Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill be now read a second time. This bill was one of the first to be introduced by the National-led Government. It amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Bail Act 2000, in order to strengthen the responsiveness of the criminal justice agencies to victims of domestic violence. The Justice and Electoral Committee received 63 written submissions and heard 19 oral submissions on the bill. I take this opportunity to thank the committee members, and in particular the chairperson, Chester Borrows, for the work that they have done on this bill.

The most significant proposal in the bill is the introduction of police safety orders, for which there was broad support from submitters. However, submitters also suggested improvements that could enhance the implementation of these orders, which were then picked up in the recommendations of the committee. The committee recommended requiring the person whom the order is issued against to surrender any firearms licence held by him or her. The bill originally proposed removing the person’s firearms only for the duration of the order, but this would not prevent the person from using his or her firearms licence to legally buy another firearm. The amendment that removes and suspends the person’s firearms licence will reduce the alleged perpetrator’s access to firearms and enhance the victim’s safety.

Another recommendation was made to amend the title of the order from “police order” to “police safety order”, to reflect the purpose of these orders and to distinguish them from the protection orders issued by the courts.

I was particularly pleased that the committee endorsed the Government’s policy that an order could be issued for up to 5 days. That will be critical if such an order is issued over a long weekend or in other situations where access to the courts may be limited.

With regard to enforcing a police safety order, the committee noted that there were no consequences for the alleged perpetrator if he or she failed to stay at the scene while the order was being issued and served. The committee recommended including an offence provision for those who flee the scene while the police are preparing to issue an order for arrest without warrant.

The committee recommended a number of other amendments to clarify how the authorities will deal with a person who fails to comply with a police safety order. As introduced, the bill provided that if a person who was subject to an order did not comply with the order, then the police could take the person into custody and bring him or her before the District Court. If that could not be done within 24 hours, then the police could release the person and summons him or her to appear before the court at a specified date and time. The committee recommended providing powers that will enable the District Court to issue a warrant to arrest a person who is subject to an order when he or she does not comply with the order, or does not attend the court at the time and place to which proceedings have been adjourned. It is important to note—this is similar to the provisions of the Bail Act—that the warrant will permit the police to enter any premises by force if necessary in order to give effect to it.

Other recommendations define the judicial officers who can hear cases involving the breach of a police safety order, and provide further detail regarding the court processes associated with the issue of a temporary protection order as a penalty for the breach of a police safety order.

Another important feature of the bill is the proposal to amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to enable the criminal courts to issue a protection order on behalf of the victim in cases where an offender is sentenced for a domestic violence offence. I understand submissions were very supportive of this proposal. The committee recommended enabling the criminal courts to issue a protection order even if the victim has also applied for a protection order in the Family Court or the District Court. This is to ensure that the victim may be covered by a protection order from the time that the offender is sentenced for the offending.

The bill also amends the offence provisions in the Domestic Violence Act by removing the two-tier penalty structure for breaches of protection orders and leaving only the maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years. The bill also provides a specific penalty of up 6 months’ imprisonment for failing to attend a court-ordered programme. Submissions suggested that if the offender is also directed to attend a stopping violence programme, the judge or registrar should explain that programme attendance is compulsory, and that consequences will follow if the offender does not attend it. The committee agreed with that, and considered that such an amendment would help offenders to understand the importance of attending stopping violence programmes.

The committee also recommended changes to the provisions that apply to the Bail Act 2000 to allow the police to impose any conditions considered reasonably necessary to protect any particular person who resides with the victim, such as a new partner or elderly parents. The bill originally proposed that conditions could apply to any child who lives with the victim. Submitters raised the valid point that a victim may also have other family members living with him or her who require protection from the person against whom the order was made.

