MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

On The Spot Protection Orders on the way

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 10:44 am Sun 9th November 2008

National’s policy is on the way.

Police will gain the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders to protect victims of domestic violence.

This type of policy sums up how National views men. Those who cast their vote for National, Act ,United Future and perhaps the Maori Party voted for this. 

Child Tax is in Judith Collins sights. Now an ex family court lawyer will be a key influencer of National polices on the matrix of family law.

The time for action is close at hand, we need to be proactive and force the reform of family law onto the agenda. The choice is ours.

I know what I will be doing and will post in the next couple of weeks. Meanwhile its off to start organising  a proactive call for reform of Child Tax Law . There a lot of work to be done and helping hands are welcome.




  1. I can see advantages in On-the spot protection orders- based on actual circumstances observed by Policeman, rather than fabricated lies made up on Women’s refuge word-processor.
    This makes them more likely to be genuine, based on actual and observed violence than on based on retrospective hurt feelings, massaged by ‘helpful’ feminist councellers.
    My only misgiving- is that the Police will be instructed to issue them ONLY to men, will be forbidden to issue them to violent women.

    Comment by John Brett — Sun 9th November 2008 @ 11:10 am

  2. John,

    An on the spot protection order is a allowing policemen with out a hearing in a court or any supporting evidence to issue a protection order. It will remove one parent, most likely the man, from a childs life. This will be done at the whim of a policeforce and legal system that views domestic violence as men is prepretrator women is victim.

    On the spot protection orders are more likely to be bullshit than genuine.They will be an easy option to enable power and control of men in any domestic police visit. Observed violence, interpreted on tbe basis of the current issuing of protection orders would be rasing your voice in a domestic disagreement.The current protection order system will stay in place and this will be the first step order to engage the process.

    The Family Violence Industry will grow and dads will be seperated from their kids and the cycle of defathering will be further entrenched in legislation and your prasing on the spot protection orders.

    Your analysis is superficial and ill informed.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 9th November 2008 @ 12:21 pm

  3. National will introduce legislation toughening the parole and bail laws, clamping down on gangs, and requiring DNA testing for everyone arrested for an imprisonable offence.

    Damn. That is wrong. What is not imprisonable?

    Comment by julie — Sun 9th November 2008 @ 2:20 pm

  4. I wonder if it is fair to blame National for all this? You may be better informed than me though Scrap. As I understand it this was going to happen under a Labour Government anyway? Wasn’t it Labour (Annette King) who originally sponsored this as apart of about 12 amendments planned to the Family Court – including a pompous one to make the Family Court more formal by allowing Judges to wear their precious black gowns because they may somehow feel less of a person than their criminal court colleagues by not being able to look like Professor Snape from the Harry Potter novels? This is a small, but significant backward step for more formality in the Family Court in my opinion.

    In my case my partner called the police four times and each time I have to say the police were very fair in the way they handled me and allowed me speedy access to their records afterwards. I had my OIA requests actioned within 48 hours. They did not automatically assume I had been violent. I would hate to preach to anyone, but in my case because I was not angry or aggressive, but my partner was, made a huge difference to the way the police responded to the situation and to me as a man.

    But cops are just people and you will always get good ones and bad ones. Getting a highly stressed and overworked cop under the new legislation will not be good news for men. I agree with you that the new legislation will let them take the line of least resistance. Police are highly overworked in this country and the new law gives them a quick fix solution to many DV callouts. I am very worried the new law will become a default position to an already overworked and under resourced police force (and no I am not a copper by trade!).

    I am very happy to help you though because I really do think the Family Court is highly feminist orientated and needs greater gender fairness and a much more equal gender balance and perspective.

    For example, if you are unlucky enough to experience the North Shore Family Court, the male Respondent is always made to sit at the Judge’s far right against the wall, at the end of a long u-shaped table, while the female Applicant always sits on the far left just by the door — no doubt based on the feminized belief that the female Applicant to a DV case can make a quick escape if the “violent” male Respondent behaves to his court-assumed stereotype and becomes aggro.

    Comment by Gerry — Sun 9th November 2008 @ 3:49 pm

  5. Gerry,

    I failed to make clear in the post was about what was planned in the first 100 Days! That will rush this through and into law very early next year.

    I have heard many horror stories of protection orders being granted for what are normal relationship interactions. I dont discount your experience but doubt the fairness of a systen that can see a non association order placed without notice and no chance given to offer a defence before a judge untill in many cases months later. The presumption of guilt bothers me. I am glad it went well for you its nice to hear some positive news!

