occur and that a dissolution in some circumstances is an escalation of the level of need for control.

I hope that, as we work through the committee of the whole House, we consider whether there are things that we’ve missed. I understand what it was like on the front line when, every time we passed a legislation that we thought would help vulnerable women, we ended up creating another problem, we ended up creating more desperation and more urgency. Rather than implementing orders, just ending relationships, maybe there is some balance we can put into this protection process.

The other risk is that we end up with protection orders being used as an opportunity to manipulate a system and use it to speed up a relationship ending. We would love to think that all women are beyond reproach, that we never lie, and we never manipulate, but, unfortunately, my experience is that isn’t always the case. As we create a rush for protection orders to end marriages, do we end up trampling on genuine victims who are lost in the noise? Do we end up risking desensitising ourselves to the seriousness and importance of a protection order? I just hope that as we work through this process, we continue this agreement round the House, we continue to look at the ways this legislation can be balanced and ensure we are achieving exactly what we want it to achieve, which is creating protections.

I have genuine concern, as I meet with the front-line workers that are so desperately working with our young men—men who are fathers at the age of 15; men who have never known a loving, bonding relationship—that maybe when we take that relationship away and we close the door, we are closing the door on them being able to be fixed.

I just hope that when we work through this process, we have a bigger picture in mind. I know how desperately horrible it is for women who are vulnerable. I know the horror of young children trapped in violent relationships. I’ve also had the absolute joy of seeing relationships saved and the corner turned. I’ve seen the men who didn’t know any better suddenly becoming loving fathers. Once they’ve cleaned up their act, they’ve received the mental health services they need, once they have solved their addiction problems, once they have fixed their desperation, they have turned into good fathers and good men, making good families. I just really hope that we can, as we work through this, do that balanced conversation that we need to have and make sure that what we pass here is going to deliver exactly what we’re asking for: the protection for women who are vulnerable, protection for any person who is vulnerable in a controlling relationship.

At the same time, please let us ensure we do not shut the door on people who need desperate help, so that we can actually start breaking the cycle of violence, fix our broken men, fix our broken families, and actually put an end to domestic violence. I commend this bill to the House, and I hope we proceed with really good conversations, moving forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is a split call.

Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this bill on behalf of the Green Party, and I want to begin by echoing the thanks given by my colleague, my tuakana Hūhana Lyndon here, thanking Angie Warren-Clark and Dr Deborah Russell and the Labour whānau for bringing forward this bill, which will allow for a marriage or civil union to be dissolved where there has been family violence.

I also want to acknowledge all of the people that work in the prevention of violence space here in Aotearoa. I myself was able to work in the prevention of sexual violence space while I was at university as a part of the Thursdays in Black kaupapa, which seeks to end the prevalence of sexual violence within tertiary communities. It’s hard mahi; it can be extremely traumatising. All of the people that I’ve met that work in this space are hugely compassionate and good people who do the hard but necessary mahi, and we saw that in the submissions that were made on this bill by many different organisations who work on the ground and support people experiencing family violence and support people to be able to leave those abusive relationships.

I want to acknowledge that within the prevention of violence space, it is chronically underfunded, and that I really do hope that the Government’s approach to social investment will include strong funding for those organisations that have the specialist knowledge and the specialist experience to be able to prevent and eliminate family and sexual violence.

I want to mihi to our beloved co-leader Marama Davidson, the former Minister for prevention of violence, who introduced the first ever cross-sector national strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence, Te Aorerekura. In the Te Aorerekura strategy foreword, Marama described family violence and sexual violence as two of our nation’s greatest shames, and I just want to reaffirm our party’s steadfast commitment to move towards a world where family violence does not take place, but acknowledge that this requires the efforts of all parties and leaders present in the House today.

The main thing that I want to focus on with the brief amount of time that I have left is on protection orders and how, within this bill, protection orders are used as the evidence that someone can provide that family violence has taken place within their relationship. There were some really good submissions that were made, and they were really advocating to broaden the threshold of what is counted as evidence within this bill. Protection orders are flawed. We know that many people do not pursue protection orders, for a number of different reasons. The point was made by Women’s Refuge that of the 52,000 clients that they support each year within abusive relationships, only a small subset were able to obtain a protection order in the first place. Clients that Women’s Refuge have been supporting reported that obtaining a protection order is a hostile, prohibitive, and often unsafe process, and, particularly for people escaping an abusive relationship, sometimes obtaining a protection order can actually increase the risk to their lives and to their safety.