I have read the minority report on the bill from the Labour Party, and I acknowledge its concern that other recommendations from the review of the Domestic Violence Act were not included in this particular bill. As I said at the time, this bill is focused on the criminal justice sector’s response to incidents of family violence. Since the select committee reported back to the House on this bill, I have introduced the Child and Family Protection Bill, which picks up on some proposals that are centred on child welfare and reconciling the Domestic Violence Act and the Care of Children Act. The introduction of the Child and Family Protection Bill was delayed, because I saw an opportunity to include a new offence of improperly inducing consent for the adoption of a child. That bill will enable New Zealand to finally ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, which New Zealand signed in 2000. However, I am unapologetic for prioritising the changes proposed in the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, which will provide for the immediate safety of those who are under imminent threat from domestic violence.

I recall that when I introduced this bill it was one of the occasions when I asked the select committee to take into consideration one or two factors and to offer up amendments where it saw that it would be appropriate to do so, following receipt of submissions. In this case it seems to me that the select committee process has worked particularly well, in terms of the number of recommendations and practical amendments offered up by the committee. This legislation was a core part of the Government’s 100-day programme following the general election. I am pleased that progress has been made on it. The bill is an initiative that is particularly important to me, and I intend to see it make its way through all stages as soon as possible. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : Although the Labour Party will support the passage of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, we do remain disappointed in the Government’s decision to introduce two bills, as opposed to the omnibus bill introduced by the previous Labour Government as the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. That bill is still on the Order Paper, admittedly at the bottom of the Order Paper, in the name of the Hon Annette King. The use of the two bills actually disguises the decision the Government has taken not to proceed with certain elements of the previous Labour Government’s bill, and now that this second bill has been tabled we can see exactly what they are. The most significant differences that still remain absent from the two bills appear to be, first, the changing of the definition of “child” from under 17 years of age to under 18 years of age in the Domestic Violence Act. This would not only have allowed further compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child but would have aligned the Domestic Violence Act with the Care of Children Act. It makes no sense that the Government still leaves this out.

The second difference is that the decision was made, obviously by the Government, not to require reasons to be given in writing when a “without notice” application for a protection order is declined by a judge. Again we have had absolutely no explanation from the Government as to why it has made the decision not to proceed with that recommendation.

The third difference is the decision not to introduce information sessions, despite all of the evidence around the fact that protection is best given in circumstances where an individual knows what he or she can access by way of support, and if the person understands the nature of the threat that he or she faces. That is the one message that I do not believe that this House has actually picked up on yet—that most women who die at the hands of an intimate partner do so not knowing the nature of the threat they face. Sure, they were frightened but did not really believe that their husband, their partner, their former husband, or former partner would actually take that final step and kill them. And even if the women had been saying “I think he’s going to kill me.”, deep down in their hearts they find it hard to believe that somebody who loved them, once—and said that they loved them and continued often to say they loved them—would take their life. The Government’s decision not to introduce information sessions for the victims of domestic violence is a very dangerous decision to make, and I hope that it is able to reflect on that when we get to the Child and Family Protection Bill—the second bill.

The Government’s decision not to introduce funded addiction treatment services, again, despite all of the evidence around the association between domestic violence, and drug and alcohol abuse— again, I cannot understand why the Government would not proceed with that provision, but that could be dealt with in the context of the second bill.

Obviously, Labour fully supports the provisions relating to police orders, although I did think it was interesting that the Government decided to change the name of them to something based on the person who grants them, as opposed to their purpose. They were called “safety orders” under the previous Labour Government’s bill, and I think there is an important distinction, and it explains some of the reason why there was concern about the orders being introduced in the first place.

I do not think there is much difference in the time frame of them. Our bill said the duration period may not exceed 3 days; the Government’s bill says 5 days. We are happy to support that proposal. It is important for the House again to understand that this provision was not universally greeted with enthusiasm when it was first proposed by Labour in Government. I was the Minister of Women’s Affairs at the time, and the women’s refuges and other groups were very concerned about the risks that these orders might pose. If I could just summarise their views—and I hope I do them justice, because I do this by way of recall rather than having a particular document in front of me—one was about the victim’s consent to the order not being required. There was a real concern about the question of disempowerment: whether this was going to disempower people in terms of their ability to take control of what was often, when they were victims of domestic violence, a lack of control.