    Will be in touch,



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 9th November 2008 @ 5:47 pm

  6. I suggest trying to get changes to the proposal, changes that involved principles that may eventually be applied to general protection order legislation. For example, a police-ordered non-contact order might be reasonable if:
    – called a non-contact order to distinguish it from a protection order;
    – given to both parties in a domestic dispute;
    – it did not apply to children except through a Court process
    – it was not able to be used as evidence suggesting violence in any Court proceedings;
    – short-term (e.g. max 30 days) and expired automatically;
    – the person asking for the order to be the one to move out of the home.
    – with the introduction of such orders the law is also tightened up regarding protection orders, requiring them to be evidenced beyond reasonable doubt, requiring perjury to be prosecuted, etc.

    Non-contact orders of this kind could help to give fighting couples a cool-down period and a chance to seek help or advice about the conflict. Such orders would significantly reduce escalation of conflict and risk of violence, yet would not imply that either party was to blame.

    We need to work hard to prevent yet another kangaroo-court process that judges or implies blame without a proper trial. Lobbying for non-contact orders as suggested above could provide a win-win solution.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 10th November 2008 @ 1:57 pm

  7. Dear Scrap

    I should have said that while it went well with the police, the Family Court hasn’t been so kind to me. I still await justice after four months! My ex’s without notice application was declined but instead put on notice but it will be five months almost to the day when the snails at the Family Court finally hold a defended hearing for me.

    In the meantime I get no contact whatsoever with my kids. Lawyer for Child opposed even supervised access to a man who 4 police reports say was not violent. Oh, yes lawyer for child is a woman of course, so is the judge, so is counsel for applicant, so is the Family Court Cordinator, the psychologist and the Family Court appointed counsellor. I’m the only man involved but no one on this site will be surprised by this I am sure!

    I have become a stranger to my children while I await justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. By law these cases are supposed to be heard within 42 days – WHAT A JOKE THAT IS. Tui should use this as a billboard – Family Court Justice – yeah right.

    I began this experiernce trusting in justice and having faith in the Family Court, I now loath the Family Court system and am embittered by the way it has sidelined me as a father. I don’t expect the Family Court to do anything for me but force me to appeal to the High Court.

    I am more than happy to lend my support to Scrap’s fine work and am grateful for his commitment. I have some professional skills I would be happy to offer.

    Gerry 🙁

    Comment by Gerry — Wed 12th November 2008 @ 12:38 am

  8. Wow, what an optimist you are Gerry. 5 months is unfortunately super fast for resolution of FC matters.
    I spent last night working on affidavits for a chap who has a Temporary PO since October 2007 and he is still awaiting his hearing. Yes the 42 and 60 day rules are a joke. Auckland Courts were not doing too badly a few years back but everywhere is having problems with Court delays at the moment. There is a 2004? research paper from Min of Justice on the 42 and 60 day rules and how they don’t work.
    Flick me an e-mail to [email protected] and I will send you some hurry along suggestions.

    Comment by allan Harvey — Wed 12th November 2008 @ 9:58 am

  9. I note that Keys’ government plans to rush through all kinds of legislation “before Christmas”, including taking DNA from everyone arrested of an imprisonable offence and giving police the power to make instant protection orders. The rush of course will severely limit any select committee process, showing National to be even less interested in democracy than was Labour, and showing that National’s criticism of the Electoral Finance Act was hypocrisy. There simply will not be time to craft legislation that is fair and sensible.

    And here’s a clue about how balanced the new protection orders will be, from Keys’ speech to the NZ Police Association on 30 October 2008:

    “7. We’ll immediately introduce legislation giving police the power to issue time-bound on-the-spot protection orders to help protect victims of domestic violence.

    I know you are frequently called to domestic situations where it is blindingly clear that a mother or her children are under serious threat from an abusive and violent partner. I think it’s ridiculous that, faced with these situations, you, our trusted police officers, are hamstrung in your instinct to provide immediate protection to these victims.

    National will immediately introduce a bill changing the law that currently requires you to apply to the court for these protection orders, and we will enhance your discretionary power to grant such orders on a temporary basis. We will pass this law as a matter of priority.

    This will provide you with an immediate response to dangerous domestic situations, and will enhance protection of victims until courts are able to deal with the matter.”

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 25th November 2008 @ 8:41 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar