Those who forget history, supposedly are doomed to repeat it. Life is much more cruel than that….

These are the ‘debates’ that led to the New Zealand Domestic Violence Act 1995.

1994_11_30 question Domestic Violence

Hansard – Date: 06 Dec 1994
Title Domestic Violence – Police Complaints
Question speaker – GEORGE HAWKINS
Responding speaker – Hon JOHN LUXTON
Question No – 7866

GEORGE HAWKINS (Manurewa) to the Minister of Police: What reports, if any, has he received on the incidence of police complaints arising from the new police policy against family violence?

ANSWER: Hon JOHN LUXTON (Minister of Police) replied:
Recording of complaints arising from the attendance of police at family violence incidents commenced in April 1994 since which date complaints arising from eight incidents have been received. There is no evidence to indicate that these complaints arose from the new policy. Investigations have been completed into seven complaints, with only one being upheld.

Hansard – Date: 06 Dec 1994
Title: Domestic Violence—Investigation Practices
Question speaker – Speaker>GEORGE HAWKINS
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon JOHN LUXTON
Question No – Question>7865

GEORGE HAWKINS (Manurewa) to the Minister of Police: What is the police strategy, if any, to minimise the tendency noted by the Police Complaints Authority “to divert onto the actions of the Police the grievances and frustrations often felt by those caught up in situations of domestic discord or violence”?

ANSWER :

Hon JOHN LUXTON (Minister of Police) replied: The Police strategy consists of a policy document on family violence which provides guidelines to officer’s regarding investigation practices, support for victims, the multi-agency approach, relevant law, reporting procedures and the court case disposition. In addition, officers receive training to ensure they have the necessary skills to deal with situations involving family violence. It is considered this training and the guidelines are highly successful.

Hansard – Date: 01 Dec 1994
Title>Publications—The Protection for Family Violence
Question speaker – Speaker>JIM ANDERTON
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon D A M GRAHAM
Question No – Question>7742

JIM ANDERTON (Sydenham) to the Minister of Justice: Which of the recommendations of the 1992 report on The Protection for Family Violence have been implemented?

ANSWER :

Hon D A M GRAHAM (Minister of Justice) replied: I refer to my answer to question for written answer 5319 in which I set out the current status of all the recommendations in the 1992 report. My department has put the recommendations into a series of broad categories. However, because some recommendations comprise several proposals or are framed in broad or comparative terms, their classification is approximate only. The following recommendations have been classified as `implemented’ (that is, current policy and practice are in line with the recommendation but remain subject to ongoing monitoring):
The Police: 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17.
The Family Court: 10, 14, 23, 37, 46, 47, 51, 52.
Family Court Counselling: 2, 10.
The Criminal Courts: 10.
A further 29 recommendations are addressed in substance in the Domestic Violence Bill which was introduced last week.

Hansard – Date: 30 Nov 1994

GEORGE HAWKINS (Manurewa) to the Minister of Police: What special squads, if any, will be operating over the Christmas period to deal with family violence?

ANSWER :

Hon JOHN LUXTON (Minister of Police) replied: Adequate police will be available to deal with offences and incidents, including family violence. To establish special squads at Christmas would be counterproductive and an inappropriate use of police resources.

GEORGE HAWKINS (Manurewa) to the Minister of Police: What forecasts, if any, has he received of the level of family violence over the Christmas period?

ANSWER :

Hon JOHN LUXTON (Minister of Police) replied: No specific forecasts have been provided as the level of family violence can fluctuate depending on which part of the Christmas period is involved. I am advised that adequate police coverage will be available to deal with offences and incidents involving family violence.

First Reading of the Domestic Violence Bill

Hansard – 29 NOV 1994

Introduction

Hon. D A M GRAHAM (Minister of Justice):

I move, That the Domestic Violence Bill be introduced. It is intended that this Bill be referred to the Justice and Law Reform Committee for consideration.

The tragedy of domestic violence cannot be overstated. More and more people are coming to realise that not only does it hurt those who are battered and bruised, but that all society pays the price in some form or other. In the not too distant past we tended to be rather complacent about the issue, considering it not to be a significant problem in what we consider to be a civilised society.

We express shock at the old English common law rule that allowed a husband to beat his wife with a stick “no thicker than his thumb”. Yet it is evident from the statistics that the kind of attitudes that sanctioned that law still exist in society today. For some people scenes like those in Once Were Warriors are not just something seen at the movies—that is their reality.

Strong measures are needed both to send a message that this behaviour is unacceptable in New Zealand in the 1990s and to provide greater protection when domestic violence occurs. There are two key parts to this reform. The first part replaces the Domestic Protection Act of 1982 with new legislation with a revamped regime in which victims of domestic violence can obtain a range of orders. The second part contains amendments to the Guardianship Act of 1968 that are directed at ensuring that the court deals with allegations of violence made in custody and access proceedings so that any orders it makes will not compromise the safety of the children concerned.

When the Domestic Protection Act was first enacted it broke new ground. Protection was extended to women and men living in de facto relationships. To deal with violent behaviour, a special detention power was created that provided a mandatory cooling-off period.

In recent years, as a consequence of increased public awareness of domestic violence, many suggestions have been made for changes to the 1982 Act. In October 1993 my department published a discussion paper on the 1982 Act to focus public debate on the nature of the reform. The paper included a number of options that drew on research, including the 1992 report Protection From Family Violence prepared for the Victims Task Force by Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson, and Hilary Lapsley. One hundred and ten submissions were received on the discussion paper from a wide range of individuals and groups. These included people who had personal experience of the workings of the present law, women’s refuges, women’s and church groups, organisations involved in counselling and programme delivery, lawyers, and Government departments and agencies.

Many were concerned about the perceived lack of effectiveness of the orders available under the 1982 Act. Amongst the key themes that emerged were the ongoing need for legislation to specifically address domestic violence; the need to reduce all forms of domestic violence in a wider range of domestic relationships; the need to provide better protection for children and young people involved in violent domestic situations; the need to empower victims by providing user-friendly and culturally appropriate remedies and court procedures; the need for counselling services for victims as well as for abusers; the need for clearer, stronger sanctions and more effective enforcement; and the need for more publicity and education programmes to change public attitudes and those of judges and others working with the Act.

The primary objective of the new Bill is to provide greater protection for victims of domestic violence. The Bill targets violence that is usually hidden, occurring primarily in homes and between people in close relationships including—but not limited to—family members. Factors such as the often intense nature of these relationships and the proximity in which those affected live, increase the potential for stress and conflict. While close relationships, especially those within the family, attract a measure of privacy, that privacy must not be used to hide violence.

Domestic violence can take many forms not limited to physical abuse. The Bill therefore makes it clear that the term includes sexual abuse and psychological abuse such as harassment, intimidation, threats, and damage to property. Non-physical abuse can be just as harmful, vicious, and distressing as physical injuries. These “bruises” on the inside can result in the victim being too demoralised to be able to take steps to avoid further acts of violence. There is evidence to suggest that behaviour that does not itself involve physical abuse is often part of a pattern of behaviour that eventually escalates into actual physical violence.

While the 1982 Act recognised this to some extent, the Bill will make it plain that an incident involving physical abuse is not a prerequisite to the making of an order. The Bill calls this type of abuse “psychological” abuse. Some prefer to call it “emotional” abuse. I invite the select committee to consider what the best term is to use in this context. Whatever term is used, it should be broad in its scope and cover the deliberate infliction of all types of mental anguish.

In recognition of the diversity of the domestic relationships that now occur in society, the Bill will allow a much wider range of individuals to apply for protection orders—namely, cohabiting partners, whether heterosexual or same sex; family members; people who share a household; and people in close personal relationships. There will be provision for people to make applications on behalf of children and young people who come within any of the above classes. When other potential applicants are unable to apply themselves—for instance, because they are in hospital or are afraid to apply—another person may apply on their behalf. Orders will be more flexible than they are now. They will be able to apply against a person who has done something at the respondent’s request that, if done by the respondent, would be grounds for an order.

There is to be one protection order to replace the present non-molestation and non-violence orders. The new order needs to be able to cater for those who wish to continue the relationship as well as those who do not. It will automatically protect any children of the applicant’s family and may also protect other specified people such as the applicant’s new partner. The protection order will have standard conditions that prohibit any type of domestic violence regardless of the kind that prompted the application.

When the parties are living apart, certain behaviour is expressly prohibited. For example, the person against whom the order is made must not watch or loiter near the protected person’s residence or any other place that person frequents, follow that person about, or make contact except in certain limited circumstances. In addition, the court will be able to impose special conditions that are appropriate in the particular case. These conditions could, for instance, relate to arrangements for the transfer of a child for access.

When a protection order is made, the Bill requires that the police consider the exercise of powers under the Arms Act to seize and confiscate firearms. I invite the select committee to consider whether the Bill should go further and give the court powers relating to firearms. Positive measures to promote changes in behaviour and attitudes are necessary if there is to be any long-term amelioration of domestic violence.

When a protection order is made there is to be a presumption that the respondent should attend counselling or a programme in an attempt to modify the respondent’s future behaviour. While some judges do this now, the Bill makes it clear that this should happen as a matter of course unless there is good reason not to do so. In addition, there is provision for programmes for applicants and affected children, in recognition that they may need some support and assistance to pick up the pieces of their lives. Both these initiatives will require additional resources to ensure that appropriate services are available throughout New Zealand.

I turn now to the enforcement of protection orders. The Bill increases the penalty for breach of a protection order to a maximum of 6 months’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine, or both. There is to be a greater penalty for persistent breaches—namely, a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment. As at present, the police may arrest without warrant when there is a suspected breach of the order. Suggestions have been made that the power of arrest should be mandatory rather than relying on the existence of a strict police policy of arrest for breaches. A statutory power to that effect, however, would be unprecedented in our criminal justice system, but again I invite the select committee to give further consideration to the issue.

The Bill tightens the bail laws so that when there is a breach—other than failure to attend counselling—there is no police bail within the first 24 hours. While the court can grant bail during that period, the paramount consideration is the safety of the victim. After that period—if the person has not been bailed by the court—the police may bail the person charged and impose conditions for the protection of the victim.

Occupation, tenancy, and ancillary orders relating to furniture will continue to be available. In addition, there will be a new furniture order that will, in certain circumstances, allow a person in whose favour a protection order has been made to remove the furniture and household effects from the property to re-establish a home elsewhere.

Court procedures are to be simplified as far as possible. The threshold for ex parte or temporary protection orders is lowered. As at present, a respondent will immediately be able to seek a variation or discharge of the order. When a temporary order is made it will, as a general rule, become final automatically after 3 months unless the respondent takes some steps in the proceedings. In that case a hearing will be held in the usual way. The Bill makes it clear that the applicant is entitled to have a support person present during a court hearing. Once a protection order becomes final, it will remain in force until the court discharges it.

Amendments are made to the civil legal aid provisions of the Legal Services Act. In domestic protection proceedings the applicant for a protection order does not have to pay a contribution nor will there be a charge on the applicant’s property in respect of the costs of the proceedings.

I turn now to the second part of the reform. The Bill makes important changes to the Guardianship Act. These follow from the recommendations made by Sir Ronald Davison, who was appointed to inquire into the family court proceedings relating to Alan and Christine Bristol and to report on whether there was a need for any change in the law or in family court practice. Sir Ronald concluded
that, under the law as it is, and with the current practices of the family court, the deaths of Alan Bristol and his three children were not foreseeable or preventable. However, he went on to make some recommendations for changes to the law.

The Bill therefore provides that when allegations of violence are made in custody and access proceedings the court is to determine, as soon as practicable, whether the allegations can be substantiated. In cases when an allegation of violence against a child or a party to the proceedings is substantiated, the violent parent is not to be given custody or unsupervised access unless the parent can satisfy the court that the child will be safe.

Domestic violence is a complex and deep-rooted behavioural problem that can be eliminated only by fundamental changes in society and in attitudes towards women and children. While the changes to domestic protection law and the Guardianship Act represent a significant advance on the present law, it is important to appreciate that they are unlikely to reduce domestic violence overnight. Indeed, in the short term it may look as though domestic violence has increased, because some previously “invisible” violence will now be able to be the subject of orders and also police involvement.

While legislation can send important messages about the seriousness of domestic violence, there also needs to be a concerted effort on other fronts. Strategies, such as those being developed currently by the crime prevention unit of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will play an important role in developing initiatives to reduce all types of violence. Eliminating domestic violence requires changes to a culture that is unfortunately threaded with attitudes that condone violence in various contexts. This will take time and effort on the part of everyone in society but I hope that this Bill represents one large step along the way. I commend the Bill to the House.

Hon. PHIL GOFF (Roskill):

The Labour Opposition supports the introduction of the Bill. I want to pick up on the Minister’s last point and agree that it takes us some steps down the way, but the Opposition would want to make the point that this legislative measure by itself will not be sufficient to deal with the massive problem that domestic violence represents in our society. We support this legislation because it is consistent with the Victims Task Force report entitled Protection from Family Violence, and it is also consistent with the Davison report. A little later I will ask the Minister some questions about that, because it seems that the Bill does not go the whole way towards implementing what Sir Ronald Davison suggested in the Bristol inquiry.

I say that the legislation takes us only part way down the track because for these measures to work we have to have adequate resourcing to back them up. I am talking about adequate resourcing in terms of provision of support for the victim. We know that makes a big difference. That is why the Hamilton abuse intervention pilot programme has been successful, because the resourcing has been there for the groups to come in behind and support and encourage the victim, and ensure that the victim does not believe that the domestic violence that has been inflicted simply has to be accepted.

The resourcing is also necessary if we are to have prevention programmes that work. It is all very well to sentence people to undergo counselling and to undergo programmes, but if the Government then denies the support for those programmes to make sure they work we are deliberately jeopardising the victims of domestic violence and sentencing them to further problems. Again the evidence is there in the pilot programme in Hamilton, and the group Men For Non-Violence, that when the resources are provided the attitude of offenders can be changed. Indeed, that has happened and the reoffending rate has been dramatically reduced.

But what we also hear from those programmes is that inadequate funding means that too often they can only at best do half a job. It is worth mentioning that for victim support we spend on average $7.35 for each victim. I have been around victims’ support groups. I know the pressure they are under. I know they are in danger of burning out. I recommend to the Minister that he visits those programmes and that he backs up these legislative measures with the sort of resources that are needed to make real inroads into the problem of violence.

The other point I draw to the Minister’s attention is that domestic violence does not take place in isolation from the wider economic and social environment. Legislation to deal with violence, without regard to the socio-economic factors that contribute to its incidence, will not produce the results that the community wants. For too long the magnitude of the problems caused by domestic violence has been underestimated in this country. Too little importance has been attached to the need for measures to deal effectively with violence in the home.

It was interesting that the Roper report in 1987 revealed for the first time that 80 percent of all violence in this country is domestic violence. Recent police reports confirm that figure. Yet for a long, long time, politicians in this country, the news media, and general public attitude has been that the problem of violence is on the streets not in the home. In fact, the reverse is true because the largest part of the problem of violence in our society is found in the home. Half of all homicides take place in the home—people are killed by those whom they thought were near and dear to them.

The most insidious thing about domestic violence is that it carries over from one generation to the next. Violent homes provide negative role models. Boys in that environment learn that violence is part of the male’s role. Girls accept that violence is part of a normal relationship. If we are to break that cycle of violence we need to do something effective now and we need to resource it properly to prevent that violence from occurring. What we need is a clear and unambiguous message from Parliament, from the courts, from the police, and from public attitudes that domestic violence should be treated like any other form of violence.

It disappoints me in this Bill that the Minister ignores a recommendation in the Davison report that domestic violence be accorded the same penalties that other assaults are accorded under the Crimes Act. Perhaps the Minister, when he responds to the comments of the Opposition, will explain to us why we still separate out domestic violence and accord it lower penalties than we accord to other violence by strangers.
This Bill should have been given greater priority. It is now 7 years since the Roper committee reported and made recommendations on domestic violence, which have still not been implemented. It is more than 2 years since the Victims Task Force reported and made 101 recommendations—the vast majority of which have yet to be put into place. The Davison report on the Bristol inquiry—which was very straightforward and clear—was made 8 months ago and it has taken all this time to get those reports put into legislation.

Nevertheless, I want to applaud some of the key measures of this Bill. I want to applaud the fact that it extends the range of persons who can seek protection from domestic violence, because while domestic violence was once seen in a stereotypical way—assault by a man against his wife—it ignored that there were other forms of relationship and other forms of violence and, in particular, the phenomenon of “elder violence” with younger people being violent towards older people in the family. Of course, we have seen this year in New Zealand the growing incidence of child homicide and assault on children.

I also support the fact that the categories of behaviour in respect of which protection may be sought are extended from the obvious physical and sexual violence to psychological abuse. Psychological abuse can be incredibly damaging in this area. So I welcome those things.

I welcome the formation of a single protection order replacing the non-molestation order and non-violence order. I welcome the fact that that is now more flexible in its application. I support also the extension of provisions available to the court to recommend or to order the parties, or one of the parties, to attend counselling and to make failure to attend counselling an offence.

The sanctions in this measure are increased—and that is appropriate—to a maximum fine of $5,000 or 6 months’ imprisonment. When a person repeatedly ignores the existence of a protection order the term of imprisonment can be up to 2 years. The bail provisions in this Bill are also important. It is essential that when a person breaches a protection order police bail cannot be granted for at least 24 hours. I believe that provides a very important cooling down period. I support the fact that the need to protect the victim is made the paramount consideration in the granting of police bail. There is plenty of evidence that bail given inappropriately in the past has cost human lives and has caused unnecessary damage to individuals.

I have questions to ask the Minister about the provisions relating to firearms. It is important that when a person has been guilty of domestic violence and is in possession of a firearm or a firearms licence that fact be notified to the police. Under this Bill the police have the discretion to revoke the firearms licence and to seize arms. But the adequacy of this measure will need closer scrutiny at the select committee stage.

The provisions for legal aid without the requirement to make a contribution towards it are important. So too are the enforceability of New Zealand protection orders overseas and, vice versa, overseas protection orders being enforced in New Zealand.

The Minister quite rightly said that in terms of amendment to the Guardianship Act, this Bill picks up many of the Davison recommendations. In particular, when a history of violence is proved the violent party must not be granted custody or allowed unsupervised access unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe. But there are some things that do not appear explicitly to have been picked up from the Davison recommendations. I would like to ask the Minister what provisions are made for minimising opportunities for violence during times of access and change-over of custody, because that has been seen as a period in which the victim has been particularly prone to assault by the violent party.

I ask the Minister whether he has sufficient in this Bill to ensure that, in relation to domestic violence, the courts no longer regard the other spouse as in some way having provoked the violence. It has been a real weakness in court attitudes that the person against whom the violence is directed is often regarded as contributing to that violence. We need the message loud and clear to be that there is no excuse in any circumstances for a person to use violence against another person in a domestic or any other situation.

I repeat the point about why the penalties for domestic violence do not equate with the penalties for assault under the Crimes Act. The former Chief Justice recommended that that should be the case; it does not appear to be in this Bill. Again I ask the Minister whether he can guarantee to this House that resources will be provided to ensure that education and anger management programmes are in place to change the attitude and behaviour of the offender. If those resources are not in place then this is a lot of hot air. Those resources must be in place for this legislation to be effective. So far the track record of the Government does not give us great confidence in that regard.

I ask the Minister why this Bill does not appear to address the concern that Sir Ronald Davison had that, when court orders were supposedly made by consent that consent was in fact freely and willingly given. Aside from those specific questions, I ask about the general approach the Government will be taking to resource adequately the preventive programmes. The support given to victims groups of $7.35 a victim is not enough. The Minister knows those groups do need extra help because he has received correspondence from Men For Non-Violence stating they are running on a shoe-string, and that they need more assistance in that regard. He knows that the Hamilton abuse intervention pilot programme, which has been successful, is still up in the air about whether funding for it will be guaranteed. If we do not put the resources in, the problem will continue.

Will the Minister also complement this legislation with other necessary measures to deal with the problem of family stress, which is closely associated with domestic violence? The Roper report talked about the need for targeted early intervention programmes for at-risk families. The crime prevention unit has talked about exactly the same thing. All the evidence is there that interventions are most successful when they occur early in the life cycle. But are we in fact putting the resources in that area that stop the strain and tensions within family and prevent the outbreak of violence?

I am not suggesting that domestic violence is confined to just one sector of the community. Patently it is not. It is a problem that exists right across all socio-economic levels. But we know that when the family is under financial stress, such as many families are with the increase in market rents and the cut-back in benefits, then violence is more likely to be an outcome in that family. So are we to have legislation that finally picks up the recommendations of groups like the Victims Task Force in terms of legislative provisions but still then not tackle the actual causes of domestic violence in our society?

We have had a long period of time when this has been debated. We have had report after report, and the recommendations are mutually consistent, but still we insist on taking a piecemeal approach to the problems of domestic violence. I put it to the Minister that while the measures in this Bill, however belated, are welcome, this Bill will not succeed in its intentions unless he is prepared to provide the resources and complement these measures with other measures that are needed across the justice portfolio.

Hon. KATHERINE O’REGAN (Associate Minister of Women’s Affairs):

I am pleased to be able to speak in this introduction debate on the Domestic Violence Bill and, at long last, to see this Bill before the House. It has taken us a long time to get the Bill to where it is, but I believe that what we have before us is a good Bill. I guess there will always be other areas that we will need to address as time proceeds. One of those issues is probably stalking legislation. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some idea of exactly where that issue is in the bowels of the Department of Justice. I would hope we will be able to address that issue before too long.

I would like to begin with some of the words from Protection from Family Violence and pay tribute to the authors of the report commissioned by the Victims Task Force. They are Ruth Bush, Neville Robertson, and Hilary Lapsley from the University of Waikato. I would like to begin with some of the words they used in their preface: “To the women we interviewed who told their stories and who have been silenced long and enough; to the women who have been hidden and came out of hiding to tell their stories; to the women who have gone back into hiding and are there still now; to the women who have paid to tell their stories in ways they should not have to, who have paid with their bodies and their pain; to the women who still might pay when it is known they have told their stories; to the silent children listening to their mothers’ stories, those children who have learnt to be silent to survive and whose stories are yet to be told; to the women who have died,”—and two died during the time they were working on this report—“the days of their deaths were marked by the system’s trivialisation of the dangers you faced.” I would hope that tonight this piece of legislation will address to a major degree the concerns that the Victims Task Force report highlighted to the Government at that time.

As Associate Minister of Women’s Affairs, I would like to pick out some of the major issues that address women particularly, although there is a lot in here that obviously affects both husbands and wives or partners, and children. I would like to look particularly at some of the clauses here, and congratulate the Minister on listening to the concerns expressed by the two Ministers of Women’s Affairs and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, to include some of the provisions.

The particular areas that I would like to highlight are the removal of the requirement for contribution to legal-aid costs or a charge on property. A question was asked recently in the House by a member who sought that information. I was glad that we were able to tell her that we were looking at that removal.

The other issue is in clause 19: the provision for counselling or programmes for women. I believe that that in itself is a major advance for us, particularly for women. I think that clause 18, which states that the court may impose special conditions, does leave us open for opportunities to discuss particularly the issues surrounding the firearms issue, which the member who just resumed his seat spoke about.

I believe that at the present time we should perhaps look more closely at this position. As it was stated, there is no automatic removal of firearms from a house where there is a domestic problem and violence has been used. The police can revoke the licence, but we would like to see an automatic removal of firearms from that particular home or house so that the victims are much better protected, and, of course, they are both women and children in the main.

There is also an issue relating to custody and access. The task force identified that many disagreements occurred when children were being either dropped off or collected under custody and access orders. I believe that what has been done here will ensure that that matter will be resolved.

In the area of mutual orders—clause 16—where the court grants an application for a protection order, it must not also make a protection order in favour of the respondent unless the respondent has made an application for a protection order and the court has determined that application in accordance with this Act. In the past, judges have made decisions in which they impose a protection order on both partners; that they are both to keep away from each other—which I think has come to be known as the “Two to tango” clause—which, of course, is an automatic presumption that the fault lies particularly with the women in most instances. This was addressed by the Victims Task Force report, as well. I am glad to say that the Government has addressed that issue in clause 16.

I spoke to the New South Wales Minister for the Status of Women, and she expressed to me her hope that New Zealand would see very soon in its legislation a reciprocal agreement with regard to domestic protection orders between Australia and New Zealand. I am very pleased to see that that, too, is within the body of this legislation.

This House and this nation cannot condone violence in any shape or form, particularly against women and children. I believe that the cost of family violence to this nation falls somewhere between $1 billion and $5 billion. That is a lot of money. More so, it is a lot of heartache, pain and physical suffering, and psychological suffering. I hope that this legislation will attempt to address some of those areas of the law of the past, which I believe did serve us well for the time, but which now need amending. I believe that this piece of legislation will go a long way to doing that. I hope that in the future, if it needs amending again, this House will do so.

ELIZABETH TENNET (Island Bay):

It is with pride and some pleasure that I see this legislation coming before the House. I want to say thank you to the Minister for finally bringing in the legislation. I also want to place on record my thanks to the Labour women members of Parliament who have also worked hard on this issue, particularly over the last year, but also to all the women out there in the groups, working away—men and women—the women who have provided evidence in matters relating to the need for changes in legislation, and to all of us who have pushed and prodded, embarrassed and lobbied the Minister to finally bring this piece of legislation into Parliament in the dead of night here on the first day of December 1994. It is here at last, and we celebrate that, but I do want to say that it is about time.

Domestic violence is indeed a very sickening phenomenon that occurs in our society. It is true that 80 percent of all violence in our community is, in fact, occurring inside our own homes. It is mainly against women and it is mainly against children. Every month of every year, a woman is murdered by her husband or her partner. Most children who are killed or abused in New Zealand are, in fact, killed or abused in their own homes. New Zealand now has the sixth-highest child-abuse rate in the world. That is not a very good statistic, and, in conjunction with the highest youth suicide rate—that issue is somewhat connected with what we are dealing with today—it is indeed a very sad case.

But I repeat, I am very pleased to see this legislation, and I am sure it will be of some good. We do not wish to see a repeat of the sorts of horrendous examples that we have seen in the past, in which domestic violence has played a part. There was the case, for example, of Catherine Coghlan, who was shot by her husband as she was leaving a counselling session in Christchurch, after which he then shot himself; and the case of the respectable Christchurch man who struck his wife with his straightened coat-hanger over a 9-hour period, and punched and kicked her head causing a perforated eardrum, because his wife did not treat him with respect. Those sorts of examples cannot be allowed to continue, and we believe that this legislation will help.

But I have to say that the Minister has been shoddy in his delay in bringing this legislation forward. We saw in 1992 the 101 recommendations of the Victims Task Force report. We saw the report in April 1993 of the crime prevention action group report. We saw in October 1993 a discussion paper on the Domestic Protection Act, and in April this year we saw Sir Ronald Davison’s inquiry into the very sad case of the Bristol murder in Wanganui, where the man killed his three daughters and then killed himself. We have seen plenty of reports over this period of time, and it is shoddy that the Minister has taken this length of time to come up with the legislation. All of those reports recommended the sorts of changes we have seen here tonight.

I support the extension of the protection order that is provided for in this Bill. It is good to see that abuse by a son against his mother, or some other family abuse, can, in fact, mean that the victim can obtain a protection order. It is good also that we are moving against elder abuse—a phenomenon that is rather hidden in our society, but which is certainly there. It is good to see that the penalties for breaching those protection orders have been increased, although I am sure there will be some debate about whether that is high enough yet.

It is good that the custody and protection orders can be dealt with at the same time, thereby recognising that domestic violence and the issuing of custody of children to a violent partner is a fatal mix, certainly well known as a result of the Bristol case in Wanganui. It is good that we are dealing with that, and it is good that a violent parent—for the protection of his or her children—will no longer be able to receive custody of those children. I found it rather curious that when a protection order is given, in this Bill there is no provision for the automatic seizure of firearms found by police in the home of a so-called violent offender. I believe the automatic confiscation of those firearms should be there. I hope that is something that can be changed in the select committee.

I support the mechanism in the Bill for compulsory counselling. It will provide one of the longer-term answers to the problems of abuse and violence in our society. But I ask the Minister how that compulsory counselling is going to be resourced when we know that the existing provisions for counselling, and other forms of victim support, are not being adequately resourced in our community. We all know that the Men Against Violence group, for example, is now seeing approximately 4,000 men a year and is helping them to stop their violence, but it is not being adequately funded. From the statistics, we know that the Men Against Violence group should be seeing approximately 10,000 men per year in New Zealand. This is based on the crimes they are committing. Yet they are not being adequately funded for the 4,000 men it is seeing now.
We saw just today an article in the Dominion that states: “Cut threatens sex offender treatment programme”. We know that Women’s Refuge has received only one increase in funding since this Government has been in power. From my Wellington experience I know that the Wellington refuge, for example, is possibly facing closure because of a lack of funding. We know also that the Young Women’s Christian Association self- defence programme is not being funded by the Government when it should be. There are many areas and groups that deal with victims of violence and that try to stop violent offenders. All of those need adequate resourcing. The Minister has been very silent about how he will resource them. It is all very well to pass good legislation, but if it is not going to be funded to be able to work adequately, then we are still not dealing with the problems in our society. I hope that the next Government Budget will adequately fund the provisions that this legislation is making available. We do support the Bill. It has been a long time coming, but we are pleased to see it, and we hope that it is successful.

JUDITH TIZARD (Panmure):

I rise with a great deal of pleasure to greet the introduction of the Domestic Violence Bill. It has been a long time coming. What we are seeing tonight is legislation that we have waited for for too long. The funding issues will be paramount to the Opposition.

We have a choice in New Zealand. We can choose either to fund the consequences of violence or we can choose to do what we can to fund programmes that will stop violence in this country. We have to do both of those things in the meantime. But I want a commitment from this Government to recognise that the estimated 80 percent of violent acts in this country that are domestic have to be addressed seriously. We do not need the sort of attitudes that we have seen in the past in the Government, in which we have been told that domestic violence is not a serious issue.

In 1987 we had the Roper report on violence. We have had the Victims Task Force, which was set up to look into the issues of domestic violence, particularly violence against women and children. It reported in 1992. We have now waited until 1 December 1994 to see those issues being addressed.

This Bill is a vast improvement on the legislation we had before. I acknowledge all the women—all the people in New Zealand—who have played a part in getting this legislation here. I want to acknowledge the Labour women who have, since 1982, been agitating in relation to this issue. I pay particular credit to the member for Southern Maori, who has worked long and hard on this issue. She has acknowledged the problems that are facing all New Zealanders and she has acknowledged the problems that are facing Maori in particular. She has been a leader amongst us on this issue.

I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition. She was on the Statutes Revision Committee in 1982 and she has had a major role in making that legislation work as well as it did for 12 years. I particularly want to pay tribute to all those women in the community who, over the years, have said that this is an issue that is “not just a domestic”. I pay tribute to the police, who have finally taken this issue seriously.

I come back to the fact that 80 percent of the violence in our community is domestic. These are people in families and in neighbourhoods who take revenge. They take out on each other their bad temper, their lack of ability to negotiate, and their lack of ability to be kind to each other. In 1993, almost every month a woman was murdered by her husband or her ex-husband. It is too many. We in the Labour Party have been asking how many more women and children must die before this Parliament gets the law right. How many women and children must die before this Parliament gives the police and the courts the power to deal with domestic violence? Women and children are paying the price. This legislation should be working for them.

I am delighted to see the extending of the range of people who can apply for a protection order to include people who are in homosexual, heterosexual, married or de facto relationships. It has been extended to family members, to people who are normally in a household, and to people with whom there is a close relationship. However, I have to ask what this Bill does about stalking. Stalking is a serious problem in our community.

Hon. Katherine O’Regan:

It is probably a Crimes Act amendment.

JUDITH TIZARD:

I am afraid it probably is not to do with the Crimes Act. Where there are threats to somebody who has identified the person who is threatening to attack them, that should be dealt with in terms of a relationship. It is often an imagined relationship. I have received from the member for Porirua an example of a young woman who has been stalked remorselessly for several years by the uncle of a school friend. Stalking is a serious problem in this community and I believe that it should be dealt with in this legislation.

I am delighted to see that the definition of “domestic violence” is widened to include physical abuse, sexual abuse, and psychological abuse such as intimidation, harassment, and damage to property. Women should not have to prove they have been attacked before they can get protection from threats. There are many women who live lives of subjection and terror. They have been threatened but they have not been subjected to violence until the crisis comes.

I am delighted to see that we will now have—rather than the technicality of whether one gets a non-molestation order or a non-violence order or a trespass order—only one protection order. I am pleased that that protection order will automatically benefit any child of the applicant’s family and other people that the applicant has a domestic relationship with. It is important that protection orders can be taken out on behalf of people who are incapable of doing so themselves. For example, these could be for children or for people who have disabilities.

The counselling option provision is a very valuable one. We have to consider very carefully whether counselling is being used in some violent relationships to perpetuate the violence. That counselling should be about empowering people and not about perpetuating their subjection.

There are many other issues such as the custody issue, the bail issue, and particularly the legal aid issue, that need to be dealt with. But I come to what the Opposition is concerned about. This Bill must be given the widest airing. It must be talked about in the community. It must be known of by people who need it. They must be able to make submissions on it.

The privacy provisions that have applied in family court hearings and in family issues generally, must not be used against the victims. They must be used to protect them and only when it is absolutely necessary.

We are concerned that in the past the Government has not proved to be willing to put the funding in. We are concerned that the Government addresses not only the issues in this Bill but also the absolutely major issue of preventing violence in this community. Where are the programmes to train young people in assertion? Where are the programmes in the schools to teach young people to look after themselves? These are the ones that are being cut out in my community. Where are the self-defence courses? Where is the funding for women’s refuge? Where is the funding for prevention programmes like the Hamilton abuse intervention programme to be extended through the rest of the country?

This Government has spent a lot of time telling us how wonderful Kia Marama is. It is the one model we have of changing people’s behaviour. If we could have programmes of a similar type to Kia Marama for people who were starting out on a pattern of violence and abuse we might be able to save the next generation.

ROBERT ANDERSON (Kaimai):

I welcome this Bill and thank the Minister for having introduced it. We have to address a problem that is caused mainly by men. I agree with the previous speaker that the Bill gives us the opportunity to ensure that this topic is widely debated in the community. Probably the greatest cause of domestic and family violence in all its forms is ignorance.

Lianne Dalziel:

No, that has nothing to do with it.

ROBERT ANDERSON:

Well, that is my view. I believe that the attitude of our people must change. It is up to Parliament to take the initiative and the lead by giving this issue publicity that is as wide as possible and by encouraging submissions from the community.

We have some attitudes that prevail in our country, such as domestic violence, drunk and drugged drivers, and dangerous chauvinistic driving. People of criminal intention have a lot in common. I would hope that we have statistics on this information. If not, we should set about setting up a system to acquire that information. It is important for us to know who these people are who commit family and domestic violence. We need to be able to have a character model of who they are. For instance, do we currently match up the information on people who commit this sort of violence on whether it is alcohol or drug related, whether they have an ability to read or write, or whether they have a previous criminal record? I think that to do that would lead to a better understanding of the problem and how it should be addressed.

Lianne Dalziel:

It doesn’t work that way, I’m sorry.

ROBERT ANDERSON:

The member may have that point of view. I have a different point of view. I am taking the opportunity in the Chamber tonight of saying what I believe quite genuinely and I am making my small contribution on this matter.

I think the situation is a sad indictment on our country and mostly on the attitude of our male population. We still have a chauvinistic attitude that is far too great. I am not sure that any one person has the answer for what the cures are. But I think if we can find out who this person is, and when we have some statistical information, there may be a number of—

Lianne Dalziel:

It’s one’s next door neighbour; it’s one’s uncle; it’s one’s brother. It’s everyone. It’s right across the board.

ROBERT ANDERSON:

Maybe it is, but I am not sure that I am prepared to take the member’s word for that because she is not producing the information. I want to ensure that there is more statistical information to get a description of this person, so that the solutions—and, if the member likes to add to it, the punishment—can fit the crime. For instance, if somebody was found guilty of domestic or family violence and had a drink problem, that person would need to be treated quite differently from somebody who had a reading and writing problem.

I feel very strongly that in its broadest terms this issue relates to ignorance, and one has to overcome that ignorance in a number of different ways. If a number of people are involved with family violence, perhaps through frustration or lack of education, we need to do something about it. It is not necessarily the answer to send people to jail but they may be required to attend some basic education programme, which may be for a 2-year period. It is like sending them back to school. I do not think that a short course of 2 weeks or 3 months is sufficient. These people need to be bound over; they need to be educated in whatever the base cause is of their frustration and the reason they commit family violence.

I would suggest to the select committee that hears this Bill and the evidence on it that it looks at the causes. If the information is not available it should try to ensure that better statistical information is kept in the future so that we have a better idea of how to tackle this problem. This would lead to its reduction and hopefully before too long stamp it out completely.

LIANNE DALZIEL (Christchurch Central):

I acknowledge that the speaker who has just resumed his seat has spoken with a genuine concern about the issue. However, we have had a number of reports about domestic violence. One of the problems is there seems to be a view that there is a stereotype that we can attach to domestic violence. The reality is that domestic violence cannot be attached to one particular group of people because it happens across all strata
of our society. It happens in the streets of Fendalton, of Remuera, and in the streets of Linwood, of Ponsonby, or whatever, and in every place in between. There is nothing that we can draw from all the examples except that an underlying issue relates to power and control.

The power and control that men wish in a particular instance to exercise over women may be exacerbated by alcohol but is not caused by it. That message has certainly come through in all the literature that I have read. This Bill has been a very long time in coming to this House. I have followed this issue very closely since being elected to Parliament in 1990. It was not very long after that we were aware the Victims Task Force had picked this up as an issue and had decided to commission a report from a group of people in Waikato. They were Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson, and Hilary Lapsley.

I want to pay tribute to those three people in this House tonight. They put their hearts and souls into this report. I do commend it to the member who spoke before. I hope that he reads it. I commend to him that he read the original report, not the somewhat expurgated version released by the Victims Task Force on the instruction of the Department of Justice. I commend the original report to the member—all the language is there, along with all the explanations about some of the issues that are causing domestic violence in our country.

One of the problems that I have about the timing of this introduction is that we have been in urgency now for 3 days. We are only 3 weeks from Christmas. This Bill will not operate to protect those women who will find out this Christmas that home is where the hurt is. It will not protect them. It is too late for them. There will be extra people hurt this Christmas. The stresses and strains of Christmas are a particular concern. We all know that violence increases round these times. We know that people will be struggling to put the basics on the dinner table on Christmas Day—let alone something special or a little bit extra. The pressure that that puts on individual families is unbelievable. I do not think that any member in this House can fully understand the pressure that is brought to bear on families in this, the Year of the Family. As we leave the Year of the Family, we will see families torn apart.

When Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson, and Hilary Lapsley undertook their task they set out to examine continuing breaches of non-violence orders with a view to improving the protection that was offered to victims. Their terms of reference included the victims’ experiences of abuse, the response of police to reported domestic assaults, the process of applying for protection orders, and the enforcement of those orders by the police and the criminal courts. They called the report Domestic Violence and the Justice System. The name was changed to Protection from Family Violence. When they said “domestic violence and the justice system”, they were challenging the justice system to respond to the domestic violence.

The names of the judges were omitted from the report. Details were suppressed, and information contained in the report was editorialised by the department. I shall give an example. On page 54 of the original report there is a discussion about Pam, who is seeking a protection order. It states: “Pam went before an elderly male judge who read her affidavit and said to her: `No one can live under those circumstances. It has got to be lies.’ It was only after Pam lost control, cried, and shook, which she said was a typical, helpless, female response, that he seemed to believe her.” The original report was relating the experience of a woman standing before a family court judge. Guess how it came out in the final version! “Pam appeared before an elderly male judge and was able eventually to convince him that her need for a non-molestation order was genuine.” Does that give members any information about her experience? No, it does not. That was the kind of thing that happened throughout this report.

I will give another example. “Maureen expressed great distress in having to attend further counselling and felt this was a form of harassment by her husband. She wishes to make it clear that she is extremely fearful of him and is very much opposed to any direct contact with him, or any consideration of removal of the non-molestation order that is in effect. Maureen stresses that there are no issues to be discussed with her husband and does not want to entertain any ideas of reconciliation.” That sends a very strong message about how Maureen felt. The report was editorialised to: “The family court judge declined to discharge the non-molestation order.” So what happened to this report was most unfortunate in terms of the process. It certainly considerably delayed the release of the report.

I wanted to speak briefly on this Bill because I feel this is a public health issue. Domestic violence is a public health issue. Domestic violence is different from what occurs outside the home only because it is perpetrated by people whom one knows, trusts, and, so often, has loved—and still loves, in some cases. Therefore, it is a betrayal that nobody can understand except the person who is experiencing it. I feel very strongly that we as a Parliament must act very firmly on this issue. We must provide the best laws that provide the best protection to ensure that the public health of New Zealand is protected, and to ensure that women are protected from the emotional, mental, physical, and sexual violence that is perpetrated against them every single day.

SANDRA LEE (Auckland Central):

I shall speak briefly on this issue and endorse many of the comments made in the House this evening, particularly by the Labour Opposition women. The Alliance welcomes this Bill. I am really moved to speak in response to my colleague on the left who made the point that what is required in order to address this issue is more statistical evidence. I tell that earlier speaker that in fact there is no shortage in this country of all the statistical information necessary to confirm clearly the reality of the situation for women. This matter has been inadequately addressed by Parliament, by Governments, by law enforcement agencies, and the like for too long.

If anybody is left in any doubt about the statistics and the degree to which abuse of women occurs in New Zealand society today they simply have to look at the number of non-molestation orders—ineffective as they have been over the years—that are issued on an annual basis. They simply need to look at the annual court records of this country to know the statistical reality of the plight of women in this country when it comes to domestic violence. What is required—and this Bill provides a key—is for society and this Parliament to send a clear message that we are no longer prepared to turn a blind eye or to take an ambivalent view towards those who perpetrate domestic violence in society.

Since I have had the privilege of becoming an MP I have had to deal with two particular cases that I honestly would not have believed would be able to occur until I witnessed them and was able to research and confirm the facts for myself. One case was of a woman who was stalked by a former husband. She had little or no support, and her life ultimately became so wretched that she took it as she felt that that was the only way left open to her. My research, the family’s research, and, indeed, the police’s research showed that she tried every legal avenue open to her to get on with her life and to live with her children, and it was not made possible for her. We did not protect her, and the only course she had left was to take her own life.

Another case that came before me was of a woman, a good mum, a solo mum on her own, who had removed herself from a violent situation. The court took the custody of her child from her when she refused to take her child to her former partner for his weekend visitation right, because the last time she had done that he had thrown a brick through her car window. It is interesting to note that the police failed to deal with the incident of the brick through the window, but three of them were able to go to her home and to remove the child from her. I found it hard to believe that that sort of thing occurred in New Zealand society. I rang this woman’s lawyer and said: “Am I being told all the story here?”. The reality was that it was true.

What we are effectively saying to women like the two in the cases I have just spoken of, and others that we have heard of this evening, is that it is OK when it happens to women; it is OK when it is domestic and it happens behind closed doors. If it happens in Queen Street at Christmas time, somebody is expected to deal with it; we frown upon that sort of behaviour. But if it happens to a woman in her home behind closed doors, it is all on—the OK Corral is OK with us. That is not acceptable. This legislation offers an opportunity to do something about that, and I welcome it.

I would like to address the issue of resources. The women’s refuge movement, those who give rape crisis counselling in this country, and the domestic violence centres have suffered incredibly, particularly over the last few years, as a result of their resources being cut back. Alongside their resources, their national funding sources, being cut back they have also been faced with issues such as ever-increasing rate rises—in the case of the rape crisis counselling centres in Auckland—and the like. They are struggling to continue to provide their much-needed service. If we are, through this Bill, to make a commitment in terms of recognising that domestic violence is unacceptable, we also have to accept the responsibility of making a financial commitment to provide resources that will enable those organisations and agencies that have been working in this field to carry out their job and to carry it out effectively.

I would like to comment on a point that was made earlier that there are men in this situation, too. That is true. They are by far the minority, but having said that I do think we have to be mindful that there are isolated incidents of men being the victims of violent abuse. If we tend to assume that those cases do not occur we are in danger of making it even harder for people in that circumstance to come out. In fact, in doing that we are just perpetrating the myth that has created many of the problems women have had to endure for so long in that men who are the victims of domestic abuse may not admit it because it is not macho to do so. It is OK and macho to be a perpetrator, but it is not macho and not OK to be a victim. I think we do need to recognise that there are men in that situation, but, as I say, they are by far in the minority.

Any legislation that advantages women and provides them with more protection is welcomed by the Alliance. We talk about the Year of the Family. The very first thing we should do in any Year of the Family is to make those who give the nurturing—particularly the mothers—safe.

JILL PETTIS (Wanganui):

I am very pleased to support the introduction of this Bill. We have waited a long, long time, and, while I am pleased that this Bill has finally been introduced, I am saddened that women and children have paid the price of the procrastination and inexcusable delay; those women and children have suffered unnecessarily. While I welcome the introduction of the Bill, I want to pause and reflect on the fact that a very large price has been paid.

First, I congratulate and sincerely acknowledge the huge contribution that has been made by the many women who have lobbied strongly for the introduction of this Bill. I commend the member for Auckland Central—I certainly endorse what she has said—and my other Labour colleagues who have also supported and worked strenuously towards the introduction of the Bill through their constant and sincere lobbying. I also acknowledge the very large and public contribution that the New Zealand Police has made in bringing the issue of domestic violence to public notice.

It is almost OK now to talk about domestic violence whereas once upon a time it was spoken about only by women in women’s groups. We talked about it, but I certainly do not think it was an issue that the majority of men ever talked about openly. I sincerely commend the police for their promotion of the Not Just a Domestic programme. Next week another issue will be shown on New Zealand television screens. That will bring a lot of emotion to the fore, especially for those people who have been victims, but it is an excellent idea and I certainly support it.

Since the Not Just a Domestic programme first screened earlier in the year, there has been an increase in the reporting of domestic violence. I know that in my own area of Wanganui, where a tragic case occurred earlier this year, the reporting of domestic violence certainly has increased. The women who work at our local women’s and children’s shelter have said that the increase did not necessarily mean anything in particular, it was just the tip of the iceberg, and the police are most certainly treating family violence with much more conviction. This, of course, gives women confidence to report incidents of domestic violence, and that is a good thing.

I too share the concerns that other people have expressed tonight about the issue of funding. I have been a volunteer worker for the women’s refuge in Wanganui and I have gone out late at night and in the early hours of the morning when women have rung in to report that they are victims of violence, and are seeking refuge—in the truest sense of the word—from the violence they have experienced within recent hours and in many cases, of course, for months and years beforehand. It is a traumatic experience to go and assist a stranger because in many cases we do not know the women who present themselves, seeking refuge for the evening.

I want to share an instance of one night when I went out. My daughter, who would have been about 16 at the time, knew that I was going out and I wanted the family to know where I was going at that late hour. I arrived home about 3 hours later, and at that stage it was the early hours of the morning. It was a school night and my daughter was wide awake and called out “Mum”. I went in to see her and said: “Goodness me, you should have been asleep hours ago.” She had been lying awake for about 3 1/2 hours, waiting for me to come home. My daughter is one of the fortunate young women in New Zealand in that she has not experienced domestic violence. I am lucky. My husband does not beat me, so my daughter has not had to experience that. But she was very emotionally upset that mum was going out to help a woman who had been severely beaten.

I mention that not to reveal anything about myself especially or because I am particularly interesting to anybody but because I want to draw attention to the effect domestic violence has on children. I welcome the widening of the definition of domestic violence in that psychological abuse is included. Many people do not recognise the effect psychological abuse has on the victim. I experienced, as I have just told the House, the effect it had on my daughter. We cannot hope to imagine the effect it has on children who live in homes where they constantly experience their mother being beaten by their father, whom they love. Children love their fathers. What must it do to them to see their father beating their mother, whom they also love? Recently we saw on television about cases in America in which the children of women who were the victims of violence had become violent themselves against their father. That is just perpetuating a vicious cycle.

My speech tonight is tinged with sadness, because as a woman I empathise considerably with those families who have been victims of domestic violence. Of course, the very public and tragic incident that occurred in the Wanganui electorate earlier this year, involving the tragic loss of three innocent young children, once again brought the incidence of domestic violence very much to the fore. We all regret that it took such a serious incident to hurry up this Bill.

Although I have spoken positively and have welcomed many of the aspects of this Bill, I have serious concerns about some issues. One of those issues is the lack of adequate resources.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Government Whip):

I understand that the Labour Opposition has two members who wish to speak but that there is not enough time remaining. I seek the leave of the House to allow two more speeches from the Labour Opposition, each speech to be of a duration of 7 1/2 minutes.

Mr SPEAKER:

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

DIANNE YATES (Hamilton East):

I am proud to speak on the introduction of the Domestic Violence Bill this evening, and I wish to thank the Minister of Justice for introducing it. I know we have given him a particularly hard time over it for a number of months. I also wish to thank my Labour women colleagues—in the spirit of the mixed-member proportional representation system it is good to have 14 colleagues in this House, and I hope we can maintain that number—because I think we are largely responsible for the background work that has gone on behind this Bill.

The Bill is about something all too common in this country, and that is the crime—and it is a crime—that is acknowledged as “giving the wife and kids a hiding”, and that hiding often becomes a fatal hiding.

I wish at the outset to thank, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition, a Labour woman who did the initial work on the Domestic Protection Act and a lot of work in the select committee, and that was recognised by the news media at the time. We are now working on an extension, basically, of that Act, and bringing it up to date to deal with the problems we have in our society at the moment.

I also want to thank particularly three of my constituents, three people who have done a tremendous job, a very devoted job, in the groundwork for this particular Bill—that is, the three researchers from the University of Waikato. I am proud of those people and proud of that university. They wrote the 1992 Victims Task Force report—the report I have brought to this House and waved around with much pride, and I will do so again tonight because now we are actually implementing in this Bill many of their 101 recommendations.

The three researchers are Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson, and Hilary Lapsley, and I will single out Ruth Busch because not only did she do a lot of the work but she also publicised much of the material that is in that report. They saw through what was an intellectually and emotionally draining task. I know these people personally, I know how difficult the research was, and I know that they—as some of my colleagues said—put their heart and soul into it. They also put in a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. I will also say that it was this report that Sir Ronald Davison quoted almost word for word in his report.

I also wish to thank the brave women who allowed themselves to be interviewed for the report, and I particularly pay tribute to those women and children, as my colleague from Wanganui has said, who have been killed during and since the writing of that report. I apologise that I did not nag the Minister harder and longer and with more intensity that we did not have this legislation sooner than we have it now.

I wish to thank also the people who work with the Hamilton abuse intervention pilot programme. Those workers have been part of an integrated and holistic scheme that integrates community groups to deal with this problem of domestic violence. Once again, like my colleagues, I ask that we continue the resources for such organisations and that this pilot programme or similar programmes be repeated throughout New Zealand to deal with this problem of domestic violence not afterwards but to intervene wherever possible. As the member of Parliament for Hamilton East I am proud to know these people, and I am proud to be at the introduction of what I basically consider is their Bill. They did most of the work for this.

I also wish to thank the police, as has my colleague from Wanganui. I want to thank the police in Hamilton because, once again, they have set an example and led the way, and I thank the police nationally for the changes they have already made, for the changes in their attitude, for the changes in the way they now apply present laws, and for the way they have introduced those excellent Not Just a Domestic programmes on television. I would like to say they are effective, that in Hamilton we had fewer phone calls, when their programme was shown and the 0800 number was given, than in other places because the programme existed and had been operating for some time.

I would also like to look at specifics in this Bill. I am pleased that it widens the definition of what a domestic situation is. I am pleased that it includes children to a far wider extent, and I also mention that some people are not happy with the word “domestic”, and that, in a sense, is an offence. An assault is an assault whether it is an assault in the street, an assault in the kitchen, or an assault in the bedroom, it is still an assault and deserves the penalties for an assault, and I would like the select committee to look at the penalties that are involved in this particular Bill.

I am also pleased that non-molestation and non-violence orders become one—protection orders—and that we really do, at last, start to address and recognise the problems of the victims, to look at it from a victim’s view and from a victim’s fears. I hope the select committee will look at the possibility of including stalking in clause 17. I do see that there is room to include it there because the clause does talk about following, hounding, watching, and loitering. I am sure that we could include stalking in that.

I am pleased that custody for children has been addressed. I would hope that we look at a really serious problem on which a recommendation was made initially in the Bill, and that is that—in recognising the paramountcy and safety of children—we look at a safe place for what is a problem for a number of parents, which is in the access situation when children are handed from one parent to another. There should be a safe place where that can happen because it is a problem that happens almost every Friday night in New Zealand. We need to look at that problem of access and supervised access.

Once again, I would mention the problem of education and the problem of education of everyone involved in this, not only the people who are perpetrating the crime but also to remind people that the original report did have in it some problems with older men called judges, and their attitudes. It is a matter not only of education of the people who are perpetrating these particular crimes, but also of the people who are imposing the sentences and of their attitudes. I would ask people, especially the select committee, to look at the report and the original report.

I am particularly concerned, as the Minister has mentioned in introducing the Bill, about clause 33, the power to arrest for breach of a protection order, and, as he has suggested, I think the select committee should look at whether this should be mandatory. Also missing from the Bill is reference to access to information in many languages and to interpreters, and I would ask that the select committee look at this Bill being made user-friendly to all people in New Zealand and that we look at all information that is available, and that we also look at translation for those people who are victims. Often, as we have seen on television, it is people who are not English-speaking who are involved.

Hon. Mrs T W M TIRIKATENE-SULLIVAN (Southern Maori):

I join with the other members of this House who have expressed delight that this Bill has finally come to this House and will now go to a select committee. I believe that, in the select committee, some aspects will be added to the Bill in order to sharpen its focus and to improve its effect. I, too, believe that the seizure of firearms not being made automatic in this legislation ought to be looked at, and also that
stalking should be made an offence under clause 17, which appears to be the appropriate clause for it.

I want especially to commend those who are approved as counsellors, who include people who have not normally been officially approved in this area, yet whose expertise is unique. I speak of Aroha Terry of Hamilton, Te Whare Manaki of Napier, and Mereana Pitman, whose counselling in this area is so effective because they bring unique skills.

Yet these women and others like them, with their unique skills and effective application, have not been recognised officially as counsellors. I believe they ought to be. There is a crying need for them, and no doubt that will be an obvious effect that should follow from the implementation of this Bill. It will be enhanced in the select committee, and I will be ensuring they come before the committee to point out something of their unique expertise. If all the counselling is not effective, then it is a waste. Yet we can have people of rare expertise bringing about change—in a way shaming men who are violators, shaming them to confront in the mirror the reality of the puny aspects of their character and make a change. I have seen the work of these women. It is so important because they reach a significant section of the abusers.

I want to say, as I have said in the House before, that the first battered wives group that was ever established in this country was established for women to protect women who were battered wives. We have taken a step in this Bill. We will improve the Bill somewhat in the select committee, and thousands of women in this country will be gratified.

It is an extraordinarily sad fact, which we do not wish to acknowledge, that we have a high rate of reported domestic violence in New Zealand. I believe that for the past 20 years the extent of the reporting of domestic violence has increased because of the power of women—and the women’s movement—who have sought to shine a light on these occurrences. As I said, it was over 20 years ago when we set up the first such group. It was set up in Canterbury and I want to acknowledge husband and wife Dr Church and Dr Doris Church, who worked with me and Sister Pauline O’Regan in setting that up. I think people were horrified that we established any such group, but later this country was to acknowledge that domestic violence has been occurring for decades.

The voice of women was strengthened and united from the first United Nations “Decade for Women”, at which I led the New Zealand group, and we discussed this issue—without focusing particularly on our country. But we did introduce a concern about this matter and, because of the preparedness of women in unity to discuss these matters, we have had a greater acknowledgment.

I want to say to the Minister that I believe there is a crying need for more women to be judges in the family court. We need women who are experienced in family life. We do not have many women judges, yet it is so obviously a place for more women and for women who have had some experience in rearing a family, in living in a family, and in knowing what it is to settle problems in a family in an amicable or, at least, a civilised way.

It is hard to describe the characteristics of men who batter wives, and I am speaking of men, since the majority of people who batter wives and intimidate children are men. It is hard to pinpoint their reasons. It has been said it is a striving to exert power—to exert control. I believe it is an expression of pride in its worst sense but it is also possessiveness—a sense of possessing individuals, which, of course, is an invalid approach to any human relationship.

New Zealand happens to have one of the highest rates of offending in the Western World—in the 24 OECD countries. Without confronting the issue, we are blinding ourselves to the situation. The suggestion of statistics and a database was put forward. We have all the facts and figures, but we still have not pinpointed why it is that New Zealand men do this. Professor James Ritchie and Dr Jane Ritchie have suggested that the machismo element, which is held aloft in this country as the ideal standard for men, is one of the reasons that we venerate violence in socially acceptable situations—such as on the rugby field. I do not know. I think there are many other reasons.

I believe the home of a wife-batterer is a therapy clinic. Within the four walls of the home the batterers use battering as therapy because, generally, they are gutless people who lack any strength of character. They cannot bear to be exposed, so it happens for them within the four walls of their home. As I said, it is their therapy clinic and everyone in that home is at risk—the wife, the children; everyone is at risk. I believe, also, that we will find evidence that pornographic videos are also an inspiration to men to expect what they see to happen. But it is unreal. Since the wife cannot deliver such titillation, she is abused. Such men often abuse their daughters, and this is totally unacceptable. Thank goodness we have the Bill.

Hon. D A M GRAHAM (Minister of Justice):

In reply, I thank those who have taken part in the debate. I think there have been very useful contributions and I have taken on board some of the comments made, in particular about funding. Of course it is a matter of trying to put the resources where they are best placed. I know, for example, that only 2 years ago victim support funding was about $330,000. It is a little over $900,000 this year. We have the Hamilton abuse intervention pilot programme and all the other programmes. As fast as we pay for one, another one comes along. And the demand is almost insatiable. So one has to do the best one can. The Government will certainly give that matter due consideration during the Budget round.

The other point that was made related to firearms and I think there is a lot of merit in that. Under the Bill, the making of a protection order requires the registrar to advise the district commissioner of police, who, in turn, has to advise the local police station, which is then required to check whether there is a firearms licence, decide whether they should revoke that licence, and seize the firearms. It may be that the select committee thinks that does not go quite far enough and there might need to be an automatic seizure. But, on the other hand, that does take a lot of police resources, which may or may not be necessary. However, let us see what the select committee comes up with.

The other matter related to the issue of stalking. That issue is under review. I received a report from the department about it just yesterday, and further work is being done. Of course, stalking can be done by anybody—it is not necessarily a domestic situation of any kind. It can be a total stranger, and that is why it is probably better placed in the crimes legislation, rather than in the domestic violence legislation. It does not matter where it is placed, as long as it is there. But the matter is quite complex and we are looking at it now. I expect another report shortly after Christmas as further work is done.

The other point that was made by the honourable member for Southern Maori was about women judges in the family court. I agree with that. I think she will find that more women judges have been appointed in the last 2 or 3 years. I think it is desirable to have a proper balance of highly qualified judicial officers in the family court, and that approach will be continued.

That is really all I wish to say at this stage. I thank members and my officials for their work on the Bill. It has taken longer than is desirable, but then so did the Bill on DNA, the Bill on sex tours of Asia, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 3), the Copyright Bill, and a number of other Bills that were dealt with just this week.

Bill introduced and read a first time, and referred to the Justice and Law Reform Committee.

1995_04_30 question in house Elizabeth Tennet

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>05 Apr 1995
Title>Domestic Violence Bill
Question speaker – Speaker>ELIZABETH TENNET
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon PETER GRESHAM
Question No – Question>2119

ELIZABETH TENNET (Island Bay) to the Minister of Social Welfare: What is the current budgetary allocation, if any, for his department for the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill, how is that allocation being used, if no allocation has been made, is consideration being given to allocating funds in the next financial year; if not, why not?

ANSWER :

Hon PETER GRESHAM (Minister of Social Welfare) replied: The Domestic Protection Act 1982 is administered by the Department of Justice. That Act will be replaced by the Domestic Violence Bill, once enacted. The budget allocation for the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill will be a Vote: Justice appropriation. No specific budget allocation has been made in 1995-96 for the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill within the Department of Social Welfare. Policy, programme, and funding issues arising from the Domestic Violence Bill are currently being examined by the Department of Justice in consultation with other Departments, including the Department of Social Welfare.