There is hope. There have been lots of recommendations about how we can make the protection order process more accessible and more equitable and safer. Within the Turuki! Turuki! report by the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group, chaired by the late great Chester Borrows, they recommended streamlining and reducing costs around obtaining protection orders, and they also recommended that protection order applications should be free. But there’s also some other regulations that we have that provide for broadening the evidence that people can provide to prove that family violence has taken place, including the Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022, which allows for broader allowances, including testimonies from medical practitioners, nurses, midwives, psychologists, social workers, police, Māori wardens, and even the victim-survivors’ employers.

We just think that this is a good start, but in the future, we need to broaden the pathways for survivors to demonstrate that family violence has taken place so that they can dissolve a marriage and cut those ties that bind them to their abusers. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s been a number of very strong and impressive contributions tonight. As the chair of the Justice Committee, it seems somewhat odd to pop into the middle and come forth with what’s traditionally more of a summary or review of what happened at the select committee process of the bill, but that role does fall to me. I think, as is custom, it would be appropriate to offer a number of acknowledgments and thankyous at the top.

The first acknowledgment is to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for stewarding this bill through. She’s already mentioned many of the people who have contributed to the bill to get it to where it is tonight, and actually enlightened me on some of the history of the bill that I was unaware of. I’ll also acknowledge Charlotte Abrial, who had a petition that I was unaware of, and the petition that I was aware of, of Ashley Jones, who’s with us today. I’ll just acknowledge Ashley being here with us and for being able to make a contribution to this bill as well. And, of course, I’ll also acknowledge Chris Bishop, who received the initial petition. If you recall, in the first reading speech from Mr Bishop, he retold the story of receiving the petition, drafting the member’s bill, only to find out that Angie Warren-Clark had pipped him at the post and got in there first. It just goes to show that when a good idea comes before the Parliament and comes before members, it’s one that can be supported across the House. I want to also acknowledge Angie for getting the member’s bill into the ballot, and drawn, too.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that because it shows that this House receives a number of petitions, and it’s a good part of the democratic process that individuals and constituents can petition Parliament to make change. A lot of those petitions flow through the Petitions Committee and come to our committees and, unfortunately, the House can’t particularly act on what’s required or requested in those petitions. This is an example of a constituent who has—or a number of constituents who have had concerns, who have bought petitions to Parliament and those petitions have turned into real change. I think that’s a way to acknowledge that you can affect the democratic process and you can effect change by doing something as simple as presenting a petition to the House. Congratulations to those who engage in that process.

Now, also, I wanted to make a comment on the fact that the contributions tonight have been so constructive and collegial, and that’s how the Justice Committee operated throughout consideration of this bill. You only have to look at bills that touch on family violence and sexual violence to realise that seems to be the pattern across the Justice Committee. We’ve got a couple of other pieces of legislation coming through—strengthening protections for family violence and strengthening legal protections for sexual violence—and in both of those cases, I think, you’ve found a very constructive way that the committee’s approached that. I wanted to acknowledge members of the Justice Committee and also to Dr Russell for her contribution when she sat in on those committee sessions as well. Also, can I just thank the advisers and the Clerk’s team for their assistance in moving the bill through to where it is at the moment.

I guess, as part of this process, I will read into the record essentially what the bill does, the summary of the bill. So, of course, the key purpose of the bill is to insert a new ground for the dissolution of marriages or civil unions. I wanted to note the civil union part because there is a change to the title in the bill that’s been recommended, to reflect the fact that we’re not just talking about marriages, we’re talking about civil unions as well now. That’s important because, as our family and relationship property law has developed over the years, we are recognising more and more types of relationships, and so it’s only proper that we recognise that with more types of relationships come more legal obligations. We needed to recognise that we’re not just talking about dissolution of marriages in this bill, but civil unions as well.

It essentially allows for the dissolution to be granted more quickly in instances of family violence. I’ll touch on some of the issues that the member Tamatha Paul raised as well, in terms of protection orders. It is fair to say that this does represent a slight departure from the no-fault system that we do operate under at the moment. Although I think that is a bit of a misnomer because it’s not quite a no-fault system. Under the current law, in order to obtain a dissolution, you have to, of course, demonstrate irreconcilable difference in the relationship. Under the statute, the only way to demonstrate that is to essentially prove or assert that you have been separated and living apart for more than two years. So, while it may be seen as a no-fault system, it’s certainly not a no-barrier system.