There was a concern that police would not be sufficiently well-trained in the dynamics of domestic violence, to assess the circumstances in which orders should be made. I know that the Government has said that it will put a lot of emphasis on training police to deal with these situations, and we certainly look forward to seeing that happen. The third reason they were concerned that men would claim that women had been the instigators of the violence and would seek instant protection orders from the police, and then coupled with the lack of training around the dynamics of domestic violence there was a concern that that would be a genuine fear to have.

As a result of these concerns, when I was Minister of Women’s Affairs I personally visited the police in Tasmania when I was over there for a meeting, and I was very impressed with the approach that they had adopted. Interestingly, in Tasmania it was an Attorney-General who spearheaded the law change, which actually enables a police protection order to stand for an entire year, and it does so for very good reasons. She had been determined to get this change in place because she had seen the horrific consequences of the failure to act, even when the police had been involved. I know that representatives of Women’s Refuge visited another Australian state around the same time and gained a similar level of reassurance from the advice that it received. That is why, when we started to talk about introducing these provisions, the issue was a lot better received than it had been originally. The issue certainly has been thought through, but these police safety orders will not protect people who do not come into contact with police. They just simply will not. I think everyone understands this, and they also will not be effective if they are not backed up by realistic levels of support.

My electorate has been shocked by the events of the past few weeks, culminating in the death of Rebecca Somerville caused by her husband, and the discovery of the body of Tisha Lowry, a neighbour who had been missing for just over a year. I went with the community to the tapu-lifting ceremony, before the police cordon was lifted the Monday before last. Can I say that the Christchurch police have been absolutely amazing. They have worked really closely with the community. They have been very respectful of their needs, despite a detailed double-murder investigation, and members can imagine how much effort has had to go into that. I went into the house with the floorboards gone in the kitchen where the bodies were found, and the soil that had hidden those bodies—one for over a year, as I say—lay very neatly arranged below us. It was deeply upsetting, and I really cannot tell members how upsetting it was. I felt actually no comfort in being there, but it was important to be there with the community, with the mayor, with the local councillor Chrissie Williams, and the leaders in the community who were there to lift the tapu and to make the community whole. Can I say to the neighbours that it is right that they do not return to the house where a wall separates the house but not what was a grave, but please respect the grief of the families of those who have died. Let people assist you, but quietly and behind the scene, because yours is not the most pressing need.

I have already spoken to individuals about identifying the wider victims of crime in a situation like this. Neighbours are the victims of a crime such as this, and it is important that we find ways to ensure that the news media are not the first people to notify neighbours of such tragedies. But the most important focus of our consideration, and in the context of the bill, is the question that must be how we stop these deaths from occurring. I am strongly of the view that we have to learn the lessons of the lives that have been lost. A police order would not have saved Rebecca Somerville’s life unless she had called them to her house to ensure her immediate safety. For the kinds of intervention we have to put in place we have to learn from the experience of the police, who have been going to these kinds of cases over and over again. I have seen the checklist that the police have put together. It shows that there are signs that can be looked for that show increasing levels of violence and the much higher likelihood of them leading to death. We have to learn these lessons or we will be condemned as a community to continue to see them being repeated.

It is absolutely critical that the bill strengthens the sentencing provisions for breaches of protection orders, but I come back to the fact that courses for the offender for stopping violence are not the most effective intervention; it is empowering the victims of violence so that they are able to have the strength to get away from a situation that will clearly be more dangerous to them than anything else they could have imagined. It is very important that we take a holistic approach to domestic violence. I am hoping that as a Parliament we can make these changes, but it is not just the law that will do that.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : As the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, I commend the bill to the House. I thank the members of the committee who took part in the discussion process and the deliberation. It was a very interesting and moving experience, at times, to go through the hearing process. Each member of the committee brought his or her own view and own experience to the table in discussing how the bill would work out in a practical way.