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>05 Apr 1995
Title>Domestic Violence Bill
Question speaker – Speaker>ELIZABETH TENNET
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon JENNY SHIPLEY
Question No – Question>2118

ELIZABETH TENNET (Island Bay) to the Minister of Health: What is the current budgetary allocation, if any, for her ministry for the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill, how is that allocation being used, if no allocation has been made, is consideration being given to allocating funds in the next financial year; if not, why not?

ANSWER :

Hon JENNY SHIPLEY (Minister of Health) replied: There is no current budgetary allocation within Vote: Health for the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill.

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>05 Apr 1995
Title>Domestic Violence Bill
Question speaker – Speaker>ELIZABETH TENNET
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon BRUCE CLIFFE
Question No – Question>2117

ELIZABETH TENNET (Island Bay) to the Minister for Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance: What is the current budgetary allocation, if any, for the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation for the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill, how is that allocation being used, if no allocation has been made, is consideration being given to allocating funds in the next financial year; if not, why not?

ANSWER :

Hon BRUCE CLIFFE (Minister for Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance) replied: The Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 already provides compensation to survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse. As the Domestic Violence Bill does not affect cover or the range of entitlements, no additional allocation of funds is required.

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>05 Apr 1995
Title>Domestic Violence Bill
Question speaker – Speaker>ELIZABETH TENNET
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Rt Hon W F BIRCH
Question No – Question>2114

ELIZABETH TENNET (Island Bay) to the Minister of Finance: Has the Treasury carried out any costings on the Domestic Violence Bill; if so, what do the costings show; if not, why not?

ANSWER :

Rt Hon W F BIRCH (Minister of Finance) replied: Standard practice for policy proposals or introducing legislation, is that the primary policy adviser (including with respect to fiscal implications) is the department of the relevant minister; i.e., the department of the minister proposing the policy or introducing legislation. Treasury’s role is to provide secondary advice in response to the relevant minister’s proposal(s). The Department of Justice carried out costings on the Domestic Violence Bill prior to the Minister of Justice introducing the Bill to the House. Treasury did not initiate costings of the Domestic Violence Bill. Rather, Treasury has provided second opinion advice on the minister’s proposals, including the fiscal implications.

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>05 Apr 1995
Title>Domestic Violence Bill
Question speaker – Speaker>ELIZABETH TENNET
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon JENNY SHIPLEY
Question No – Question>2113

ELIZABETH TENNET (Island Bay) to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: Has her ministry received any requests for advice from other Government agencies on the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill; if so, which agencies sought advice, and what was the nature of the advice sought and given?

ANSWER :

Hon JENNY SHIPLEY (Minister of Women’s Affairs) replied: The Ministry of Women’s Affairs has recently been invited by the Department of Justice to comment on the delivery of counselling and programme services by the courts under the Domestic Violence Bill. The Ministry will be providing comments in due course.

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>05 Apr 1995
Title>Domestic Violence Bill
Question speaker – Speaker>ELIZABETH TENNET
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon D A M GRAHAM
Question No – Question>2111

ELIZABETH TENNET (Island Bay) to the Minister of Justice: In light of the restructuring of his department, can he guarantee continued funding for the Domestic Violence Bill; if not, why not?

ANSWER :

Hon D A M GRAHAM (Minister of Justice) replied: The restructuring of the Department of Justice will not affect the provision of funding for the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill. Consideration is currently being given to the allocation of additional funding for implementation of the bill to the proposed Department for Courts, as that department will be primarily responsible for operational aspects of the new Act, including funding the provision of programmes.

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>05 Apr 1995
Title>Domestic Violence Bill
Question speaker – Speaker>ELIZABETH TENNET
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon D A M GRAHAM
Question No – Question>2111

ELIZABETH TENNET (Island Bay) to the Minister of Justice: In light of the restructuring of his department, can he guarantee continued funding for the Domestic Violence Bill; if not, why not?

ANSWER :

Hon D A M GRAHAM (Minister of Justice) replied: The restructuring of the Department of Justice will not affect the provision of funding for the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill. Consideration is currently being given to the allocation of additional funding for implementation of the bill to the proposed Department for Courts, as that department will be primarily responsible for operational aspects
of the new Act, including funding the provision of programmes.

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>15 Mar 1995
Title>Domestic violence
Question speaker – Speaker>GEORGE HAWKINS
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon JOHN LUXTON
Question No – Question>1222

GEORGE HAWKINS (Manurewa) to the Minister of Police: What proportion of the 44 580 violent offences reported in 1994 do police estimate were family-related, and what was the proportion in 1993?

ANSWER :

Hon JOHN LUXTON (Minister of Police) replied: In 1986 the Roper report indicated that up to 80 percent of violence was family related. In the past there has been no clear definition of family violence, but police are now endeavouring to gather data. At this stage the programme is not sufficiently advanced, or the data sufficiently detailed, for any estimate to be provided.

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>15 Mar 1995
Title>Police districts—Domestic violence
Question speaker – Speaker>GEORGE HAWKINS
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon JOHN LUXTON
Question No – Question>1221

GEORGE HAWKINS (Manurewa) to the Minister of Police: For each police district, how many domestic disputes did police attend in each of 1993 and 1994, and in what proportion of cases were charges laid?

ANSWER :

Hon JOHN LUXTON (Minister of Police) replied: The total domestic disputes attended in 1993 and 1994, not resulting in charges being laid, are set out in the schedule that follows. Domestic disputes resulting in charges are recorded as offences. These are not subdivided according to the relationship between the offenders and victims, unless this is an essential element of the offence.

District 1993 1994
Northland .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 579 456
North Shore .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 728 610
Auckland Services .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 3
Waitakere .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 952 749
Auckland City .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 470 2 427
Manukau .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 859 1 566
Papakura .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 070 1 030
Hamilton .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 792 517
Te Awamutu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 419 275
Tokoroa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 409 336
Tauranga .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 642 565
Rotorua .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 543 524
Gisborne .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 466 363
Napier .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 359 168
Hastings .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 421 424
Taranaki .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 617 410
Wanganui .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 696 492
Palmerston North .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 092 649
Kapiti-Mana .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 706 598
Hutt .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 451 1 224
Wellington .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 789 686
Nelson .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 652 396
Christchurch .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 400 1 279
Canterbury Rural .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 191 162
South Canterbury .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 316 143
West Coast .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 185 126
Dunedin .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 417 207
Otago .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 252 197
Southland .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 527 374

Total .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21 008 16 956

1995_05_30 question in house Elizabeth Tennet point scoring
1995_05_30

Hansard – Stage: Stage>QUESTIONS ON NOTICE – Date>30 MAY 1995
Title>Domestic Violence—Budget
Main speaker – Speaker>ELIZABETH TENNET
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon. JENNY SHIPLEY
Question No – Question>7

Domestic Violence—Budget
7. ELIZABETH TENNET (Island Bay) to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: Will the Budget address the problem of domestic violence and other violence against women and children; if so, how?

Hon. JENNY SHIPLEY (Minister of Women’s Affairs): Far be it from me to steal the thunder of the Minister of Finance on Budget night.

Elizabeth Tennet: Given that the Wellington Rape Crisis centre and other Wellington sex abuse support agencies are broke and are working with unpaid labour after Government cuts to their funding, how can women feel any confidence in the Government’s commitment to them or their protection?

Hon. JENNY SHIPLEY: I am sure that if the member checks the amount of money that Rape Crisis and Women’s Refuge have received since this Government came to office, she will see there has been a steady set of increases in support available for those services.

Chris Fletcher: What initiatives has this Government taken to address the issue of domestic violence?

Hon. JENNY SHIPLEY: I am sure members will recall that on 1 December last year the Government introduced the Domestic Violence Bill. The objective of the Bill is to provide much greater protection for victims of domestic violence, including women and children, and to ensure the protection of people in a wide range of domestic and personal relationships. The Bill is currently before the Justice and Law Reform Committee and will come back to this House in due course.

Elizabeth Tennet: I seek leave to table a letter from the Wellington Sexual Abuse Help Foundation, which states that unless $50,000 can be found by the end of July that foundation, too, will be slowing down and shutting down its services.

1995_10_10 2nd reading DV Act

Second Reading of Domestic Violence Bill 12 OCT 1995

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL
Second Reading
Hon. D A M GRAHAM (Minister of Justice):

I move, That this Bill be now read a second time. Domestic violence is a significant problem in New Zealand. It permeates through all parts of society. Everyone feels its impact, directly or indirectly. This Bill aims to even up the odds for those directly affected, by providing greater protection for the victims of domestic violence. It also sends yet another signal that domestic violence is unacceptable behaviour in the 1990s.

This Bill will repeal the Domestic Protection Act 1982—a statute that is not very old in legislative terms. Since 1982 society’s attitude towards domestic or family violence has been changing. Each year the level of tolerance diminishes. These changing attitudes parallel international developments.

Traditionally, domestic violence has been ignored or condoned, primarily because it occurred between people in close relationships, and usually in the privacy of their homes. Violence, which if it had occurred between strangers would have caused public outrage, went unreported because it involved family members. The relationship and the accommodation situation were often the factors that prevented the victim from just getting up and leaving, or telling the abuser to leave. In these circumstances the general criminal law does not provide the kind of protection needed. A more focused legislative response was required for victims to feel safe.

I am pleased that the Bill has emerged from the select committee with amendments that improve and strengthen it. The Bill has taken the non-molestation and non-violence orders from the 1982 Act, and has combined them into a single protection order that can last indefinitely. The order is available for a much wider range of people in close relationships, not only the nuclear family. The Bill allows children to apply for orders in their own right. It allows people around the protected person, who may not have a relationship with the respondent, to come under the umbrella of the order if that is appropriate. Similarly, orders can apply against a person whom the respondent has encouraged to do something that would be grounds for an order if the respondent had done it himself.

The Bill gives greater recognition to the features and dynamics of domestic violence as they are now understood. Clause 3 recognises expressly that domestic violence includes psychological abuse. One form of such abuse is allowing a child to witness the abuse of a person with whom that child has a domestic relationship. The amendment to this clause makes it clear that the child does not need to see an incident. If the child hears it taking place, that also constitutes psychological abuse.

The select committee has made a series of amendments to different clauses to change the focus from single acts to behaviour generally. In particular, clause 3 recognises that while a single act may constitute abuse, the abusive nature of particular behaviour may arise from the fact that there is a pattern of behaviour comprising a series of incidents, some or all of which appear to an outsider to be relatively innocuous. To the victim, the latest and perhaps minor act may simply be the last straw. In other words, the court has to look at the behaviour as a whole, in the context of the particular relationship.

A protection order automatically contains two types of standard conditions, which are found in clause 17. The first group prohibits all forms of domestic violence, regardless of the form that led to the application. The second group, which can broadly be described as non-contact conditions, is based on the conditions that are currently part of the non-molestation order. The select committee has simplified the formulation of some of those conditions.

As the Bill allows the new protection order to operate while the parties are living in the same house, it is necessary to state what happens to the non-contact conditions in those circumstances. The relevant clauses have been amended to provide that the non-contact conditions can be suspended or revived only if the protected person consents. This means that the protected person is in control of the situation, and if police officers arrived at an incident they would assess the current status of these conditions by reference to the protected person only.

Where an order also protects children, the court can specify in the order who is to give this consent. Where there is more than one protected person in the house, all must consent to the respondent’s presence. It will be important for respondents to understand the implications of these provisions. If a respondent considers that the protected person is misusing them, the respondent has the option of applying for a discharge of the order.

Clause 18 allows customisation of orders by providing for special conditions that are necessary to protect the applicant. The select committee has added a new category of special conditions relating to weapons, which are defined as including ammunition and explosives as well as firearms. The committee was satisfied that there was insufficient evidence to warrant this type of condition being a standard condition that applies automatically to every protection order. Instead, it decided that weapon conditions should be available on request for applicants who thought they were necessary for their protection. To ensure that the issue is actively considered in each case, every application must state whether the applicant wishes to apply for a special condition relating to weapons.

The effect of a weapons condition is that the respondent cannot possess or have under his or her control any weapon. The respondent cannot hold a firearms licence. If the protection order is a temporary order, as will often be the case, the licence will be suspended until the order becomes final, and the respondent must surrender any weapon or licence to the police within 24 hours, or whenever the police demand it.

Clause 18C gives the court discretion to allow possession of a specified weapon or licence in limited circumstances, if the effect of the condition would otherwise be to deprive a respondent of his or her livelihood. In that case the conditions can be relaxed, but must still ensure to the greatest possible extent that the protected person will be safe. Even if the court relaxes the condition in these circumstances, the police are not obliged to grant a licence under the Arms Act.

The provisions in the Bill as introduced requiring copies of all protection orders to be sent to the police have been retained. The police must check each order, and can use the Arms Act powers to revoke a licence or seize weapons, even when the order does not contain a weapons condition.

The Bill places considerable emphasis on programmes for both respondents and victims. The term “programme” has now been adopted in preference to “counselling”, as it more accurately describes the kind of assistance to be offered under the Bill. The objectives of the programmes have been refined in recognition that the Bill cannot hope to provide programmes that deal with all aspects of victims’ lives that are affected by the violence, or all problems that respondents may have. For adult victims the main objective is to promote protection from domestic violence, and for child victims it is to assist in dealing with the effects of such violence.

Clause 19 makes it clearer that a protected person who wishes to attend a programme is entitled to do so, and simply makes a request to a registrar. The parties cannot be required to attend joint sessions, although they can agree to do so. At the end of the programme the provider must make a report on attendance and on participation.

Clause 26, which relates to confidentiality of information disclosed to a programme provider, has been revised. While restrictions on disclosure remain, breach is no longer an offence. The clause also contains a list of exceptions to the general rule preventing disclosure. A provider may disclose information for the purposes of proceedings under the Act; for the investigation of offences committed during the programme; where it is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to the safety of the public or of a particular person; where consent is forthcoming; or to those who are providing programmes to other people to whom a particular protection order relates.

I was pleased to announce at the time of the Budget that the Government has provided $9 million over the next 3 years to implement the initiatives in the Bill. A good portion of that money will go towards providing the programmes. As it has proved difficult to estimate the likely increase in costs, Cabinet has agreed that once there is more concrete data about actual costs, I will be able to assist with additional funding if necessary.

The Bill also toughens the enforcement provisions by tightening the bail laws and by making a breach of a protection order punishable by a maximum of 6 months’ imprisonment. For further breaches within a specified time, the penalty is a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment.

The committee considered carefully whether the discretionary arrest power in clause 33 should be replaced by a stricter, even mandatory, arrest power, as some submissions suggested. Because the Bill expressly covers a much broader range of conduct, and a wider group of people than does the present Act, it appeared too harsh to have a rigid arrest power, the consequences of which are probable detention for 24 hours. The committee concluded that the current discretion, combined with some statutory guidelines about the exercise of the discretion and a strict police policy, strike the appropriate balance.

Part III provides for four types of property orders, including a new furniture order that allows furniture to be uplifted if that is necessary to set up a new home, rather than the victim getting possession of the existing home. There were concerns that restricting the two types of furniture orders to applicants who had children penalised single people who might have as much need for such an order. Clauses 48 and 52 therefore loosen this provision to allow these orders to be made when the partners have been living in the same house, whether or not children are involved.

Part VA includes a raft of new provisions for public registers that allow a protected person to apply for a direction that information about the person’s whereabouts that is on a public register should not be made available to the public. The aim of these provisions is to assist and protect a person who wishes to re-establish his or her life in a new place.

Clause 105 makes important changes to the custody and access provisions of the Guardianship Act. These changes implement the recommendations of the Davison report, which followed the deaths of the three Bristol children last year. Where allegations of violence are made in custody and access proceedings, the court is to determine as soon as practicable whether the allegations can be sustained. If an allegation of violence against a child or a party to the proceedings is substantiated, the violent parent is not to be given custody or unsupervised access unless that parent can satisfy the court that the child will be safe.

Access change-over times can create the opportunity for conflict or violence between parents. To provide greater protection in these circumstances, a new provision will be inserted in the Guardianship Act. This will require the court, when making an access order in cases where there have been allegations of violence, to consider whether there are adequate safeguards to ensure the safety of the non-violent parent during access change-over times.

A number of submissions raised the issue of funding of supervised access. The Bill provides that where a person who has used violence is permitted to have supervised access to a child, the costs incurred in exercising supervised access are to be met by that person. No change has been made to this provision. However, the position will be kept under review, and if after the new provisions have been operating for a while it appears that the lack of funding for supervised access is causing real difficulties, the issue can be re-examined at that stage.

Clause 109 amends the Legal Services Act to create a special scheme for victims of domestic violence who receive legal aid. They do not have to pay contributions, nor does any charge attach to their property. The amendments make it clear that this special legal aid scheme applies only to proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. It does not apply to other proceedings like custody and access that may happen to be taken by the person at the time.

Finally, I mention that although there is no specific commencement date for the Bill, it is the Government’s intention that it should come into force as soon as the necessary rules and regulations can be made.

Domestic violence is everyone’s problem. While there is now less tolerance of domestic violence, what is required is a fundamental shift in attitudes throughout society. That requires initiatives and a variety of funds, and it will take time. The passage of this Bill will represent a significant step forward, but its initiatives are unlikely to reduce domestic violence overnight, and in the short term the problem may appear worse, as some previously invisible violence surfaces. However, I hope that before too long, as a result of this and other initiatives, it will be possible to point to some measurable reduction in the incidence of domestic violence, and that must benefit all society.

I thank the select committee for its good work. I commend the Bill to the House.

Hon. PHIL GOFF (Roskill):

The objective of this legislation is to provide greater protection for the victims of domestic violence. As such, the Labour Party endorses this legislation very strongly. The select committee looked very closely at the legislation. It was very demanding on its officials, and it finally came back to the House with 42 pages of amendments. I believe that the changes that were made through the select committee have produced the best possible legislative response to a problem that has devastated the lives of literally hundreds of families. We believe that the legislation is a good effort towards putting in place what is required in statutory terms.

I take a moment to congratulate the departmental people, who served the committee well, who did extraordinarily good research on the Bill before it was introduced, and who, at every point of the Bill, dealt with it in a competent and efficient way. I think all the select committee members would endorse those comments.

I give credit to many of the people who did the research and the reports and who pushed and lobbied on the need for this legislation long before it developed any statutory form. While it is difficult to distinguish only one group out of very many that have worked in this area, I pay particular tribute to the people at University of Waikato, Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson, and Hilary Lapsley, who played a major role through their 1992 report for the Victims Task Force entitled Protection from Family Violence. I think in many senses that report was a critical genesis of the legislation that we have before us.

But even before this task force reported in 1992, we had the commission of inquiry headed by Sir Clinton Roper way back in 1987. That commission of inquiry told the country that contrary to the view that violence was something that happened to you on a late Friday or Saturday night in a dark alley somewhere in the centre of the city, 80 percent of all violence in our society was in fact domestic violence. The delay in following up the Roper report with legislation to address the problem is an unfortunate reflection on the low political priority that, for too long, was accorded to legislating in this area.

Eighteen months ago we received another report, the Bristol inquiry by Sir Ronald Davison. The Bristol inquiry followed the murder of three young children in the Bristol family by their father, who committed suicide, when, despite the fact that this man had on many occasions used violence against his spouse, he was given custody of children in a circumstance that was quite inappropriate and led to a terrible tragedy.

As a result of the Davison committee report we have in this legislation changed the Guardianship Act so that violence by any person creates a presumption that that person who is violent will not have custody and will not have unsupervised access to his or her children unless that person can prove to the court’s satisfaction that the children would be safe in his or her care.

There is no doubt at all that this legislation is long overdue. The prevalence of domestic violence in this country and overseas was recently exposed in a report by Hilary Lapsley in 1993 for the Social Policy Agency. Regrettably, too little work has been done in New Zealand, so the report relied to some extent on far greater research that has been done in the context largely of the United States. There it was estimated that the number of women abused by partners ranged from 18 to 36 percent of the female population. Between 7 and 11 percent of the women had been severely abused by their partners at some time in their lives. In New Zealand a study found that abuse in this country, though lower than the United States estimates, was still very significant. The study found that 16 percent of women at some stage had been physically abused as adults. Another New Zealand study found that 9 percent of women had reported assaults by partners over a period of 5 years.