Many submitters throughout the process actually—and it will probably be acknowledged by the committee—made the case that further changes could be made to the bill, that there are other instances where individuals or families may want to or may need to call for a dissolution earlier than that two-year stand-down process. I think that was beyond the purpose of this bill, but it’s something that I’m certainly sympathetic to and something that perhaps could be addressed at a later stage in a further member’s bill, if the House has the appetite.

I think it’s important to probably touch on that point around protection orders right now. There were a number of submitters who said, “Yes, we support the bill. Yes, we support protection orders being an appropriate level of evidence to demonstrate breakdown and to initiate this sort of fast-track dissolution process. But there could be other examples of evidence that we could use. Can’t we use a conviction for an offence of family violence? Can’t we use some other levels of evidence in order to initiate this process as well?” I think they were fairly well-made arguments, and the committee considered them pretty closely. Some of the issues that came with that were that as soon as you introduce more and more levels of evidence and more subjectivity into the evidence, that evidence would then need to be tested, particularly in a judicial sense.

The risk for the committee was that the broader you expand the scope of evidence, the harder it might actually be to get a dissolution. If you are entering into a judicial process where you have to test the evidence, get a family violence conviction, and then have that subject to appeal, you may end up waiting longer to get your dissolution than the original two years, or something that a protection order may have helped with anyway. So, on balance, the committee at this stage has recommended that the evidence be restricted to permanent protection orders. There’s another aside there that the bill as introduced, I understand, actually allowed for temporary protection orders to be the evidence as well, but there were some issues around that too. Temporary protection orders can be issued, essentially, without notice of the respondent and there was a risk seen by some that it would disadvantage, or it could be used to abuse the process.

Of course, we acknowledge that by limiting the evidence that you can use to get the dissolution, you are going to limit the number of people that this can benefit, but there was also always that balancing exercise that needed to be taken into account. Again, I think that there is some scope to perhaps expand the criteria of people who could qualify for this process, but it may be beyond the scope of this particular bill right now.

I wanted to touch on just some of the figures around the submission process. The committee received 30 written submissions, and member Deborah Russell highlighted a number of those organisations. For the Justice Committee, that is probably on the lower end of the number of submissions received, but I can tell you that the quality of those submissions were all incredibly high, and the seven-odd oral submissions that we heard were also of incredibly high value and high quality as well. It’s not always a case that more submissions make a stronger case. It can be the fact that the better the quality of the submission, the stronger the argument can be for the bill’s changes.

Now, I’m very rapidly running out of time, so I thought I would just run through the remaining changes that the committee actually recommended. We have recommended that change to the title just to recognise the different types of relationships that this will cover. We have recommended an extension to the commencement date. As introduced, it was coming into force at six months, but that’s been extended to 12 months to give the courts longer times to adapt to the changes.

We actually grappled with an interesting issue that was only really brought up—the bill as introduced would actually have allowed a perpetrator, or potentially could have allowed a perpetrator, of domestic violence to seek a protection order so that they could then gain a dissolution of marriage in order to disrupt, essentially harass, the victim once again; or maybe speed up the property dissolution process or put them under pressure when it comes to spousal maintenance.

The committee’s actually recommended a change so that it’s very, very clear that the intent of the bill—and it’s important this is read into the record—the intent of the bill is that only the protected person can apply for a dissolution of marriage, not a potential perpetrator of harm. The only exception to that being that if there are protection orders on both sides, then a joint application can be made. That would be the one instance where perhaps if there were family violence incidents on both sides of the relationship, someone who may have been a victim of family harm but had also perpetrated it can apply for that dissolution of marriage. I think it’s important to get that on the record just in case some future court goes back and peruses the Hansard for any guidance as to what we actually meant.

Then the final one I just wanted to put in there was that it was initially unclear as to whether or not you could make an application for an order dissolving a relationship before the appeal period for a protection order had expired. We’ve made that clear that you have to wait for that appeal period to expire. That is going to cause a small amount of delay, but in the long run we think it will actually speed up the process so that you aren’t subject to those potentially long, drawn-out judicial processes.

Look, that is my contribution. I think it is an incredibly important and decent bill and, as you’ve seen from the contributions across the House, very well supported. I want to congratulate the member for stewarding the bill through and acknowledge Ashley and Charlotte for the role that they’ve played in this as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. First, I’d like to acknowledge my colleague Deborah Russell for continuing with this good bill, and also my friend and former colleague Angie Warren-Clark, who took on this bill when she was a member of Parliament in the previous Parliament.