A number of changes were made, as have been outlined by the Minister of Justice and others, in respect of how the mechanics of what is written down in black and white will work operationally when implemented by the police. A number of points made by the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, were a fairly true reflection of those submissions. One of the most interesting points was the conflict between those groups representing women that were making the argument that the views of victims—and frequently the victims are women—should be considered as to whether they consent to the imposition of a protection order, and those who argued that those women should not make that decision, on the basis that a number of them are disempowered, and therefore they will not or cannot make such decisions. At the same time, it is disempowering for women to have these decisions made without their discussion or consent. Initially, the second point was made by Women’s Refuge, but, as I understand it, at the end of the process it was happy with the law as it has now been written, and accepted that the courts are the best place to make the decision.

Some other changes were made, and one that I was particularly pleased with was the ability for the police to issue a police safety order even when they make an arrest. In the bill as introduced, a police safety order could not be issued if the offender was arrested for an offence disclosed on the property. That change is a good move, and it reinforces the fact that a piece of paper will never protect anybody when there is a mixture of alcohol, emotions, inflammatory comments, or whatever occurs around domestic violence. A piece of paper will not stop anything, but it flags in advance where these things may happen. It brings them to the immediate attention of the authorities that will have to intervene—and thank goodness they do.

A number of points have been made, too, about the previous Labour Government’s bill in respect of domestic violence. A number of its provisions that are uncontentious were not brought forward within this bill. I can understand the reasons why those comments have been made. I am pleased the committee drew this situation to the attention of the Minister, who quite quickly has brought before the House a second bill. The undertaking has also been given that that bill will come before the same committee, so, in many ways, we will not have to hear the same evidence twice, or, at least, the members of the committee who go through the hearing process will have at the front of their minds the concerns already raised. A number of the submitters on this bill had appeared before the select committee considering the previous bill, so there was a common ground and understanding of the issues involved.

The extension to 5 days from 3 days for the duration of the police safety orders was a bit contentious. My personal view is that it could have been longer. It could have been 5 working days or it could have gone to 7 days. We have isolated areas around our country where legal counsel is not easily available, and where it is not easy for people to avail themselves of these services, especially if they have been through a violent domestic situation. A number of particularly tragic examples of these events occur in quite remote circumstances. If we think about where we have had explosions in family violence that have resulted, for instance, in multiple deaths or particularly tragic deaths, we can see that a lot of them are in communities that are a long way from anywhere as far as accessing legal counsel is concerned, and the demographics of those involved are that they frequently are those who do not have access to finances to be able to contact and deal with lawyers quickly or to access them by way of transport.

I bring those points to the House. I thank the committee again for the process. I thank the officials for the advice they gave us. Most of all, I thank those people who took the time to make such valid submissions before the committee. I commend the bill to the House.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : I am very pleased to stand to take a call in the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I am very pleased that at last it is being debated. I will go through the positive parts of the bill, of which there are many, but I also join my colleague Lianne Dalziel in voicing my disappointment that the bill is not as comprehensive as Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which is currently on the Order Paper, albeit towards the bottom.

I note that the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill does not comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—an issue that was raised during its first reading. With Labour’s bill, we had the ability to change the definition of a child from someone under 17 years to someone under 18 years, thereby increasing the age limit at which minors can apply for protection orders in their own right. That would have given a lot of younger people so much more protection. Along with Lianne Dalziel and my Labour colleagues I am very disappointed that it has not been incorporated into the bill that the Minister has signalled will have a reading in the House, hopefully, very soon.

It may seem a little negative to talk about this, but domestic violence is a cruel, vicious situation. Every day that we cannot provide enhanced protection and safety is a day too long. I note that the Justice and Electoral Committee reported back the bill on 29 June 2009. I, along with my colleagues, certainly would have been very happy if the bill had gone to the top of the Order Paper so that it could have been enacted by this stage. It saddened me to see urgency taken last week on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which, with no ill effect, could have had enhanced debate and closer scrutiny. It was a bill on which there was not a meeting of minds, and there should have been more debate on it and the public should have had a chance to have more input. I think putting the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill through under urgency would have served a far greater purpose, but that did not happen. Certainly, as I said before, I am very pleased that this bill is now before the House and is being progressed, and I look forward to further protection for victims in the future.