But the assault by male on female is only one aspect of the area where protection is needed from domestic violence. Another area where the need is becoming exposed is in the area of elder abuse. In that context in the United States it is estimated that there are some half a million to 2 1/2 million incidents a year. Regrettably in New Zealand no such study has been done of the violence perpetrated on elderly people by those on whom they are dependent. But if we extrapolated the American figures we are probably talking about 20,000 cases a year.

The third form of domestic violence that is also prevalent is sexual abuse. North American and English studies show that between 12 percent and 38 percent of women were sexually abused as children. A recent New Zealand study puts the figure for this country at 24 percent, nearly one in four. Even if only a fraction of that level of sexual abuse was occurring, this situation is extremely serious. So the need for the protection of women and children, in particular, and also of elderly people, in a domestic situation is very clear.

The need is all the more imperative when we take into account the fact that study after study shows that violence in the home is intergenerational. Violent fathers and battered mothers are role models for their sons and daughters and the problem carries over from one generation into the next.

The human cost, obviously, is the most important, but there is a financial cost and that financial cost needs to be taken into account when we consider the very low level of resourcing that the Minister has just foreshadowed will be available to implement this legislation. Suzanne Snively last year did a study for the Department of Social Welfare. She said that at the very conservative end of estimates, family violence in this country is costing the country at least $1.2 billion a year. Clearly this legislation is needed to confront a problem that these statistics demonstrate is one of the most serious social ills of our society at the present time.

The point that the Opposition wants to make in the House this afternoon is that legislation on the statute book is not enough. It is essential that institutions and programmes established or given responsibility under this legislation are also given the financial ability, the resources, to do the job properly to meet the demands that this legislation will place upon them.

As I said before, the Minister suggested to the House a short time ago that he has received from Cabinet a sum of $9 million, which will cover the first 3 years of the implementation of this programme. I am sure the Minister himself is aware that this is only a fraction of what the actual costs will be to do the job properly. Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Mahony, appeared before the select committee, and he estimated that the number of domestic violence cases currently coming before the courts, as a result of this legislation, will nearly double. Currently about 5,000 cases a year of family violence are heard before the courts. His estimate is that this will increase to over 9,000. That will create a considerable extra work burden on the courts at a time when they are already under some pressure.

A very good part of this Bill ensures that legal aid is available to those needing protection orders, without any cost having to be borne by the person seeking that protection. I applaud that. It will have a cost. That cost alone is estimated at between $1.5 to $2 million dollars a year. Changes in the Guardianship Act are estimated to cost $4 million. The requirement under the Act, and again I support this requirement, is that offenders are required to attend compulsorily programmes addressing their behavioural problems, and that will also cost at least $4 million a year. When we take into account the cost of providing additional support for victims, and God knows that is necessary, that too is an extra cost.

A very conservative estimate of what is required to put this legislation into effect is $10 million a year, yet the Minister is offering $9 million over 3 years. I know he has said there is some flexibility—he can go back to Cabinet for some more money—but I must ask the question of why so little has been given at this point. Are we going to see a Government determined to try to implement good legislation on the cheap, in a way that will undermine the effectiveness of that legislation? We have already seen the groups working out there now expected to make huge efforts on the cheap—Victim Support, Women’s Refuge, Men for Non Violence New Zealand. They are not receiving the funding that is necessary for them to give the protection to victims that the victims need.

I am concerned that this approach is being taken in this legislation. It is imperative that the Government does provide the funding necessary. I mentioned the Snively figure—that domestic violence is costing this country $1.2 billion a year—and the Government is talking about an average of $3 million to address that problem. I do not believe that that will be enough, and I predict quite confidently that the Government will have to come back for more money for these programmes or alternatively it will try to do it on the cheap with disastrous consequences. The proper funding of the implementation of this legislation is only one of the co-requisites for the success of the legislation in meeting its objectives.

More than any legislative change, we need to take other measures if we are to provide real protection for victims in our society. A fence at the top of the cliff is always preferable to the need for an ambulance at the bottom, and, first and foremost, I think that what we have to do is try to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. The objective of this legislation is to assist victims of domestic violence, and to help prevent that we need to have programmes alongside the statute book to ensure that this happens.

Disproportionate violence, we know, occurs in those families that are dysfunctional. We need to intervene early to identify such families, as they do in Hawaii; to screen children born in hospitals; and to check whether the family is dysfunctional. Where the family is dysfunctional we need from the time of birth to offer support programmes to ensure that those children get a good start in life and are not subject to domestic violence. Home visitors under the Healthy Start programme that operates in Hawaii work incredibly well. They have cut down child abuse and child neglect. They are trying to break the intergenerational cycle of domestic violence.

Surely we must do the same thing here. The legislation by itself will not achieve the objectives set down in statute. We need programmes aimed at addressing problems in violent behaviour at a young age. There are very good programmes like Eliminating Violence—Managing Anger, which operates in a few schools. It is incredibly successful but there is no funding to spread it beyond just a handful of schools to address the problems of violence in children throughout the wider community.

We need access to programmes aimed at dealing with the causes of violence or abusive behaviour, again by adequately resourcing those programmes. We have the excellent Stop programme, which is designed to deal with problems of sexual abuse. It works. It is cost-effective. It helps prevent sexual abuse by offenders from continuing over the lifetime of that offender. But we have large areas of the country that have no coverage by such programmes. In some areas those programmes have closed through lack of funding and in others where they operate they are underfunded and they cannot meet the demands that are placed upon them.

I believe that the Government has to be consistent with the objective of this legislation by giving greater protection to victims, and by providing the support and the resources to proven and cost-effective programmes that deal with the causes of violent and sexual offending, most of which occurs within the home.

What does this Bill do? It brings into effect some very important changes. It extends the range of people who can now seek protection from domestic violence, to all forms of domestic relationships. It broadens the category of behaviour covered—not simply physical assault but also sexual and psychological abuse. It increases sanctions for those who break protection orders. Those fines are now up to $5,000 or 6 months’ imprisonment. I think the figure was $500 and 3 months’ imprisonment. Importantly, it puts a much more severe sanction in place for the person who breaks an order three times. In the committee we changed that to the breach of protection orders protecting any person, so that those who break such orders in such a way, who are recidivist in their behaviour, can be imprisoned for up to 2 years.

Offenders will be referred to programmes to seek to change their behaviour. It is no good for offenders appearing before court to be placed back in the family home and back in the community, unless we start to address the causes of their behaviour. Offenders will have to attend programmes, and what we tried to do in the select committee was to ensure that the law was not met simply by attendance but that an effort was made by those persons. I do not want to exaggerate the effectiveness of the programme but figures suggest that at least in half of the cases people are far less likely to reoffend, and that justifies the investment that we make in the Bill in this way. I think that the effect of this Bill will be to send a clear message that violence as a means to resolve domestic disputes simply will not be tolerated by society.

There are one or two issues on which I can touch in the last minutes of my speech. We looked at the question of the fact that this Bill did not cover minors—people under the age of 17 years—who behaved violently towards their parents. This was a matter of concern to some of us on the committee who were familiar, through constituency work, with violent and abusive 14, 15, or 16-year-old boys much larger than, usually, their single mothers, and we regretted that the protection under this Act would not be provided in those situations. We were, however, assured that the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act makes provision for this and allows for the removal of violent children, but I believe that we will need to monitor that.

There was the question of power to arrest for the breach of a protection order. The police, of course, can arrest without warrant where there is good cause to suspect that an order has been breached. The committee decided that the power of arrest would be left as a discretionary exercise of that power rather than as a mandatory exercise by the police. The police very much supported the flexibility that was provided by discretion. The current police policy is that a person who breaches an order is to be arrested unless there are exceptional circumstances. Looking at the statistics, it can be seen that the police policy is having an impact. In 1991, the number of prosecutions was 2,427, then 3 years later in 1994 they had nearly trebled to 6,684.

It was drawn to our attention by submissions that there were inconsistencies in the implementation of police policy. We believed that that needed to be dealt with administratively rather than on a statutory basis. We believed that flexibility was important; the more so because of the wider scope of the new Act and the broader range of conduct that will be captured, some of which is not intrinsically criminal. The consequence for a breach of something that may be technical or comparatively minor is probable detention for 24 hours, and there are some circumstances in which that would not be justified.

Clause 34 refers to the release of a person arrested, and the Bill does make a significant change to general bail laws. The effect will be that except in cases of breaches of direction to undergo a programme, a person charged with the breach of a protection order cannot be released on police bail for 24 hours. Indeed, the court decision on the bail will also take into account as a paramount consideration the safety of the victim.

1995_10_11 question DV Act

19951011 question

Hansard – Stage: Stage> – Date>11 Oct 1995
Title>Written Question
Question speaker – Speaker>DIANNE YATES
Responding speaker – Speaker2>Hon D A M GRAHAM
Question No – Question>7431

DIANNE YATES (Hamilton East) to the Minister of Justice:

Which of the 101 recommendations in the 1992 Victim’s Task Force Report does he consider are current policy or in practice, are to be addressed by proposed legislation, are still to be considered, are not regarded as practicable, are based on misconceptions, relate to other departments, and are recommendations he does not intend to endorse?

ANSWER :

Hon D A M GRAHAM (Minister of Justice) replied: By “the 1992 Victims Task Force Report” I assume is meant the report commissioned by the Victims Task Force Protection from Family Violence: a study of protection orders under the Domestic Protection Act 1982 (abridged). I refer to my answer to question for written answer No. 5319, lodged on 14 September 1994. Since this answer was given two recommendations may have changed status. Recommendations on the Family Court, numbers 31 and 8, may be able to be addressed further in the course of the implementation of the Domestic Violence Bill. Any further work on these recommendations will need to wait until the final form of the Domestic Violence Bill is known.

1995_10_12 2nd reading DV Act

Hansard – Stage: Stage>REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE – Date>10 OCT 1995
Title>DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL : Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee
Main speaker – Speaker>ALEC NEILL

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL
Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee
ALEC NEILL (Chairman of the Justice and Law Reform Committee):

I am directed to present a report. I move, That the report of the Justice and Law Reform Committee on the Domestic Violence Bill do lie upon the table. The Domestic Violence Bill was introduced to this House and referred to the Justice and Law Reform Committee on 29 November 1994. The Bill consolidates and amends the Domestic Protection Act, which is consequently repealed.

The Bill is one aspect of the Government’s overall strategy on the prevention of domestic violence that has been developed by the crime prevention unit of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

In reference to the conduct of the select committee during its examination of the Bill, the closing date for submissions occurred on 24 February 1995. The committee received 67 submissions from women’s groups, refuges, counsellors, researchers, victims, and other interested groups and individuals. Thirty-three submissions were heard orally. The committee travelled to Hamilton to hear submissions; it spent 14 1/2 hours on the hearing of evidence, and 18 1/2 hours in consideration.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any chance of this being heard in some degree of quietness rather than members of the Opposition making large amounts of noise?

Mr SPEAKER: I am trying to hear the member. Perhaps members would be silent. If they wish to speak they should go outside.

ALEC NEILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The committee received advice from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, the Police, the Department of Justice, and the Ministry of Justice; and it received drafting assistance from parliamentary counsel. I extend to those departments and to parliamentary counsel the committee’s thanks for their extensive involvement in this legislation.

The Justice and Law Reform Committee has completed its consideration of the Domestic Violence Bill and recommends that it be allowed to proceed, but at the same time it has drawn a number of amendments to the attention of the House, which are included in the report back.

One of the major issues considered by the select committee was that of the provision relating to weapons. The committee was informed by police that very few domestic-related homicides are carried out by licensed firearm owners. While up to one-third of partnership homicides involve firearms, the majority are carried out by people without firearms licences, using stolen weapons. However, a significant number of submissions called for stronger preventive measures in relation to firearms. Therefore the committee recommends the insertion of a number of new provisions relating to weapons. These amendments provide that the court may require that a respondent must not hold a firearms licence or possess or control weapons; that the court may allow special conditions where respondents would otherwise be deprived of their livelihood; and that where a firearm licence is suspended under a temporary protection order and the order becomes final, then the licence is revoked. The amendments also provide for the retention, return, or disposal of surrendered weapons and licences.

The Bill provides that upon the making of a protection order, a copy of that order must be forwarded to the police station nearest to where the protected person resides. The police must immediately—and I emphasise the emergency nature and urgency of the issue—ascertain whether the person against whom the order has been made holds a firearms licence and consider whether to revoke that licence and seize any firearms from that person.

The committee recommends that these clauses be amended to take account of future technology with regard to the sending of copies of orders to the police. The proposed amendment also provides that where an order is made with special conditions relating to weapons, the police must be informed of where and when the order was served. The committee recommends that where a foreign protection order is sent to the police, the provision relating to the revocation of a firearms licence and the seizure of firearms applies.

The committee gave consideration to the counselling provisions contained in the Bill. Clause 19 provides that where a protection order has been made, the court may direct that the applicant, the applicant’s child, or another specified person attend a counselling programme upon the request of the applicant. The committee recommends that the Bill be amended to remove the mandatory element of the court directive for counselling for protected persons. This change will provide for a registrar to authorise counselling at the request of the applicant. The applicant must be informed of the right to request counselling and may make the request at any time while the protection order is in force.

I now refer to counselling for the respondent. The court must direct a person who has a protection order made against him or her to attend counselling. An associated person may also be directed to attend the counselling programme. The committee recommends that the court be able to exempt the respondent from counselling only if there is no appropriate programme available. This change removes specific reference to lack of transport on the part of the respondent as a reason for not being directed to attend counselling.

The committee recommends that an amendment be made to allow the court to give a programme provider some information about the particular proceedings, to enable the provider to target the programme to persons referred. At present there is a variation in practice, which means that some programme providers receive no information about the particular circumstances behind a referral.

The Bill allows for a programme provider to excuse the respondent from attending counselling under special circumstances. The committee recommends that where a person is excused from attending a counselling session, he or she must make up for the missed session or sessions with an additional session unless the programme provider considers that the absence has not affected the benefit of the programme.

The committee also recommends the insertion of a new clause 24, which requires the programme provider to inform the registrar when a respondent fails to attend a session from which they have not been excused. Upon completion of the programme, the programme provider must give notice to the registrar stating that fact and noting whether the respondent was excused from attending the session or participated fully in the programme.

The committee recommends that the programme provider be able to request a variation of the direction to attend counselling where it is considered that the programme was not appropriate or the respondent was not participating fully. Under these circumstances the judge may call the respondent before the court to explain his or her conduct. The judge may then vary, confirm, or discharge the direction to attend counselling.

The committee considered the question of confidentiality as it relates to family law issues. The committee recommends that an amendment to clause 26 be provided, which makes it an offence for a counsellor to disclose information about a client. The provision in this clause would be replaced with a statutory duty not to disclose information except under the following circumstances: when reporting to the court about non-attendance, participation, or suitability of the programme; for proceedings where the respondent is called before a judge for investigation of an offence committed during a programme; where necessary to prevent a serious or imminent threat to public safety, with the consent of the respondent; or where the disclosure is made to another programme provider working on an associated case.

The committee recommends that any counselling programme to which a person is referred and the provider of that programme must be approved in accordance with the regulations made under this Act.

The committee considered the Bill and also made amendments to the Guardianship Act relating to custody of and access to children in cases involving violence. A number of submissioners made oral submissions and written submissions regarding corporal punishment. Many submissions were received on the subject of corporal punishment and the definition of domestic violence set out in new section 16A in clause 105 of the Bill. The submissioners argued that corporal punishment should not be excluded from this definition.

The committee recommends the deletion of the second paragraph of the definition, which relates to corporal punishment. That paragraph had been included in the Bill to make it clear that the use of reasonable force by way of correction towards children, which is permitted by section 59 of the Crimes Act, was not caught by the definition. The committee accepted this advice and that paragraph was deemed unnecessary.

This change does not affect the legal position about corporal punishment. Section 59 of the Crimes Act still does not permit parents to use force against a child that would amount to abuse, but that does not mean that a parent is not entitled to use reasonable force to control his or her child by way of spanking and the like. Many submissions called for the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. The committee gave consideration to this issue, but was not prepared to make any recommendation to suggest that section 59 of the Crimes Act be repealed, notwithstanding that this matter does not come within the context of the review of this Act.

With regard to allegations of violence made in custody and access proceedings, clause 105 inserts new section 16B into the Guardianship Act. The committee recommends that this clause be clarified to restrict the circumstances in which a court must determine whether the allegation of violence is proved to an application for a custody order. The clause is further amended to make it clear that the court is not required to make its own inquiries to determine the substance of the allegation.

This Bill is important, as it relates to domestic violence throughout New Zealand. It is a Bill for which an appropriation will need to be made to ensure that there is adequate funding so that the counselling services and the services that are necessary to implement this Bill are adequately provided for. The committee gave consideration to the amount of funds available, and recommends the Bill to the House.

Hansard – Stage: REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE – 10 OCT 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL : Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee
Main speaker – Hon. PHIL GOFF

Hon. PHIL GOFF (Roskill):

This afternoon the Opposition will support the report back of this Bill, just as it supported this Bill at the select committee, and will support the passage of this Bill as quickly as possible. I have to say, in qualifying that support, that Opposition members do not have confidence that the Government will provide adequate resourcing of this Bill to ensure that the legislative provisions aimed at providing greater protection to
victims will be backed up by the resources to make those provisions effective. This Bill did not get legislative priority and political priority to be introduced when it ought to have been introduced some years ago, and we fear that that lack of political priority will spill over in a lack of commitment to making the legislation work.

Having said that, I pay tribute to the officials who worked on this Bill. The original Bill was a product of solid work and extensive consultation. I think that the officials got that pretty right, by and large. The committee itself received 67 submissions from public organisations and it heard from a range of expert opinions from those with experience in dealing with domestic violence. During the select committee stage we sought a further score of reports from officials to follow up areas of concern, and that resulted in 42 pages of amendments to the original Bill.

I do believe that this Bill is a good legislative response to the problem of domestic violence, which must be considered as one of the most serious social problems of this time. I must say, however, that we do regret the delay in getting the Bill to the House. It is now 8 years since the Roper commission of inquiry, which reported that 80 percent of violence in this country is domestic violence. It is 3 years since the Victims Task Force reported on the need for vastly increased assistance to the victims of violence in the home. The Davison inquiry was some 18 months ago. That reported on the need for changes in the Guardianship Act to provide for greater protection for the child.

Late last year we saw a report commissioned by the Department of Social Welfare and written by Suzanne Snively, which estimated that domestic violence is currently costing this country $1.2 billion a year. That is in financial costs; nobody can readily estimate the human costs of domestic violence—the physical damage, the sexual abuse, the psychological abuse, and the fear and insecurity that makes life hard to endure for far too many women and children, in particular, in this country. We have long understood that the insidious effect of domestic violence was intergenerational; that the role model it provided meant that that violence would carry on from one generation into the next. All those things indicate the importance of this legislation.

I believe that the Bill represents important and positive advances in the legislative response to violence of that sort. It extends the range of people who are protected from domestic violence to cover those in all manner of domestic relationships. It broadens the categories of domestic violence, not only physical violence but also sexual abuse and psychological abuse. It increases the sanctions on those who breach a protection order to a fine of up to $5,000 and 6 months’ imprisonment. At the select committee we changed the provision to require that any three breaches of a protection order could result in imprisonment of up to 2 years. It is a serious offence, it has dangerous implications for society, and it requires at least that level of sanction.

The Bill insists that offenders be referred to programmes to seek to change their behaviour and to reduce recidivism. The Bill ensures that victims will not have to meet the cost of any legal aid that they receive in respect of getting a protection order. The Guardianship Act is changed so that the safety of the child becomes paramount. The effect of the Bill, I believe, is to send a very clear message that violence as a means to resolve domestic disputes simply will not be tolerated by society.

But we need more than legislative change to produce a real change in the level of domestic violence and to meet the objective of the Bill, which is to provide greater protection for the victims of such violence. Real protection involves preventing people from becoming victims in the first place. It involves dealing with the causes of violence, and that means not waiting until it happens but introducing techniques such as early intervention. So if we in this House are serious about preventing violence, we have to start with early-intervention programmes—dealing with at-risk families, dealing with them from the time of the birth of a child, and getting home visitors into that home, as they do in the Healthy Start programme, and as Labour recommends in its A Good Start policy.