I’d like to acknowledge Ashley Jones for her strength and championship of such a good cause. I know that she worked with Chris Bishop on this initially as a petition, and now it’s taken the form of a member’s bill.

It’s really important that we understand what we’re doing when we’re passing legislation, and it’s important to note that this bill really intends to reduce the harm that family violence causes in New Zealand by allowing a marriage or a civil union to be able to be dissolved if the person in that arrangement is a victim of family violence inflicted by the other party in the relationship. It was informed by the harrowing experiences that Angie Warren-Clark had supported in her experience of working front line in the family violence space, and I think that it’s really important to state that the conversations or the debates that we’ve been having across the House tonight is that everyone is of the view that every person in New Zealand deserves to live a life free of violence. Our laws and our social supports in all of our systems and in our democracy and our society should work towards achieving that goal, and this bill is part of that overarching view. Addressing family violence is essential for improving the wellbeing of our families and for our tamariki, and it is a priority for us here, in Labour.

The reason why this bill is needed has been clearly laid out. The original purpose behind the two-year wait period under the Family Proceedings Act was to provide a couple with the opportunity to take some time and to be certain of their decision to dissolve the marriage, and that was typically a two-year time of being separate before a divorce was able to take place.

I think it’s important to note that family violence takes many forms. It’s not just physical violence; it can also be financial, it can be psychological, it can be the way that children are spoken to, and it can cause ongoing trauma for both partners and for the children involved in a situation that has turned out to be unhealthy for all those in a situation that’s not working well.

It’s good to see that our law is taking cognisance of the fact that when situations become unhealthy, sometimes things need to happen more quickly than a two-year period, and, as already noted tonight, it’s often in that two-year period when someone files for divorce that tensions can increase, and those pressures that were already operating in the family unit can then become more harmful. While the status quo has the benefit of simplicity, it has been criticised for no longer reflecting the current societal values, and there is real concern that that two-year wait period can be used to perpetuate financial disparities. It can unnecessarily prolong the time before parties can apply for a dissolution, especially for those who have been subjected to ongoing physical or mental abuse. It’s inappropriate for many people where they’re waiting two years and that will not change the outcome, particularly for those in abusive relationships—both for the partner and for the children in that relationship, I think that applies.

I’ve been really heartened tonight around the conversations we’ve been having across the House in terms of agreeing that family violence is a real blight on New Zealand in terms of enabling the next generation of young New Zealanders to be able to grow up and take full advantage of all the opportunities our beautiful country offers them. The complexities of some of the issues involved in a family violence situation are multiple. My real concern is that we currently have a situation in New Zealand where there are whānau and there are families in New Zealand who need help and want to access help and who need that support to either go through a divorce process or get that extra support, and that currently is not available. I think that is something where, if we can agree on so much tonight, it would be good to get that agreement as well.

I fully understand the fact that resources are stretched for police and that police are not the most appropriate people to be dealing with family violence situations. We have trained professionals who are the best to be doing that work, but I, personally, would like to see those trained professionals up and ready and have a workforce in place before our police step back from attending family violence call-outs that are non-fatal. In fact, Te Aorerekura has been a programme that identifies many of the issues identified by this bill, and it’s great to have seen the Minister responsible for the prevention of family violence pick up Te Aorerekura and look at how we grow our workforce and how we enable those workers to be able to assist families and children who are experiencing various forms of family violence.

I think it would be good to have had that plan in place before we were in a situation of having police pulling back from family violence, because when that happens alongside of funding for Oranga Tamariki being pulled as well, what we have are situations where the Minister has said that only those in State care are receiving that support—nothing more, nothing less. That means that there are children who are in families where they are experiencing family violence, and it is that advice and support of social services that would give counselling to mum or dad and that would give extra respite if they’re going through a tough time, that would enable that family to decide whether a divorce was necessary or not, or to decide whether they were able to reconcile those differences or whether they’re able to come together and get some extra help and advice on how to deal with parenting, budget, relationship—a whole range of issues.

I think we owe it to those families to invest and to provide support when it’s needed so that we don’t need to call the police or we don’t need an Oranga Tamariki uplift. I think that would be a better outcome for the next generation of young people, because the last thing that we’d want is the next generation of young people—we know that when we see youth crime peaking and we look into those statistics of that, the vast majority of our repeat youth offenders have come from homes which have been exposed to repeat family violence instances. Having this bill and having an ability to say that a family unit is not working well and our young people are being unnecessarily exposed to family violence—if this bill can assist an intervention at an earlier stage and make those supports available, then that has got to be a good thing.