This bill is about safety. It ensures that a violent situation is calmed as soon as humanly possible. It is absolutely untenable that in situations of domestic violence it frequently is the victim and young family members who have to leave the family home for their security and safety. I pay tribute, as Chester Borrows did before me—and he did an excellent job chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee—to the people who came and spoke to the committee. An impression of “like minds, like message” came through from the vast majority of submitters. I think there were over 20—from memory, 22 or 24—oral submissions, the majority of which were very, very clear and very, very consistent in their support for the bill. Many submitters raised adding the provisions relating to, particularly, the protection of children that are in Labour’s bill. We took advice on that matter, but unfortunately those provisions were outside the scope of this bill. But the vast majority of submitters were very, very clear that this bill did give enhanced protection, and the sooner the better.

A minority of submitters, and I stress that it was a very small number of submitters, felt that it was unreasonable for the partner to be removed, on the chance that issuing the police safety protection order may in the future be deemed to be an unjustified action on the part of the police—I should have said police safety order; we had numerous discussions about what the order would be called. But the members of the committee had all agreed by the end that that view was not reasonable, and from the outset I certainly did not hold it. It seemed to me to be completely unreasonable, if one balanced the very rare potential instance where an order is given and it is then deemed inappropriate—and I do not believe that would happen—with the paramount issue of the safety of, predominantly, women and children, and removing the risk of extreme violence against them. That far outweighs any argument about an unjustified protection order. I am really pleased that all the members of the committee agreed with that position.

There was also considerable discussion about the 5-day duration of the order versus a shorter period. A few submitters wanted to see the period extended in case it was not long enough to allow for public holidays. Again, a very small number of submitters believed that 5 days was too long, and that 3 days would have been preferable. There was complete agreement from all committee members—and I thank the officials, who gave us very sensible advice—that the period should be up to 5 days. That is the most sensible way to go, if we are concerned to ensure safety and security.

We also had considerable discussion on the need to explain the protection order. After a protection order has been issued, it must be made very, very clear to the person—and generally it is a man—what the order means and what the consequences are of failing to comply with it. We improved the bill by including a requirement to attend a stopping violence programme, and by specifying the consequences of failing to attend that programme.

I believe that the committee worked very constructively, and that the changes that have been made have considerably improved the bill. I am very pleased about that. I take this opportunity to again acknowledge all of the submitters who came and told us, in many instances, incredibly painful stories about their own personal situations of stress, anxiety, and fear. To do that was a very brave act. I think this debate is a great opportunity in this House to acknowledge women and families who have gone through that situation, and to acknowledge the support that is given to them by the refuges and other organisations that work in this field giving support to victims of violent crime. Those organisations ensure that those victims are supported and have a safe haven.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I rise to support the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. As the Green Party indicated in the first reading debate, we are prepared to support the bill. We have no serious difficulties with it. The general thrust of the bill is entirely laudable. It reflects two of the Green Party’s four main principles—namely, social responsibility and non-violence.

Let us acknowledge that we are a violent nation. We chalk up an average of 222 violent family events each day, which is one every 7 minutes. The purpose of the bill is therefore to ensure that a vulnerable partner in a domestic relationship—whether it is a woman or, as we heard from our ACT colleague earlier, a man, as it is in many cases—can receive greater protection through enhanced police procedures.

Specifically, we support the proposed power for the police to issue a police order on the spot. That should avoid the delays involved hitherto in extending protection to a vulnerable partner at a time of crisis. We agree that the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendation to use the term police safety order in order to distinguish it from a similar order from the Family Court is well placed. We think, as the committee recommends, that 5 days is the appropriate period for such an order to be in force.

We support the altered powers for a constable to issue a safety order for the proper protection of a vulnerable partner, even if there is insufficient evidence to justify an arrest. We support the extension of an order to encompass previous partners, as well as current partners. We support the change that will remove the need for a constable to obtain the explicit consent of a vulnerable partner before issuing a safety order. Too often, the understandable reluctance, or even hesitancy, to give such consent has hampered not only the interests of justice but also the imperative of immediate protection for a potential victim. We also support the option for the criminal courts to consider a protection order for a victim at the time of sentencing the offender.