We need programmes like Eliminating Violence in schools, which is an excellent programme with proven results, but there is no central Government funding other than a pilot through the Special Education Service. We need programmes like the Stop programme, which is aimed at preventing sexual abuse. But, again, those programmes are not expanding; they are being closed down through lack of resources. We need a public education programme that changes the culture of this country and makes violence across any group in New Zealand totally unacceptable. We need to do those things first if the objectives of this Bill are to be met.

In addition to those prevention programmes, it is essential that the demands that will be generated by this legislation can be met by adequate resourcing. We received a report in the committee that the Government was intending to make available over a 3-year period the total sum of $9 million. However, the Government knows—and I have a copy of the report to the Cabinet committee—that that sum is grossly inadequate. Nine million dollars over 3 years is not enough. The cost set out in that report suggests that the costs will be more than $9 million—some $10 million a year, not spread out over 3 years. Legal aid costs are estimated to go up by around $2 million a year. Changes to the Guardianship Act will cost another $3 million a year.

Currently, about 5,000 cases of family violence are coming before the courts. The Chief Family Court Judge reported to the select committee that that figure will rise from 5,000 to 9,000 because of the broadening of the protection involved and the cases that will be covered by it. That puts pressure on the court. The Cabinet committee paper suggests that that money should come out of some other area of justice policy. Already we have crises right across the board in justice—trials being held up, defendants being allowed to walk free because of undue delay. Where will that money come from? The Government has not given a satisfactory answer. We need the commitment of new money to make this policy work.

There is also the requirement that offenders must be referred to compulsory programmes to change their behaviour. That has a cost. It is estimated it will be about $4 million a year. So we are talking about an overall cost that vastly exceeds the amount of money that the Government has said it is willing to budget for these programmes. that is even excluding the additional support that needs to go to groups such as victim support, women’s refuges, and the like. That so far has been on the cheap. The extended role of those groups requires that their funding be placed on a professional and a reasonable level. Put shortly, the Government cannot rely on rhetoric alone nor on underfunded legislation to resolve the problem of domestic violence.

If the financial cost alone—estimated by Suzanne Snively to be $1.2 billion—represents the cost of domestic violence to this country then we should not be quibbling about a sum of $10 million a year. That money should be in there. We should make sure it works. We will get a good return on that investment.

Hansard – Stage: REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE – 10 OCT 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL : Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee
Main speaker – BRIAN NEESON

BRIAN NEESON (Waitakere):

I am pleased to rise to speak to the report back of this Bill. Both my colleague on this side of the House and the member for Roskill have elaborated on the Bill itself and on the targets of the Bill. I would like to build on what has been said already and send a message to those out there, particularly men, who are so full of themselves that they throw their weight around and wind up in a situation where they are bashing and destroying their own families and, in the end, themselves.

This Bill has been produced for victims. It is not a Bill that will solve the problems out there without there being a change in attitude. That change of attitude has to come from those people who are involved in these situations. The need for this Bill comes about because of a breakdown in responsibilities and relationships in society. So many people are quick to rush out to grab their rights—the big I, my, and me—and it overwhelms and overtakes their responsibilities.

Relationships break down because people forget that they have to give. When people join together in a relationship they have to be in the business of giving to one another—giving to their family and giving to those around them—if they are to keep themselves out of a situation where they will wind up in court and be dealt to fairly severely with what is an extremely good instrument in the hands of the law. I am talking about the people who forget that they have responsibilities and who demand continuously that their own wants, desires, needs, and egos be met out there in the world of families and relationships.

Most of the submissions were either from counsellors of some sort or from the victims themselves, which is understandable. One did not have to listen to many of those victims; it could be seen in their faces and in their eyes that they had been mortally wounded. For many of them their relationships and problems were years behind them, but the damage that had been caused in those relationships had not left them. Of course, 100 percent of those victims were women—women who tried their best. They could not defend themselves against brutality.

I want to send out a warning today to those who do have these problems and tell them that they will be dealt with severely if they do not go and get some help. There is help out there. Unfortunately, it is not the traditional help that there used to be, such as extended families and people who could take the pressure off when things were getting tough. But there is other help out there, and I say to these people: “Get to it before you have to be dealt with by this legislation.” This Bill will deal severely with people who want to continue to take, grab, smack, belt, and punch.

If people need help, there is help available. This Bill is set for victims, it is set for children, and it is set to keep safe the people who are being punched and smacked about. The strongest message I can give to anybody out there right now is that if the tension is on, if the pressure is on, if they feel in any way that they are going to be put into a situation where they will damage their families, themselves, their partners, or their relationships, they should get help early before they wind up having to be dealt with by this legislation.

Hansard – Stage: REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE – 10 OCT 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL : Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee
Main speaker – JUDITH TIZARD

JUDITH TIZARD (Panmure):

I welcome the report back of the Domestic Violence Bill. It is a Bill that has long been in gestation. I have now been in Parliament for nearly 5 years. In all that time the Opposition has been calling for the Government to move on this Bill. I have to say that when the Government finally moved, a good Bill was produced. I think it has been made much better by the work of the select committee.

However, it is a Bill that we have some deep disquiet about because of the attitude of some Government members who are responsible for the financing of this Bill and because of the continuing actions of Cabinet in its funding of programmes to prevent control and to heal the consequences of violence.

This Bill is the result of many reports, like the Roper report and the Victims Task Force report. I want to pay particular credit to the authors of that Victims Task Force report because it is mainly their work that we are seeing before the House today. I do say that it causes me some disquiet that the House has taken more than 3 years to respond fully to that report. I want to say that the Opposition’s greatest amount of disquiet, having seen this Bill reported back to the House, is on the issue of resourcing.

Even the hardest of hearts and the toughest of minds in Treasury must be able to look at a report like the one written by Suzanne Snively last year and see that the cost of domestic violence to this country, in financial terms alone, is far too heavy for us to tolerate. The estimated cost of domestic violence to the economy is $1.2 billion a year, let alone the cost of domestic violence in human terms and in family terms that goes from generation to generation.

The committee worked long and hard on this Bill. I compliment the dozens of people who appeared before the select committee and the hundreds of people who were involved in putting together submissions on this Bill. The submissions were all carefully thought out and very well presented. They were often the result of great personal pain. I believe this Bill is much better for that process, and I want to compliment those people on their efforts.

We are told that every year about 5,000 cases of domestic violence appear before the Family Court. Those cases are just the tip of the iceberg, as the Hitting Home report indicated. This Bill starts a process that has to go much wider and much deeper. I particularly ask Government Ministers what their commitment is to making sure that violence is prevented, not just stopped, in our community when it gets to the level of the Family Court. Those Family Court cases, tragic though they are, are only a fraction of the violence, of the abuse of power, and of the abuse of trust and kindness that occur in families.

This Bill does many things. It extends the penalties and gives greater protection for people who are in violent situations. That message must get out to people who are in violent situations. It extends the range of people who are involved. We have to be very careful because we are talking about domestic violence, we are talking about families, and we are talking about people who are ordinarily within a household. This Bill sets out to try to offer protection in the case of physical abuse, of sexual abuse, and of psychological abuse such as intimidation, harassment, damage to property, and other acts that lead to physical violence.

We recognise that violence is not just about hitting. It is about controlling, manipulating, and abusing in other ways. We have simplified the law relating to protection orders. We have said to the police that they should ordinarily arrest immediately there is a complaint of violence. That person, once arrested, should be kept for 24 hours to cool down unless there is very good reason they should not be. They should not get bail. Protection orders should be issued immediately, obviously with the right of appeal by the person on whom they are issued. The police must move to protect New Zealanders from violence. Breaches of protection orders have much greater penalties. The penalty for third or subsequent breaches within 3 years is increased to 2 years’ imprisonment.

[The question having been raised by the Senior Opposition Whip and the bell having been rung, the Speaker declared that a quorum was present.]

Hansard – Stage: REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE – 10 OCT 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL : Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee
Main speaker – DIANNE YATES

DIANNE YATES (Hamilton East):

I wish to speak on the report back of this Bill particularly as the member for Hamilton East, and I particularly want to thank Hamilton people who made submissions on this Bill. I also thank the committee for travelling to Hamilton to hear those submissions. I particularly thank Neville Robertson and Ruth Busch, who are lecturers at the University of Waikato. I thank them not only for their submissions but for the initial research they did for the Victims Task Force way back in 1992. I thank them not only for their academic research and their input into this Bill but also for living through many of the experiences of the people involved, and for the tremendous volunteer work that they have done with the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project.

I thank those officials who worked on this Bill for the understanding they gave to the purpose of the Bill, which is to protect the victims of domestic violence—in particular, women and children. This Bill will prevent them not only from being victims of domestic violence but from being revictimised by the system—our legal system itself—by making protection orders meaningful and ensuring that they are enforced.

But what is most important is that the Bill now contains a whole change of attitude in relation to domestic violence. One word in particular has been dropped from this Bill, and this is the word “act”. I thank those who have been working on the drafting of the Bill for recognising that the essence of this issue is that we move away from dealing with just violent acts, and look at behaviour.

I can think of an example of a case quoted in the Victims Task Force report of a man who kept going into a home and doing what we might think was a kind deed. He would go into the home where he had previously lived—he was under a non-molestation order—and do the dishes. That in itself was not a violent act but it was a threatening act. That type of behaviour is regarded as psychologically threatening because it shows that the person still has power and control over the people in that household.

So I thank the officials who helped in making the changes to this Bill for understanding the change in emphasis away from just acts of violence, to include behaviour that is psychologically threatening, which is now within the definition.

I also express some sympathy for those who sent in petitions in relation to mandatory arrest. Mandatory arrest was regarded as somewhat impossible by people on the select committee. However, I do hope that the policing guidelines in relation to domestic violence will state the circumstances in which a person who breaches a protection order should not be arrested, and I hope the police will include this element in regulations.

I am also concerned that now there are five pages in the Bill about firearms—five pages about why boys can keep their toys. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that, in a sense, we have spent such a lot of time ensuring that a possum hunter out the back of Benneydale can keep his rifle and his gun licence. The restrictions in this Bill are more lenient than those for someone who commits a traffic offence. Regardless of whether someone steals a rifle in order to kill his wife, I still think too much attention is paid in the Bill to allowing people to keep their weapons; more attention is paid, as I have said, to the rights of boys to keep their toys than to the rights of children to protection against violence.

Once again I thank those who have made submissions, especially, as the previous speaker has mentioned, those who gave of their personal experience, at some considerable cost—people who told us of their own lives. To them it was, as has been mentioned, a painful experience to have to relive those experiences in front of a select committee. I thank them for their bravery, and I thank them for the help that they have given to others, to people who might become victims in the future. I know it was a particularly difficult thing for some people to do.

I also thank my colleagues on the select committee for bearing with me, because I know I have been particularly picky about certain aspects of this Bill.

Hansard – Stage: REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE – 10 OCT 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL : Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee
Main speaker – JILL PETTIS

JILL PETTIS (Wanganui):

The first question that I want to ask in relation to the report back of the Domestic Violence Bill is why the seizure of firearms has not been made automatic. I was, and remain, very concerned about this particular aspect of the Bill. I have done some reading on this, with particular reference to statistics from the United States. While New Zealand is not the United States—and thank goodness for that—the statistics that apply in America can still very much apply here. In that country just having a gun in the home makes it three times as likely that someone will be killed there.

Some homes in New Zealand are like war zones. Even having a firearm in the house can be intimidating for a woman who has been battered. That firearm may never come out of the cupboard, but it is still extremely intimidating for her to know that it is present in the house, and can be used at any time to make her and her children cower into submission. Even mild abuse must be taken seriously. I remain very, very concerned that the seizure of firearms after an incident of domestic violence has not become mandatory.

There seems to be a sort of fall-back position in that the party seeking the protection order can make a case for special conditions relating to weapons to be attached to the order. In a situation of high tension, a great deal of emotion, and physical stress, the party seeking the protection order—the victim—has to make that application. Quite frankly, I do not think that is a realistic expectation to put on somebody, generally a woman, who, when an incident has taken place, is also worrying about the safety of her children.

The other aspect I want to raise is the $9 million of extra funding. Of course we welcome any extra funding for this particular area. But how much of that $9 million will actually go to the victims? No victim is looking to make money out of domestic violence, but I draw attention to the fact that one woman met costs of $7,000 in dealing with a domestic violence situation, yet her three children still died. In another case a woman had to pay $5,000. Those are extraordinary sums of money for women who often are already financially and economically disadvantaged because of the situation that they have had to live in for many, many years. Where are women going to get sums like $7,000 and $5,000 to protect themselves and their children? How much of that $9 million will go into lawyers’ pockets, and how much is there to help the victims? I query also the double victimisation. There is the physical and emotional violence, then the huge worry that a woman has to face in trying to raise money to protect both herself and her children.

The issue that I want to finish on is the cessation of the Stop programmes. These programmes were set up for self-referrals of men and youths who had been sexual offenders. The central region Stop, which operated in Palmerston North—and certainly men from my electorate were involved in that programme—is now no longer because of the unavailability of a paltry $100,000. Now, $100,000 may sound like a lot of money to many voluntary organisations, but when one considers that it costs approximately $50,000 a year just to keep one person in prison, $100,000 is a relatively insignificant amount. This programme had to stop because of the lack of funding.

Hansard – Stage: REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE – 10 OCT 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL : Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee
Main speaker – Hon. KATHERINE O’REGAN

Hon. KATHERINE O’REGAN (Associate Minister of Women’s Affairs):

I wish to speak in this report-back debate, but perhaps I may not take my full time. I would like to congratulate the select committee on the work that has been done. I am pleased that the Bill at long last is back in the House, and, hopefully, it will go through all its stages, maybe before the end of this session but certainly before the end of the year.

An area that I do want to concentrate on is the provisions relating to weapons. When the Bill was introduced I noted at that time—and I think the Minister of Justice did too—that the committee should ask for and listen to submissions on the issue of arms or weapons. Like the member for Wanganui, I would also like to know why we have not proceeded further with regard to the mandatory removal of weapons upon the application of a protection order.

Some of the committee members would say that there was no supporting evidence, and in fact the committee was informed by the police that very few domestic-related homicides were carried out by licensed firearm owners. But I sure as hell imagine that in a lot of households the male threatens hell out of his wife by pointing a gun at her. Such a case is probably not in the police statistics. That is the sort of information I would like to see, because in that case the gun is used not in the sense of firing it, but certainly to threaten and scare the living daylights out of the woman and children in that relationship.

Hopefully, in the second reading stage we will get more information from the committee members about why they were not persuaded to extend the issue; to make sure that weapons were removed mandatorily upon application for a protection order. I believe that the Bill would be better if that did occur. I hope the House will still keep an open mind on that when it comes to the Committee stage.

I know it has been quite hard trying to persuade the police that that issue should proceed, and I know that there are members of the House who agree with them on that issue. The police may have information that very few domestic-related homicides are carried out by licensed firearm owners, but we should think further afield, look to the future, and listen to what the women have been saying; listen to the people in those families, those households, who have actually experienced guns being waved at them in a threatening fashion.

So that is the area that I hope this House will address in the second reading stage, and, if the House believes that it is necessary, perhaps we will even proceed in the Committee stage with an amendment to this legislation. I am mindful of the comments made by members of the committee who believe and accept the view that perhaps at this point in time the police view should be upheld, but I am sure they will not take too much persuading to consider an amendment in the Committee stage. To me, weapons are an abomination. I have no love for them whatsoever. One of the members commented about the boys keeping their toys; I think in this instance the criticism implied in that statement is justified.

Hansard – Stage: REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE – 10 OCT 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL : Report of Justice and Law Reform Committee
Main speaker – JILL WHITE

JILL WHITE (Manawatu):

I, too, support this Bill, and I make a strong plea, as others have done, for the resources to be made available to underpin this Bill, in order to make it effective. There has been considerable interest in this Bill. Out in the community, a lot of hopes are pinned on it. There are a lot of anxieties about it, as well. Some anxieties stem from the delay in its progress, while others stem more recently from concern about the possibility of unintended consequences. I feel I must mention those concerns today.

One anxiety that has been brought particularly to my notice has been that the anger of men, in particular, must be dealt with. If it is not dealt with outside the Bill, some of the provisions of the Bill will aggravate that anger. The particular example a lawyer was speaking to me about was that of visiting rights being permitted only under supervision, because of the violence of, most particularly, a father. There was a strong feeling that this would lead to a tendency to blame the ex-partner, the supervising person, or perhaps even the children themselves, and to a build-up of anger and an explosion of violence.

It has already been said in this House today that the real protection is in changed behaviours, and I agree with that. I do have to make a comment on something that was said by the member for Waitakere. He said: “Go and ask for help. It is there.” I say that men in Palmerston North, in Wanganui, and in other parts of the central region covered by the Stop programme, asked for help from that programme. When the programme was there they got help, but its funding ceased and the help is no longer there. That is because there were gaps in the policy, there was no certainty of funding, and the funding that was provided was inadequate.

If this Bill is to work, there has to be integrated funding between different departments, there has to be certainty of funding, there has to be adequate funding, and there must be resources for those people who refer themselves. We cannot say that the services are there only for those who go, say, through the justice system.

Resources must not only be there for management of anger but also for the victim—through Women’s Refuge, good quality counselling services, and victim support groups. That cannot be stated too often.

I also want to make particular mention today of the elderly in our community. It is becoming increasingly evident that the extent of elder abuse is greater than anybody had imagined. I welcome the parts of the Bill that acknowledge this, and which seek to give protection to the older members of our community. I have a question in relation to that, and that is: what steps are being taken to ensure that the elderly who are at risk are made aware of their rights to protection? What concerns me is that those who are abused are those who are most vulnerable, in that they are very often dependent on those who abuse them. They are isolated from mainstream society, and it seems to me that there is very little point in having protection in the law if people do not know that they are protected, and do not know how to access those provisions that are set up for their protection. I would like that question to be answered at some stage in this debate.

Finally, I want to talk briefly about the legal aid provisions, and I welcome the fact that legal aid will be more readily available to victims, without then having to be paid back. But there are some qualifying clauses, and I think it is important that we explore those, in order to know who sets the criteria and whether appeals can be made.

Motion agreed to.

Hansard – Stage: Stage>THIRD READING – Date>12 DEC 1995
Title>DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL; AND BILLS THEREFROM : Third Readings
Main speaker – Speaker>Hon. D A M GRAHAM

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL; AND BILLS THEREFROM

Third Reading of the Domestic Violence Bill 12th Dec 1995

Hon. D A M GRAHAM (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Domestic Violence Bill, the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No. 4), the Crimes Amendment Bill (No. 4), the Guardianship Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Family Proceedings Amendment Bill (No. 2), and the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) be now read a third time. This is important legislation. One of the tragedies of modern-day life is that domestic violence is prevalent in our society to a degree that is totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable. A great deal has been done by community groups to try to assist families where violence is occurring, and it is the obligation of the Government of the day to take the steps that can reasonably be taken to try to assist.

After due deliberation, the Government introduced the Domestic Violence Bill. It went to the select committee, where a large number of submissions were received. It has been a constructive effort from the select committee, and, indeed, from the House during the Committee of the whole House. We now have the third reading of legislation that it is hoped by all members will contribute to the reduction in domestic violence in New Zealand homes. The Domestic Violence Bill is quite far-reaching. It redefines domestic violence, so that it does not now relate only to physical violence; it includes psychological abuse—which can be equally bad—to, normally, the wife or the children. The Bill also redefines “domestic relationship”. It broadens the definition of those who can apply for a protection order, so that it is not just the husband or the wife; it may be the child, or it may be the parent seeking an order to protect the parent from a teenage child. Unfortunately, these are facts of life in New Zealand today.

The Bill also tries to speed up the process. When an application for a protection order is made and a temporary order made in the first instance, then, historically, that has had to be made final later on, and that required a further appearance and a further hearing before a Family Court judge. The Bill provides that the protection order will become final automatically if the respondent takes no steps. That, too, is a very good move that will help the courts, and it will certainly help the applicant seeking the protection order. We spent some time in the Committee of the whole House talking about firearms and whether that should be a standard condition of a protection order, or whether it should be more discretionary.

Rt Hon. Jonathan Hunt: Does the Minister want an extension of time to deal with all the Bills?

Hon. D A M GRAHAM: No, thank you. At the end of the day the Committee decided that it ought to be a standard condition of a protection order, that it was a privilege to have weapons, and that, if a person were obviously violent, then that privilege really had been forfeit and the arms licence, and, indeed, the weapons, ought to be seized from that person. So that is to be the law now.