I would just like to acknowledge the work of family violence and those services that work alongside families to help them make decisions on whether a divorce is going to be the right path and whether they can draw upon this legislation to do that. They provide such vital services in New Zealand, and I’d like to acknowledge that good work.

Recently, I was able to go and visit North Shore Women’s Centre last week, and talk to them about the vital work that they carry out in situations that this bill will directly relate to. It was really sad to hear that North Shore Women’s Centre will be closing in April next year due to the fact that their contracts have been cut, and that will mean that after 38 years of their supporting families and working on the North Shore, they will not be able to continue to provide that level of support. I’m pleased to see that we have agreement on this bill and that this bill will be able to give those families an opportunity to exit a marriage if there is family violence, but at the same time I’m saddened that if there are families who want to work and try to discuss and have counselling to support issues that are relating to family violence, critical services such as North Shore Women’s Centre are no longer being funded to be able to operate in New Zealand, and that is a real concern.

If we want to reduce family violence, we need to encourage people to report it. The number one reason people don’t report it is that they have reached out for help before and they didn’t get it, and that’s what the problem is. With police not attending and services not being available, if people reach out for help and don’t get it, they won’t ask again. We need, as a country, to be encouraging people to ask for help, and when they ask for it, they need to get it, if we’re serious about getting on top of family violence in New Zealand.

It’s with great pleasure I rise alongside colleagues on this side of the House and across the House and around the House in support of the second reading of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill.

I want to start out by, firstly, acknowledging Ashley Jones in the gallery and the work that she and many others did to get us to this point. Those who think that you can’t change anything in politics from a member of the public’s perspective and you can’t change anything and they won’t listen to you anyhow, Ashley’s proven them wrong. She has managed to turn her lived experience into legislative change in, as James Meager articulated, a relatively short period of time too. We know sometimes petitions can languish, but her petition was brought on to the steps of Parliament back in 2021 with over 5,000 signatures. It headlined, that petition, on the steps of Parliament as “Change our archaic divorce laws so abuse victims can be free of their abuser”.

When you look at when this was last looked at and the legislative framework that currently has to work under, it goes back over 40 years to the Family Proceedings Act 1980, which came into effect in 1981 and has been governing the laws around the dissolution of marriage ever since and was extended to the dissolution of civil unions in 2005. So, as one of our colleagues across the way said, “This is long overdue.”

I want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for shepherding this through and working with the Justice Committee so diligently, and she’s always the first to give credit to her colleague Angie Warren-Clark. As a previous speaker said, Angie Warren-Clark was a professional in this space, having been a Women’s Refuge manager and a family violence expert, if you like.

Looking back, as someone said just earlier, domestic violence, family violence, family harm, is a real blight on New Zealand society, and, sadly, it is. We look at the New Zealand Crime & Victims Survey’s most recent report of 2021-22, and get this: 24 percent of New Zealand women experienced intimate partner violence during their lifetimes, making New Zealand have the highest rate of domestic violence out of 14 OECD countries. In 2020, New Zealand police responded to a domestic violence call every four minutes. Looking at some stats between the years 2009 and 2018, that decade, 88 New Zealand women were murdered by their partners. Of the woman who were killed, 51 percent had left their abusive partner within the last three months. A further 14 percent of women were killed after leaving their partner longer than three months. Two out of three were actually killed by their ex-partners, but in the eyes of the law, they are, of course, deemed partners. Separation does not equal safety when you look at those stats alone.

I also want to acknowledge some of our previous speakers and some of our leaders in this House. I want to acknowledge the Hon Karen Chhour, the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, and our spokesperson and leader in that space, the Hon Louise Upston. I want to acknowledge the Hon Mark Mitchell, Minister of Police and of Corrections, and the Associate Minister of Police, Casey Costello. These people have real lived experiences, and, as our Prime Minister would say, we have the right people in the right places, and that’s what a team is all about. When you reflect on those four people, those four Ministers, on this side of the House, representing the three coalition parties inside Government, that’s real experience, lived experience that they’re bringing to the bringing to the fore, doing their best, and all of us here across the House tonight are coming up with some legislative solutions.

I just wanted to reflect a little bit more on our guest tonight, Ashley Jones, and tell her story, because we’ve heard a lot about the bill within its technical details in what the select committee changed and why. But let’s have a look at the motivation and the story that kind of motivated over 5,000 New Zealanders to sign that petition and then for the likes of Deborah to shepherd it through the House. Ashley’s story is one of a woman taking on the law system to help thousands of others with the same experience. She has never given up on herself or the belief that all victims of abuse should have more rights. After leaving her abusive marriage in 2020, Ashley found herself in a two-year limbo of separation, required under the law before she could file divorce papers. During that time, she was subjected to financial and emotional abuse from her husband, who refused to properly engage with the separation proceedings. In Ashley’s case, after two harrowing years, she tried to file her divorce papers but was told that because she didn’t know her husband’s whereabouts, her documents could not be processed. It took a further 11 months before she was officially divorced from her abusive husband. Two years, through Ashley’s example, is a minimum this can languish, and the obstruction and the control can continue well beyond that two-year period, as Ashley found herself.

I want to also acknowledge the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge and the role that they played with you, Ashley, and all Women’s Refuges around the country and all the work that different community leaders do in this space. So it’s with regret that we even have to go here, but I finish as I started out. This goes to show that members of the public can change laws in New Zealand, that members of Parliament can listen to them and respond in a legislative sense to the lived experience of Ashley and thousands and thousands of others—one could argue up to 24 percent of New Zealand women who have experienced some form of harm by their partner—and that things can be changed for the better.

This is only a small piece of the puzzle, but it’s a puzzle that this Government is up for, and we will continue to work as constructively across the House as much as we can as a coalition Government to get the right results, because the answers here are not left wing, centre left, centre right, right wing. They are solutions like this that make relatively small legislative adjustments but a major impact on someone’s life, just as Ashley has shown us what she has been able to do as a single person with a lot of friends and family supporting her as far as coming to the steps of Parliament in 2021. Here we are, three years later, which in parliamentary time is pretty quick, making a real difference to legislation that’s well over 40 years old, well overdue, and will be well received by many, many women tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’ve been listening to the speeches tonight and a lot of ground has been covered. I don’t intend to repeat some of the statements and arguments that have been made, but I particularly want to acknowledge Deborah Russell not only for the work that she’s done here but for what was, quite frankly, an outstanding speech outlining the reasons for this bill and its history. It was presented in a very thorough and compassionate way, and I really appreciated that.

I also want to acknowledge my friend and former colleague Angie Warren-Clark; this bill was her original bill, and it’s a real passion of hers. She has dedicated many years of her life to keeping women safe, but this may be, in fact, her largest contribution in the sense that it will have impact on thousands and thousands of lives.

I just want to touch on a couple of things. Everyone has been very affirming of this bill, but I do want to touch on some more technical aspects. The first is that in fact at select committee, we almost retreated somewhat from the original idea but that’s for good reason. There was a suggestion that any evidence of family violence should be admissible as a cause for obtaining an order of dissolution.

What we wanted to avoid when we finally reached the conclusion that you really needed a protection order—a final protection order in respect of which the appeal period had expired—we wanted to ensure that we didn’t find ourselves in a situation where there was litigation around whether or not family violence existed and the possibility that that would be further traumatic for the people involved. I wanted to identify that.

I also wanted—and this is linked—to identify the fact that we were concerned with the suggestion that this is leading away from no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce, when introduced, was a world-first, I think, in New Zealand. It has served us very well where parties don’t have to go and recriminate—they just have to want to separate. It’s still important that that’s the case here, and all this does is trigger a truncation of the period before which a divorce can be sought.

We do need a review of our law around divorce and dissolution and relationship property—it’s well overdue. This is just one small reform, but I think it’s a very good one. Once again, I commend all of those—the many, many people who have been involved in getting it to this place—and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a number of those speaking on this bill have commented, it is pleasing to see such unity across the House—the stuff that doesn’t make the headlines, but is actually really important, and where a lot of meaningful work is done. Like the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb speaking previously, I don’t want to repeat some of the great content that we’ve heard, but I thought I would take a slightly different tack and just focus on those two parallel railroads that we have: one of prevention and one of response.

Of course, this bill is to enable a better and, indeed, a safer response to cases of family harm to ensure that there is timely means for people to leave abusive relationships. That’s really important. Of course I respect the sanctity of marriage, and, while that’s really important, it’s also important that we have safe relationships. That’s why being able to safely exit a relationship is important.

I commend those that have brought this bill to the House, and there have been a number of them. I note, though, that that parallel track of prevention is so important. Of course, there’s work that the executive board that was set up last year around the elimination of family and sexual violence—and, in fact, tomorrow, I’m sure the hard-working chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, will encourage those to join online and see agencies being held to account, to ensure we are doing a better job in this country of preventing it.

I can give a local example that I think speaks really well to where this prevention goes, because as I stand here to speak on this subject, I don’t stand as an individual but as a proud representative of my community. I’m proud of the strong work that is being done in that community. There are some great examples from Horowhenua, like the Horowhenua Abuse Liaison Team—I have to acknowledge Brigette, who for a long time worked there and did some great work—along with many community agencies. In fact, I share a building with many of them that work in this space, like Women’s Refuge.

I wanted to speak just briefly about what I have learnt in Kāpiti from the interagency case management group, and I just think, what would this country look like if we saw this model repeated across the country? This is a group that was established with the police family harm team. I do want to acknowledge Callan, the police sergeant, who does a great job, along with people like Jimmy and Niall, in that space. This is a group made up of the statutory agencies, with NGOs, and with all those that have an interest and do such strong work, and I do want to acknowledge them.

I want to acknowledge Janie from Oranga Tamariki, and the leadership she provides in this space. I want to acknowledge Louise and the Kāpiti Women’s Centre—what most areas would call Woman’s Refuge. I want to acknowledge A Safe Kapiti, or ASK, and particularly Kathy, and the work they do. I want to acknowledge Wendy and the team from Kapiti Living Without Violence, Victim Support, Kāinga Ora, community mental health teams, child and adolescence mental health teams, Atareira, Birthright—and Jodie does a great job there—and Kāpiti Youth Support, and Raechel and the team, that are doing some excellent work with the young members of our community. I think of Te Hāhi and all that Gradon Harvey and the team are doing, the Salvation Army, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—Cathy, Louise, and the team there—the community probation service, Wesley Community Action, Plunket, and Hora Te Pai.

There are so many agencies involved, and I’ve been to meet them individually. I was proud to take the Hon Louise Upston to meet Louise and the team at the Kāpiti Women’s Centre last year, to hear firsthand about what they’re seeing in this space and the work they’re doing. I was pleased to take the Hon Mark Mitchell to meet some of our local police officers and police stations in there, so that we could understand. It is because of their experience—them walking these people through—and, look, like every MP, I’ve had interactions with people as they’ve come to me for help. I’ve helped people access some of these services, and the teams and these NGOs and these other groups just do such a fantastic job in the most difficult of circumstances. I’ve been able to advocate for people, and, I have to tell you, with one case recently with MSD, a woman in a difficult situation of family harm actually, when I went to work with them—we were able to advocate and fight and get the result that I thought she deserved. But the team at MSD did an amazing job, and I do want to acknowledge the support they give.

Giving them this tool in the tool box—that women, or, indeed, anyone in the most difficult situation can safely leave an abusive relationship, a situation of family harm, in a more timely manner—is something that I think we’re hearing everyone supports, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also make a contribution on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. Like many others tonight, I’d also like to very sincerely acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, a former member of Parliament, who I know was very passionate about this bill and was also very passionate about the work that she has previously done and was very passionate in so far as being able to hand it on to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, who has shepherded it through and cared for it very much in the same way that Angie would have if she was able to.

I would like to acknowledge the Justice Committee. I heard Dr Deborah Russell say, earlier on, that it was a small change, that it made a real difference. Whilst it may just be a small legislative adjustment and whilst it may have been a relatively smooth process, it had required us to really challenge the rationale behind the status quo, and in that way it was profound in so far as the thinking involved. Whilst I said the process was relatively smooth, there were several things that needed to be worked out. Nothing is ever as smooth as it sounds on the surface. But where there’s a will, there is a way, and there should be a way because there most certainly is a will behind this bill. I think that was very ably summed up by saying simply that all people deserve to be able to leave a relationship where there is violence.

I’d like to, again, take my opportunity, as others have tonight, to acknowledge Charlotte and to acknowledge Ashley Jones and all of the other people who contributed and lent their experience to the understanding of the select committee. It was invaluable. It was worthwhile. It made a difference. It does count. I hope that everybody who has made this happen tonight can feel very, very proud of the contribution that they have made via this House process. So I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the last person to commend this bill to the House. And it warms my heart, as it has warmed everyone’s heart, that we’re all in agreeance on this subject that this bill must go forward. I mihi to you, Ashley Jones—you’re in the House. A lot of this is because of you, so thank you for your courage, thank you for putting yourself out to exposure, thank you for being one of the main catalysts behind the kōrero that we’re having today.