The legislation covers matters relating to property and tenancy orders, furniture orders, and so on. It tidies up some of the procedures I mentioned before. It deals with foreign protection orders, and makes a number of other quite major amendments, which I hope will be of assistance to both the courts and the applicants.

The only matter I wish to comment on relates to the Guardianship Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the question of custody. This is a very difficult matter because parents are, as of right, normally entitled to access to their own children. But the fact is that some parents are violent and they have lost control of themselves when they have had custody of their children, and there have been some terrible tragedies. To overcome that, Parliament is now about to enact a law that will make it much more difficult for violent parents—normally the father—to have custody of or access to their own children. Indeed, a violent parent will not get access unless there is some satisfactorily supervised access arrangement and/or that person can satisfy the court that the children will be safe. So that will not be easy. No doubt it will cause some distress to parents.

However, I have few qualms about that. It seems to me that if people are violent, then there must be sanctions, and that may be one of them. It will make it difficult for the courts, because they have to try to weigh up the evidence and decide whether it is right and proper to allow access. That is not easy, and sometimes they will be wrong. It is easy to be critical after the event. We have to rely on the judges to exercise their discretion as best they can, and I have every confidence in them.

I am very pleased that this legislation has now reached its third reading. I have been concerned for many years about the violence in our community. We will provide some programmes to assist the applicants for a protection order, when they wish it, and we will require programmes to be undertaken by the respondents, whether or not they like it. We will provide some counselling services for the children who come from violent homes. All of those, I think, are quite positive moves. We have set aside quite substantial funding, with a right to go back to Cabinet if the funding proves to be inadequate for the purposes.

So we are really embarking now on some quite new laws, and I think that the families in New Zealand will benefit from them. I want to make it very clear to those families where violence is occurring that this Parliament will protect the victims of that violence, and it will exert a sanction on those who perpetrate it. We cannot continue to have the amount of violence in our homes that we have at the present time. That is just totally unacceptable. The police have responded well. They are now enforcing the laws much more rigorously—people are being arrested, they are being held in custody for 24 hours, and matters of that kind, when violence occurs.

I hope this legislation will be a major contribution to the fight against violence in our families.

Hansard – Stage: THIRD READING – 12 DEC 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL; AND BILLS THEREFROM : Third Readings
Main speaker – Hon. PHIL GOFF

Hon. PHIL GOFF (Roskill):

I support the third readings of this legislation. It is legislation that the Labour Opposition has endorsed and facilitated right from its introduction. Indeed, I pay tribute to my colleagues in the women’s caucus of the Labour Party, who have, literally for years, fought for this legislation, which is long overdue.

I believe that the legislation is some of the most important social legislation we have had before this term of Parliament. It recognises the plight of literally thousands of people in New Zealand, predominantly women, who are battered, and who live under the ongoing threat of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and psychological abuse. It recognises the fact that the home, which ought to be a sanctuary for people, too often is the place of violence, and it puts behind us the myth that the worst aspects of violence that occur in our community are violence in the street and violence perpetrated by a stranger.

It recognises, too, that violence is intergenerational, and until we can break the cycle of abuse in the home, we will keep seeing the level of violence that is occurring in this country. This legislation acknowledges that violence in the home is as unacceptable as violence that occurs anywhere else in society. Indeed, it is often worse, because on top of the pain and the suffering caused by abuse it represents a betrayal of trust.
What this legislation does is very important. It provides greater protection for the victims of violence. It extends protection from violence to a wider range of people—not simply to partners, de jure and de facto, but to all family members, to those who share a household, and to those who are in any form of close relationship. It extends the definition of violence so that violence can mean not only physical abuse and sexual abuse, but also psychological abuse. It extends that protection, not only against the respondent, but also against the associates of the respondent who may be procured to act violently.

It seeks to ameliorate the consequences of violence through programmes designed to help the victim. Most important, it seeks to address the cause of violence in the offender by making mandatory the requirement for offenders who have a need for a change in their attitude and in their behaviour to attend programmes.

The legislation increases sanctions—not before time—which is a recognition by this House that the nature of the violence perpetrated is very serious. It contains new protections for the victims—restricting information, for example, available in public registries so it is more difficult for the potential offender to trace the whereabouts of the victim. It places the onus on violent individuals to prove they are fit and proper people to hold a firearms licence or to own a weapon. It does not place the onus on the person who has been abused to prove that that individual is violent. By definition, a person who is violent is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearm, and I will come back to discuss that a little later, because that was a major point of contention in the Committee stage.

Equally, and very important, the legislation places the onus on people who have been violent towards their partner to prove, if they wish to have access to or custody of the children of that relationship, that they are indeed safe, recognising the close correlation between those who are violent towards their partners and those who also have the ability to be violent towards their children. Under this legislation, persons applying for a protection order are granted legal aid without the requirement that they should make a contribution towards that aid. The legislation is, in all these respects, landmark legislation.

I want to pay tribute to all those who have contributed to bringing it to this stage. I pay tribute, for example, to those researchers who have worked hard to promote this cause and who have worked hard on the report for the Victims Task Force. Ruth Busch, Hilary Lapsley, and Neville Robertson are three individuals who come to mind who have made a tremendous contribution. I pay tribute to other advocates, such as the Women’s Refuge movement, which has put in many hours of work to protect the victims of this form of violence. I also want to pay tribute to my colleagues who have worked—long before the Minister introduced the legislation to the House—to promote the need for its introduction and to ensure that the legislation was finally brought here before us.

The legislation is a critical prerequisite towards extending the protection to victims of domestic violence. But while a prerequisite, it is not in itself a sufficient condition to achieve this end. In particular, and to emphasise a point that was made by the Chief Family Court Judge, it is essential that programmes for victims and for offenders be funded properly. It is essential, too, that the Family Court be adequately resourced to carry out the responsibilities placed on it. If we have legislation but do not have the resources to carry into effect the intent of that legislation, then we are producing legislation that is doomed to failure.

In addition, while this legislation creates an appropriate framework for dealing with violence after it has occurred, a critical role exists for the Government to act through early intervention to prevent violence by dealing with its causes. It is no good our relying solely on, and improving the quality of, the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We need to act now to deal with the causes that lead to that violence occurring in the first instance.

It is a matter of sadness for me that while we are debating this legislation we should equally be debating why this House does not fund adequately prevention programmes such as the Stop programme, aimed at ending sexual abuse. That is an essential co-requisite of this legislation if we are to achieve the end of the legislation, which is truly to protect individuals against the consequences of domestic violence in all its forms. By ignoring prevention, we are effectively allowing victims to be created, and created quite unnecessarily. No matter what we do after the event to patch up the consequences of that violence we cannot restore the situation to where it was before the person became a victim. That is why prevention is so important.

In the remaining time I want to address the key issue that was the issue in contention in the Committee stage. That issue was the question of how most properly to deal with those who have used domestic violence and who are also holders of a firearms licence and the owner of firearms. The legislation as reported back did strengthen the requirements on police. Indeed it made it a statutory requirement on the police to consider revocation of firearms licences. It also provided for a special condition to be placed in any protection order requiring the seizure of firearms.

A supplementary order paper introduced in the Minister’s name, but before that in the name of my colleague the member for Hamilton East, went further by stating that it should be a standard condition of any protection order that the respondent surrender to the police any firearms licence or firearms possessed by the respondent. The respondent is subsequently able to seek the return of the licence and any guns surrendered from the court. But the paramount consideration will be that the court takes into account the need to protect the person for whose benefit the protection order applies. In other words the presumption is very clearly in favour of the victim. The court will take into account whether the person protected consents to the return of the licence and the arms, the nature and seriousness of the violence used, the ongoing risk of further violence, and the need for the respondent to have access to the weapons.

In the Committee, the majority by nearly two to one supported the supplementary order paper, as I did. I think that is a step in the right direction. I think that this legislation reinforces the message that violence is never acceptable, will not be tolerated, and in all respects will have serious consequences for the offender.

Hansard – Stage: THIRD READING – 12 DEC 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL; AND BILLS THEREFROM : Third Readings
Main speaker – ALEC NEILL

ALEC NEILL (Waitaki):

I rise to support the third reading of the Domestic Violence Bill. In doing so, I want to point out to the House that we received as a select committee, 65 submissions with regard to the legislation. In general there was support for the legislation, and it now passes through its third readings. I want to point out that this National Government will not condone, nor will it sanction, violence, particularly domestic violence. This legislation will assist those who are the victims of domestic violence and will provide a new era in which protection is available to people.

This legislation supersedes the Domestic Protection Act, and provides a new single order known as the domestic violence protection order. As a result of that order, the definitions have been substantially extended so that it not only includes a spouse or the children of a husband and wife relationship, but extends it to other relationships including single-sex relationships—homosexual relationships and lesbian relationships. It extends the order to include definitions, not only of physical and sexual violence but also of psychological abuse.

When the legislation came before the select committee, the submissions indicated concerns relating to the provision of counselling. Substantial changes have been made to ensure that those who provide counselling have the relevant qualifications to ensure that there is proper and adequate counselling. The concern is that as a result of that there needs to be adequate funding to provide the counselling.

Also included in the legislation is the need for enforcement of protection orders. It is essential that there be an effective enforcement ability to ensure that those who are in breach of the order are able to be brought to justice in the appropriate manner and that appropriate penalties are able to be imposed.

The select committee also considered in some detail the matters relating to firearm licences and the possible mandatory revocation of a firearm licence. This is excellent legislation and it is sad if in fact it is brought into some form of disrepute, solely because of differences of opinion between members of this House on the issue of firearms. It would be sad if we concentrated only on the issue of firearms when there are many excellent aspects to this legislation. I personally believe that we got it wrong in the Committee stage and that the imposition of mandatory removal of firearms will neither benefit the legislation nor those who are involved. But, as indicated by the previous speaker, it was voted on the basis of two to one in favour of mandatory removal of firearms, and I would not wish the legislation not to proceed on that issue alone.

There is no doubt that under section 60A of the Arms Act the police have adequate powers of seizure at the time of attending a domestic dispute. Not only that, they also have the ability under section 24 of the Arms Act for the removal of firearms in addition to the provisions that were provided in the legislation as reported back to this House, where the judge on request in the application could have revoked a firearm licence. There is now mandatory removal of the licence. Notwithstanding that, it is important that this important legislation proceed through the House and become law to provide adequate protection for a large number of people.

This Government is not only prepared to introduce and pass the Domestic Violence Bill through all stages, but on the way to Wellington today I read with interest the new document called Breaking the Cycle under the Children and Young Persons Act. There is no doubt that under that Act there are new and adequate provisions with regard to violence as it relates to children. We intend to make our mark and stamp out to the best possible ability, the ongoing domestic violence that is occurring in this society.

I think it is important that we understand that this legislation moved from including just a husband and wife, or husband, wife, and child relationship, to including other persons, whether they are of the same or opposite gender. Further, the respondent has been extended not only to include the person against whom the application has been made for an order, but also to include others who are associated with the respondent. That goes substantially further than did the old Domestic Protection Act. Minors can apply to have an application for a protection order, and that is an important addition under this Act, which would not have been provided under the Domestic Protection Act.

The words ex parte are interesting. In the old days we were able to apply for an ex parte application. Those words have now been deleted. The words that were referred to in the Bill were “ an urgent application”, and that term has been replaced now by “an application without notice”. I think it is important that we understand the counselling provisions and the detail this legislation goes into to provide counselling for the applicant and for the respondent, who must comply with the terms of the Act and attend counselling. I have some concerns where persons have an order made against them where they wish to exercise their access and there is a need to have it as access with others in attendance. Those persons must pay for that attendance to occur. There will be occasions when people on low incomes who wish to have access to their children will not be able to do so, if in fact that requirement is imposed, based solely on the grounds that they do not have the funds to do so. There is no State funding for individuals to be provided with additional funding in order that there is supervised access.

I say to this House that we need to monitor carefully the situations that do arise. The interests of the children still remain paramount, and if a child is not able to see his or her mother or father solely on the grounds of lack of funding, where supervised access is required, then that would cause me some concern.

As I said earlier, I would hate this legislation to be reported solely as legislation that provides compulsory confiscation of guns and revocation of arms licences when in fact it goes far further than that, and in fact provides protection for a large number of New Zealanders, and that protection will provide them with greater security in their own homes.

Hansard – Stage: THIRD READING – 12 DEC 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL; AND BILLS THEREFROM : Third Readings
Main speaker – DIANNE YATES

DIANNE YATES (Hamilton East):

I wish to speak on the third readings of the Bills relating to domestic violence. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to see the domestic violence legislation through to its third reading. As I said in the Committee stage, the title of the original Bill is significant. It has changed from the Domestic Protection Act of 1982, in the production of which the Leader of the Opposition has said that she was pleased to be involved. Things have moved since then, attitudes have changed, and we have been agitating for the introduction of a domestic violence bill for a number of years.

The legislation is about domestic violence, and it defines violence very carefully. It is not just a matter of whether a man beats up on his wife, but it is about all violence towards family and household members—physical violence, sexual violence, and also psychological violence including intimidation and harassment. It is about revising and tightening up the old non-molestation and old non-violence orders, which now become protection orders. Hopefully, more families, more women and children in particular—because they make up the majority of the cases—will be safe and less likely to live in fear.

I think it is particularly important that this is one of the last pieces of legislation to be passed through the House before Christmas, which is a time for families and when domestic violence is on the increase. We bring it through in the hope that things will be better in the future.

I want to say a number of “thank yous” at this time. I want to thank my colleagues on the select committee, who bore with my stubbornness on a number of issues. I want to thank my Labour women colleagues for their support, and I want to thank my caucus colleagues, especially for their vote on the firearms amendment. I want to thank the Ministry of Justice staff who drafted and redrafted many clauses. I want to thank the Ministry of Women’s Affairs staff, particularly for their theoretical knowledge of the issues involved, and the experience that they brought to the legislation. I want to thank those who helped with the drafting of the legislation. I want to thank all those who made submissions, in particular the National Council of Women, the YWCA, the Women’s Refuge movement, the Women’s Electoral Lobby, Men for Non Violence, and the Commissioner for
Children.

I want to thank—as the member for Hamilton East—those who appeared before the select committee when it met in Hamilton. I particularly thank those from the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project who provided many of the statistics that have been used in arguments for this legislation, and for their heartfelt and hands-on experience. I know “hands-on” is a difficult word to use in relation to domestic violence, but I thank them for their very close association with people who are involved and who are victims of domestic violence. I want to thank also in particular the Hamilton police, who have led the way in the police in the application of law and in what we now call, thankfully, the Not Just a Domestic policy.

I thank the researchers from the University of Waikato who did the original research on non-molestation orders for the Victims Task Force: Ruth Busch, Hilary Lapsley, and Neville Robertson. I also thank the Ministry of Justice researchers who did the very extensive research called Hitting Home, about the attitudes of people towards violence in New Zealand.

Lastly, I want to thank the victims—those especially brave people such as Christine Bristol, and all those who share the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of her children. I thank her for her bravery in addressing the select committee on this.

In my maiden speech in 1994 I asked how many people have to be killed, how many women and children have to die before we stop writing and rewriting reports, and before we pass legislation that will prevent domestic violence. I asked how long we had to wait.

I also thank my Labour women colleagues who, in September 1994, led the general debate on domestic violence in which we particularly harassed the Minister of Justice. There was no legislation at that stage, and he promised legislation by the end of the year. We brought barometers into the House to measure the progress on that legislation. There were 101 recommendations in the domestic violence report that went to the Victims Task Force. I have had one of those barometers hanging outside my electorate office every day. Tonight I hope to be able to take that barometer down.

I thank the Minister for introducing this legislation, and for the fact that tonight we may pass this very important legislation, which is important for families in New Zealand. It is also a particular triumph; not only did I mention this in my maiden speech, but the legislation was originally introduced on 29 November, which is a day I will not forget because it happens to be my birthday. So it is a day that I will remember—less than 2 years after my maiden speech this particular legislation has come into the House. Once again I thank the Hamilton researchers, the police, and the members of the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project.

I want also to mention controversial matters in this legislation, and say that there are 111 clauses. I regret in many ways the amount of attention that has been given to the firearms clause, because it does occur to me, as mentioned by the member for Waitaki in his speech, that we are concerned about protection for families, for people within families, for women and children. I regret that there were not more submissions about the difficulties of people having access to their children, and I regret that there was not more agitation about the amount of resources being given to people to have access to their children rather than to the matter of firearms.

I will say that, as has been mentioned by the member for Roskill, it has become clear to me that when one applies for a firearm licence, one’s partner, and one’s family have to be interviewed to see whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to have a firearm. It does seem logical to me that if a person should become not a fit and proper person to have a firearm because a protection order has been taken out, it should be automatic, as in the legislation, that it is a standing provision that that person should lose their firearms and their firearms licence. I do not see any problems in that.

It does not mean that a person may lose their firearms for ever, but the onus will have moved from the victim, from the person who is under the protection order, to the people who have the firearms to prove that they are a fit and proper person. It does mean that the interests of the victim are paramount. I thank the Minister of Women’s Affairs for saying in the Committee that if we save one life by this particular clause then it has been worth it.

I also want to mention the controversy about access by partners to their children. I was disappointed that there was not more agitation about the fact that it may be a costly business for some people to have access to their children. I do hope that the Minister in his allocation of $9 million to the implementation of the legislation will allocate some money in that direction, because resources are particularly important.

I would mention once again the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project, and say to the Minister of Justice—as we did in the Committee stage—that I have written to him and have lodged written questions in the House to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Social Welfare about the problems that are incurred in resources, in particular relating to programmes, to intervention, and to monitoring what is happening across the board in terms of domestic violence. I have had no assurance from either the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Social Welfare that there is a structure in place that will prevent people from falling between the gaps. Once again, I do ask the Minister to reconsider his decision on pulling funding from the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project, and ask that he consider having these programmes repeated throughout the country.

Once again I would say a particular “thank you” to those victims who have given us their stories, who have been prepared to participate through the Victims Task Force report and in making their submissions to the select committee. I thank Christine Bristol, who had said to me that one of the best Christmas presents she could have this year would be the passage of this legislation.

Hansard – Stage: THIRD READING – 12 DEC 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL; AND BILLS THEREFROM : Third Readings
Main speaker – Hon. KATHERINE O’REGAN

Hon. KATHERINE O’REGAN (Associate Minister of Women’s Affairs):

I am delighted to be involved in the third readings of the domestic violence legislation. Unfortunately I was not able to be present during the Committee stage last week, but I am delighted with the results that came from that. This legislation is among the most important that this Government has introduced and passed in this session. I am delighted and proud to be part of a Government that has seen this legislation through to this point, and I am delighted with the changes that have been implemented.

I wish to congratulate the Minister of Justice on his forbearance, particularly, with regard to some of the issues that did create some heat and possibly very little light at times—particularly the issue of firearms. But I think the important thing to remember is that this legislation changes the whole area of domestic violence prevention and protection. This legislation is about prevention and protection. In fact we have changed clause 5 of the Domestic Violence Bill to make clear that the object is actually to prevent violence in domestic relationships. I think that is a very important point to make.

Obviously this legislation has a much wider application once it becomes implemented than just the domestic scene as regards a man and a woman and children. It has now been broadened to include other family members. I would like to point out here that much has been said about elder abuse in recent times. In fact this legislation will now ensure that elderly people no longer have to put up with or suffer from abuse, be it psychological abuse, including harassment, or be it from carers or family members, for that matter, who are looking after them. So I think it is very important that groups like Age Concern and others do realise that this legislation will provide great results for them in the future when they deal with issues of elder abuse, because it does expand the meaning of a domestic relationship, as previous speakers have spoken of.

I had a case in my electorate office of a complaint from a family. The grandmother was being harassed by the granddaughter to part with rather large sums of money to feed a drug habit. There seemed to be nothing the family could do to prevent this from happening. Under this legislation I think a grandmother in that circumstance could be convinced to take out a domestic protection order.

The other issue that I think is very important, and which has been mentioned here several times, is the meaning of “domestic violence”, and how much it also has been broadened, particularly to include the threat of physical violence, intimidation, and harassment. Those are the things that undermine people. They undermine the women and the children who live in violent relationships. I am very pleased that we have expanded the
legislation to include those things. We know that domestic violence damages observers, and these are invariably the children.

We also know that domestic violence degrades the perpetrator. I am glad that this legislation will see programmes put in place to ensure that we can actually deal with domestic violence. I am very delighted to know that the Men for Non Violence organisation and others are involved at the very moment in discussing these matters and how we deliver such services in the future.

We know that domestic violence humiliates. We also know that it breeds further domestic violence, that it is intergenerational and continues down through time. Generations of families are damaged by it. So I am delighted that the select committee has brought back this legislation, and that it has gone through the Committee stage. I am very pleased that the changes that have occurred certainly improve the legislation.

I would like to talk about one particular area, because it is an area that I was involved in—although listeners may think that only Labour women were involved in it. That area is the improvement of the position in relation to firearms, and the provision to revoke a firearms licence if a domestic protection order is sought. The select committee did a very good job, I believe, in bringing this Bill back in the shape that it did, but it did not quite go far enough and actually place the burden of responsibility where I believe it now lies—under this legislation as it has emerged from the Committee stage—and that is with the law, not with the woman who is having to seek an exemption, if one likes, or a special condition with regard to a protection order. It is now a standard condition that if a licence holder is the respondent, that licence is automatically
revoked and removal of the gun is undertaken.

I know that some concerns have been expressed about that, but I am delighted because I have been working on it behind the scenes for some time to ensure that it actually eventuated. I am also delighted with my colleague the member for Eden, who has been working alongside me on it. I congratulate the House. As I say, I was not here last week when the debate was held on this issue, but I congratulate the House on seeing the sense in approving the amendments promoted by the Minister of Justice. I am delighted that they have gone through.

It is well known, certainly in the women’s refuge movement, that over half the children who are received into care have had direct physical abuse, and, of those, 23 percent have been threatened with guns. I think that is the whole point of this amendment: it is about not homicide so much but the threatening and the intimidation that occur. Hopefully, we will now see those diminish.

The other thing that I suppose this legislation can do is place some responsibility on gun owners. If a gun owner threatens somebody with a gun, and that person takes a domestic protection order against the gun owner, then the gun owner will actually lose his or her licence and his or her gun. Owning a gun is a privilege. Obviously, that person must be a fit and proper person to own a gun in the first place. Hopefully, in future we will see women and family members in much safer circumstances.

There are some people who should be thanked for the work they have done over the years. I know that the women’s movement generally has been seeking major change in this area. In fact, the first domestic protection legislation was landmark legislation on its own. I am delighted to say that this legislation, to be enacted under a National Government, has certainly extended it. But thanks to the women’s movement generally for its constant reminders to successive Governments actually to move on this particular issue, and to the victims who have suffered at the hands of violent partners. They too need to be remembered when we speak on this legislation.

Thank you to Ruth Busch and Neville Robertson, two of the authors of the Victims Task Force report, and to Hilary Lapsley. Thank you to all the officials from the New Zealand Police and the Department of Justice, and a special thank you to my Ministry of Women’s Affairs people who also gave advice throughout this. Thank you to Shona Jones and, in particular, Joy Liddicoat from the ministry.

I am delighted to be a part of a Government that has seen this legislation go through. This is very good legislation for the women and families of New Zealand.

Hansard – Stage: THIRD READING – 12 DEC 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL; AND BILLS THEREFROM : Third Readings
Main speaker – JILL PETTIS

JILL PETTIS (Wanganui):

I think we are all pleased this afternoon to be speaking to the third reading of the domestic violence legislation. This is extremely important legislation. I want to endorse the thanks given earlier this afternoon by my colleague the member for Hamilton East and by the Associate Minister of Women’s Affairs. I endorse all the gratitude that they showed to so many people.

I particularly want to thank my colleague the member for Hamilton East for the huge amount of work she has done on this issue. She has been tenacious, and her tenacity has been rewarded. A Bill like this does need somebody to drive it through, and the member for Hamilton East has been that driver. We thank her for her constant battling and for the constant support that she has given to lots of other people in order to get this Bill through. I also thank the Minister for the assistance that he has given, because he too has played an important role.

This Bill was proposed by Labour, and was supported by the Labour women’s caucus and a number of community groups. Many of those community groups have been mentioned by previous speakers.

Sure, the firearms amendment part of the legislation has created a bit of a furore, and has perhaps sometimes taken precedence over other important aspects of the legislation. It is important, but, overall, the passage of that particular amendment is a victory, and we have managed to convince other parties that the seizure of weapons should be mandatory not discretionary, with the onus of proof on the respondent not the victim, who, quite frankly, has enough to cope with. The aim is to minimise the potential for violence, both actual and perceived. The perception of violence is something not always understood by everyone. A gun does not have to be used for it to be threatening. Just knowing that it is there, present in the home, may be enough to inhibit behaviour.

Some detractors have tried to paint this issue as a male versus female issue. It most certainly is not. The paramount consideration is to protect the persons for whose benefit the protection order applies from further domestic violence. In fact the availability of firearms probably advantages women more than men, because it is far harder for a woman to damage a male seriously with her mere fists. That is an ugly thing to have to consider, but in fact it is reality.

This is not seen by everyone as a male versus female issue. I know of men who own firearms—they are recreational shooters—who state publicly that any man who beats his wife should lose his firearm and his licence. I applaud those men, rural men, for coming out and making statements like that.

Rural women are sometimes forgotten in the equation of domestic violence, because for some reason or other—I cannot quite understand this—domestic violence is sometimes seen as just an urban problem. It is portrayed on television as an urban issue, but, as the women of New Zealand know, it most certainly is not. Violence is not confined to the urban areas. Rural women are frequently exposed to firearms due to the nature of their partners’ occupation.

Rural women are also under considerable threat because they are isolated, not only geographically but from the structures that support women. That is especially so at night, when, unfortunately, some of the most violent incidents occur. It is a long, long way for a woman to drive from her isolated home in the country to a refuge or police station in town.

This legislation is about many things. It is primarily about saving lives. Last year there were 54 incidents of domestic violence where firearms were used. That is 54 incidents too many. It will be a standard condition to suspend a firearms licence when a temporary protection is granted, and to revoke it when a final order is made, and we welcome that.

This legislation is also about saving lives. We do not see reducing the number of road deaths as a gender issue; we do not see that as a male versus female issue. Rules for travelling on the road are made arbitrarily. Those rules apply across the board, and we endorse those rules because they too are about saving lives.

I will touch briefly on an aspect of this legislation that is important to me and lots of other women. This legislation is about reducing fear. How does one determine what fear is? Fear can be many things to many people. I believe that women are more fearful than men. How many men, when they go home to their home alone, look under the bed? I do, and I am old. I still look under the bed. It is the habit of a lifetime. Thank goodness at home we have a water-bed, so there is nowhere to look, but generally my husband is there to protect me. But I go home alone from here each night, and the habits of a lifetime are hard to undo. I still do that, and I wonder how many of my male colleagues do that.

Fear is something that can strike a person right to the core. I know that what I have said is quite humorous, and that I have revealed a little foible, but this legislation is about removing and reducing fear. As a mother, I know that mothers will do almost anything to protect their children. Unfortunately, that very protective characteristic that we have as mothers can also sometimes make us make mistakes. One of the most harrowing books I have read on this issue is called When Battered Women Kill. Sometimes battered women do kill. I welcome this legislation because I do not want any woman to be placed in a position where she has to fatally wound her partner.

Another important aspect of this legislation is about custody issues. In custody proceedings, if it is alleged that a party involved in the proceedings has ever used violence against that child or other children, the court must determine whether the allegation is correct. If the allegation is correct the violent party will not be eligible for custody, and will be eligible only for visiting rights under supervision, unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe. I welcome this amendment, because it too will provide safety for a very, very vulnerable group.

In closing, I too want to acknowledge that Christine Bristol is in the precincts of the House. This legislation is of special importance to Christine and many, many other women. On behalf of the Labour caucus I send Christine Bristol much love and our continued support, and we acknowledge her tremendous bravery.

Hansard – Stage: THIRD READING – 12 DEC 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL; AND BILLS THEREFROM : Third Readings
Main speaker – CHRIS FLETCHER

CHRIS FLETCHER (Eden):

It is my pleasure to follow the member for Wanganui and to support the observations she has made. Yes, I do look under the bed, in the cupboard, and behind the door when I go home at night. I wonder how often over the last 15 years we have looked at the television news at night, have seen a child beaten up or maybe killed, or a mother beaten, and have recoiled with horror. We think how dreadful it is, but somehow the next night there is something that might arguably be equally as awful, so it is forgotten. We wonder how these things could be happening in our country.

Today we are doing something about the problem. We are doing something about the different types of abuse in relation to domestic violence—the isolation, the emotional abuse, the economic abuse, and the physical abuse. Hopefully, we are doing a lot to empower women today through this legislation.

This legislation did not happen just because of one party or the other. It has happened just as much because the Alliance has supported it, the United New Zealand Party has supported it, the Labour Party has supported it, and the Government has been there to facilitate it.

Lots and lots of people should be thanked. I thank the Minister and the Associate Minister of Women’s Affairs within our caucus. They have brought about great advocacy. I thank the Prime Minister, who was prepared to make time to have this issue debated in our caucus. The Minister of Justice introduced the legislation. Others have been mentioned, such as the Women’s Refuge, in Auckland the Coalition Beyond Violence, Philip Alpers, and Dame Augusta Wallace.

So many people have brought about this legislation, and so many people, for such a long time, have wanted the issue of intergenerational violence finally addressed. Well, it is happening today, and the fact that we are at the point of a third reading on these Bills gives me a huge amount of pleasure. It is good news for the women and the families around New Zealand. It has happened through the advocacy of so very many people. It has crossed party political boundaries, so it gives me a lot of pleasure.

The legislation has also been, in part, a response to the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we are committed. This legislation will help to ratify the commitments and the declarations that we have made. I congratulate all those people—including members of the select committee, who tried so hard to make the legislation work, and to improve it in the time it spent in the committee.

General criminal law has not allowed the victims of domestic violence in New Zealand to feel safe. I hope that these Bills, when enacted, will remove the fear felt by so many victims, most of whom are women. But more important, I hope the legislation will send a strong message to New Zealanders that violence is not a solution to problems within personal relationships. Violence in a domestic setting will now be taken extremely seriously by the authorities, and those who commit violence can expect to be dealt with very severely.

Homes will be safer places in which to be, in the future.

This legislation takes the non-molestation and the non-violence orders from the Domestic Protection Act of 1982 and combines them into a single protection order that can last indefinitely. This protection order is available to a much wider range of people living in close relationships, including children, who will be allowed to apply for orders in their own right. It does not apply to unmarried people below the age of 17 years, because they are already protected under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act.

The legislation also recognises that abuse can take many different forms. It recognises psychological abuse, and I draw the attention of the House to clause 3 of the Domestic Violence Bill, and the issues relating to that clause, including recognising patterns of behaviour.

This legislation contains many new provisions for better protection for women. The Bill also allows for better living conditions for the victims of domestic violence. It addresses issues in a practical way. There is now greater scope for protection orders, which I have already addressed, and much stronger enforcement of those protection orders. There is also a provision that gives powers of arrest to the police in cases of a breach of a protection order. And when the police have good cause to suspect that an order may be breached, they can make an arrest without first having to obtain a warrant. The police have to observe some sensible guidelines in these cases, but at least they have some form of discretion, and that is a good thing.

The legislation also provides for counselling. People who have a protection order against them now have to undertake mandatory counselling. Only a few minor exemptions will be allowed—for example, in cases where an appropriate counselling programme may not be available. That is a really progressive step.

I do not think that very many people start off in life with the sole intention of being evil. Maybe this form of practical intervention applied at this point in those people’s lives, by way of counselling, will put them on a new road and, hopefully, help them to move towards better relationships in the future.

The legislation contains amendments to the Guardianship Act that I think will bring about a much safer environment for children. All in all, I believe it is very, very good legislation.

No doubt additional costs will be incurred by the police in the process of complying with this legislation, and I am very pleased with the steps the Government has taken to make sure that funding is available. However, domestic violence has affected us all in one way or another for too long. The passing of this legislation is a real step towards what I hope will be a much more gentle society.

I will take just a few more minutes to speak on what is perhaps the only controversial issue remaining in the legislation, and that is the decision of the House in the Committee stage last week to address the issue of firearms in the case of a protection order being placed. I strongly support this move. I have had a lot of lobbying since then from people who have rung me and said quite hysterically: “I will have my firearm taken away from me and this is just a terrible thing.” I calm them by explaining that confiscation of firearms will take place only when it can be demonstrated that a protection order is required. In the case of a woman who has been beaten up, why should the partner be allowed to maintain his firearm? More important, why should she have to be the one to make the decision as to whether the firearm should be taken away from him? The
seizure of firearms should be blamed on the law, and not on the woman involved.

Shifting that issue will enhance very much the environment for the woman involved, otherwise she could well come under pressure from her family, her in-laws, or her friends, all of whom might think her partner is a great bloke, and who might say that they could not possibly believe he would do such a thing. The shifting of that responsibility to the police automatically removes from the woman the guilt of making a decision; the law can now be blamed, not the woman. That has to make for a far better situation all round.

It seems quite sensible to me that people who have firearms—and it is a privilege to hold a firearm—should have to demonstrate that they are fit and proper people. For the life of me I cannot believe that somebody who can beat up his wife, resulting in a protection order being put in place, is indeed a fit and proper person.

In conclusion, I think this legislation is a real step forward for New Zealand society generally today. It demonstrates a maturity in the House that we can debate Bills of this sort across the House, and I give credit to all concerned for what is very sensible legislation. Certainly I think it is the most important legislation that will be passed this year. I thank all concerned—most importantly, the chairman of the select committee, who committed so much time to making sure the legislation was workable—and I thank the House for the opportunity.

Hansard – Stage: THIRD READING – 12 DEC 1995
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL; AND BILLS THEREFROM : Third Readings
Main speaker – JUDITH TIZARD

JUDITH TIZARD (Panmure):

I am very pleased to be speaking on the third readings of these Bills. It is 1 year and 11 days since this legislation was introduced in the House. It has been the object of the Opposition all through the process to make sure that the legislation was returned in the best possible form and in the quickest possible time, because it is well past its time. It has been necessary for many years now, and I believe that it will make a
difference to people in New Zealand.

Looking back over my speeches in the 5 years I have been in Parliament, I find that I have spoken on this issue more often than I have on any other. We Labour women members have seen this as one of the highest priorities of our work in Opposition—that is, trying to encourage the Government to take action on behalf of New Zealanders.

We believe that the prevention of violence is the first responsibility of the Government. Education is required to deal with violence. Assistance is necessary for the victims of violence. Legislation is required to protect those victims. Punishment is required for offenders, but also programmes in prisons and in the community to prevent violence are required. It is the cycle of violence that we are concerned about, and the prevention of it.

A number of reports have led to this legislation. In 1987 there was the Roper report. In 1992 the Victims Task Force, which had been set up by the last Labour Government, issued its report entitled Protection from Family Violence. The Davison report followed the appalling case of the violence that caused the death of members of the Bristol family. Suzanne Snively’s report in 1994 on the economic cost of family violence in New Zealand stated that in economic terms alone, violence was costing this country $1.2 billion a year. During the course of the consideration of this legislation, a report entitled Hitting Home: Men Speak About Abuse of Women Partners was commissioned by the Department of Justice. This report stated that the vast majority of New Zealanders saw violence not only as normal but as an acceptable way of dealing with disputes or betrayal within relationships.

This legislation follows on from those reports, but it is also following the general framework of the Domestic Protection Act. I particularly want to pay tribute to my colleagues the member for Southern Maori and the Leader of the Opposition, who played a major part in that legislation. For a long time women have thought that that legislation needed to be updated and expanded. These Bills do that.

The Domestic Protection Act did much more than had been done in the past. It provided protection from violence to people who were in recognised, marital-style relationships. When they were able to get to the court, they were able to get a non-molestation order. However, the report of the Victims Task Force pointed out very clearly that the follow-up was not there and the prevention was not there.

In spite of the protections of that Act, we found that social attitudes had changed only very slowly. As I have already said, the report entitled Hitting Home: Men Speak About Abuse of Women Partners hit home very hard, I think, with members of the select committee, other members of Parliament, and the community who read it.

I am appalled by the number of New Zealanders who see violence as normal, and who see it as their right to hit people who are less powerful than they are, as a way of disciplining them and forcing them to conform with their expectations or their needs. I think that until New Zealanders take violence seriously, we will not make much progress in spite of this Bill. Many New Zealanders see violence not only as normal, but as acceptable, and that must change.

The 65 submissions that came before the select committee all agreed with that—no, there were one or two that did not agree. Those submissions came from people who believe that hitting—particularly children, but in some cases wives—was acceptable. I think the two submissions that I recall were heard in
stunned silence. But most submissions were thoughtful, careful, not emotive, and described the reality of the lives of many New Zealand families. They talked about what it is like to live with violence, what it is like to be brought up with violence, and what it is like to marry into violence, and to accept it throughout one’s life. Some submissioners talked about what it is like to be old and powerless, but many of them talked about what it is like to be young and powerless, or female and powerless.

I thank all the people who made submissions. This legislation is much better than it was when it was introduced a year ago, because of the work of those people. I particularly thank the people who were involved with the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project. I wish them well. I hope this Government will take the funding issues as seriously as it says it is taking the policy issues.

I thank Ruth Busch, Hilary Lapsley, and Neville Robertson. I also thank all the people who have worked with them, and all the people who have worked in those programmes. I thank the members of the Victims Task Force—an organisation that I believe has made a remarkable difference to attitudes in this country; an organisation whose work will continue to be heard again and again and again. I thank all the people who work in the Women’s Refuge movement, Rape Crisis, the Help Foundation, the National Council of Women of New Zealand, and the Young Women’s Christian Association. I thank the people who work in Men for Non Violence New Zealand. In particular, I thank the thousands of individual men and women throughout New Zealand who have made a personal decision not to live with violence any more. I thank the select committee staff who made an invaluable contribution to this legislation.

I thought it was a most interesting experience watching the departmental staff—the very good staff of the Department of Justice, which became the Ministry of Justice part way through this Bill, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs staff, and the police—who were prepared to argue the issues very fully in front of the select committee, and who allowed us to argue the issues very fully and very freely with them. I think it was the select committee process at its best.

But I do want to say that one of the problems the select committee had—and it was referred to in the Committee stage—was that because of the Government majority, and because certain decisions had been made—the chairman reported back a number of times that the Government view was such and such—we were not able, or we did not think it worth while, to pursue some of the issues that this House has chosen to remedy.

I do not want to dwell on those firearms issues for too long, but I do think that the House has made a sensible, rational, and decent decision. All those people who told the select committee that they feared firearms can now hope for some protection.

The objective of this legislation is to provide protection for New Zealanders within their families. The family is the place where we assume that we are safe. It is the place where we have the right to assume that we are safe. I think that in New Zealand we are discussing more and more frankly the fact that many of us are not safe within our families. This legislation sets basic standards for how families should behave. It states what is utterly unacceptable and what should be done.

There are issues that this legislation does not cover. There was particular concern at the select committee and in the community about the fact that educational programmes to stop violence are not provided for within this legislation, and I plead with the Government to fund and to organise these programmes. I do not want to see any more Pacific Island women’s refuges in west Auckland being closed. I do not want to see any more Stop programmes being closed. These are the programmes that will make families safer in their homes.

This legislation does not deal well enough with programmes for children, and it does not deal with the issue of stalking. There are many more matters that this House will want to go on with.

I will finish with a quotation from the preface of the Protection from Family Violence report by the Victims Task Force. At the end of that preface the authors stated: “To the women we interviewed who told their stories and who have been silenced long enough. To the women who have been hidden and who have come out of hiding to tell their stories. To the women who have gone back into hiding and who are still there now. To the women who have paid to tell their stories in ways they should not have had to; who have paid with their bodies and their pain. To the women who might still pay when it is known that they have told their stories. To the silent children listening to their mothers’ stories—those children who have learnt to be silent to survive and whose stories are yet to be told. To the women who have died—one woman nearly every week. To the women who died as we worked on this report and whose stories we pieced together from police files, coroners’ reports, and from their families. The days of your deaths were marked by the system’s trivialisation of the dangers you faced.”

This legislation says that Parliament no longer trivialises that pain.

Bills read a third time.
Sitting suspended from 5.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.