The proposed legislation, Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, is in the name of our Labour colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. It was introduced into the House back in May 2023 by a former Labour Party list MP, Angie Warren-Clark. I thank her as well for charging that through that first reading. Then it was referred to the Justice Committee, which I am privileged to be a part of and which is chaired by my good friend here, the MP for Rangitata, James Meager. That’s where we were privileged enough to listen to the submissions that were brought forward with respect to this bill.

The intent of this amendment bill is very clear, actually, it’s to amend the Family Proceedings Act 1980 so that a party to a marriage or a civil union who has been the victim of family violence inflicted by the other party in the relationship can apply for an order from the Family Court to fast-track their marriage or their civil union so it could be dissolved—that is to get a divorce—without having to wait for the two years to pass which is currently a requirement of the law as it stands. This bill will also remove the requirement for parties of a marriage or a civil union, the subject of the application, to live apart for two years before a dissolution is given on the grounds of family violence.

I’d like to just touch quickly, as a couple of my colleagues did earlier, on the grounds upon which this order for a dissolution can be made. The grounds would be established if the applicant is a protected person under a protection order made against the applicant’s spouse or civil union partner. The following types of protection order—as mentioned earlier but I’d like to put on record—would establish the grounds for this dissolution: a protection order made under the Family Violence Act 2018, a protection order made under the Sentencing Act 2002, or a registered foreign protection order.

Alas, my time is limited tonight, so even though I’d like to go through some of the other submissions that we listened to, I think I’d like to add to the acknowledgment of Ashley Jones tonight. The submission that Ashley prepared for us in the select committee to listen to, which of course strengthened the need for why this law must pass—if I may just read a few quotes from Ashley’s submission: “In 2021 I started and submitted a petition “Change our archaic divorce laws so abuse victims can be free of their abuser”.” I remember what our colleague from the Green Party just said earlier, that a lot of these people, many times women, are stuck when they find themselves in this situation.

Ashley went on to say, “I strongly believe if victims were able to file for a divorce it would remove a lot of the further abuse that continues throughout the two year stand-down period.” That’s the ultimate goal here. The ultimate goal, the ultimate intention, objective, and indeed the hope is that family violence harm in New Zealand will be reduced by passing this law. No, it’s not going to eliminate all family violence, but someone that’s been through it, Ashley Jones, who sits here with us in the gallery tonight, almost like the shepherder herself of this bill, said it in her own words, that it will remove a lot of the further abuse that continues throughout those two years. “Abuse is about power and control”, Ashley wrote, “and this current system allows many occasions for the abuser to still maintain that power and control, even in cases where a protection order is in place.”

Ashley, thank you. Thank you for highlighting some of the horrible statistics that exist in our beautiful country, New Zealand. Sometimes it’s very difficult to reconcile with the fact that we live in such a beautiful country, Aotearoa New Zealand, and yet we’re riddled with such horrific statistics when it comes to family violence. Bless you with the rest of your journey, Ashley, and thank you for everything that you’ve done. I commend this bill to the House.

Is this a—

Glen Bennett: A Te Pāti Māori call.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Oh, OK, are you taking the Māori Party call? I call Glen Bennett.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. This is heavy, heavy conversation this evening. It’s about the abuse, about things that are physical, that are sexual, that are mental. It’s non-discriminatory, in terms of family violence—it covers so many facets of our communities and society, whether you’re in the wealthiest of suburbs, the poorest of suburbs, or anywhere in between.

Family violence not only impacts on heterosexual couples, but, in my case, I know, and I know of stories within my own rainbow community of relationships and civil unions, relationships and marriages, relationships and partnerships, which have been violent, which have been manipulative, which have been physical. That’s why there’s old legislation. There were compromises made back in 1980 when this legislation was first brought in, so that’s why we need to change it. I think we need to actually fully remove the two-year ban across the board. But this is just simple legislation.

Angie Warren-Clark, who is actually a family member of mine, has worked in this space, and I just want to acknowledge her this evening for her work, her legacy, that will live on beyond her in this House. I commend this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill.

This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. Members, given the time, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.