For all of those reasons the Green Party will support the bill going through to the third reading. The bill is a step forward in strengthening the domestic protection regime. Whether the bill goes far enough is another matter. I note the lament of the Labour members, in its minority report, that at least six elements in Labour’s original bill—the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which is also on the Order Paper but so far has been allowed to languish—have not been included in the Government’s legislation. The Government says that it will address such issues separately, but it has not met its intended deadline yet.

We certainly believe that it is incumbent on the Government to proceed on the other issues, which reflect considerable work done by the previous Labour Government in consultation with concerned groups. We look forward to seeing the fruits of that endeavour in the form of further draft legislation by the Government, hopefully before the year is out. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : Domestic violence is one of those bizarre features of the system of gross domestic product, in which the more GDP rises, the better the overall health and well-being of the nation is assumed. If we were to examine the trends in domestic violence one would think our well-being assured, in terms of the consistent rising impact of the violence statistics, yet it is killing us. On average, every year 14 women, 10 children, and six men die as a result of family violence.

The 2006 figure for family violence - related offences represents a 54 percent increase on 2001. In real terms the figure rose from 21,205 offences in 2001 to 32,675 offences in 2006. In the notifications to Child, Youth and Family, for those same years, there was a massive increase of 161 percent, rising from 2,636 notifications to 68,819 notifications in 2006. In the courts, prosecutions for males assaulting females increased 30 percent, from 3,307 in 2000 to 4,285 in 2006, while in women’s refuges the number of services and programmes delivered to women and children experienced a 55 percent increase between 2002 and 2006, from 18,628 services and programmes to 28,845 services and programmes in 2006.

Those statistics make up the cold, hard face of violence that diminishes the potential of our families and damages the optimism for generations to come. It is the ugly reality of life for far too many New Zealanders, and it is the call for help that we cannot ignore. There is no question that the Māori Party will stand in the way of any interventions that might help to protect the safety of women and children and the decency of life that every family deserves. Let us face it—there is a lot that can be done.

One of the most disturbing of the 66 submissions received by the Justice and Electoral Committee was from Heather Henare of the National Collective of Independent Woman’s Refuges. Its information, in direct contrast to the rising volumes of domestic violence incidents, revealed the declining number of applications for protection orders. The collective advised the committee that women who have experienced violence are losing faith in the system due to the cost; due to the difficulty in obtaining protection orders; due to the notice order and because of the failure to follow up, arrest, and prosecute breaches of protection including non-attendance at respondent programmes, which means the orders do not work to protect women. The collective also noted that psychological abuse is not taken seriously when granting a protection order, following up breaches, determining the care of children, and discharging orders. These are all serious issues, and ones that require further consideration than this bill is capable of.

The Human Rights Commission also endorsed this view, noting the research and the recent review of the Domestic Violence Act report that improvements are needed to ensure that the Act is implemented to its full effect. This view is endorsed by a recent report entitled Living at the Cutting Edge: Women’s Experiences of Protection Orders. The issues identified in the report suggest that the Domestic Violence Act 1995 has failed to realise its promise. Interestingly, very few of the key informants in that report have problems with the Act as it is written. Overwhelmingly, the analysis of the case studies and decisions reflects not inadequate legislation but inadequate implementation. The key problem has been getting protection orders upheld by the police and the courts. Quite simply, putting more laws in place will not address the problems with implementing the law. If we were to think that this bill is the one-stop shop to solve all issues relating to domestic violence, we would be wrong. But it is a step along the way.

The key initiatives that will be advanced with this legislation are in relation to protection orders, and, in particular, the introduction of on-the-spot police orders, which can be made where there is insufficient evidence of an offence to make an arrest but where police believe domestic violence is occurring. This is an intervention that has been widely supported across the land. We all know that with incidents of violence, delay can be deadly. The problem with protection orders to date is that victims must apply to the court for orders, and often do not because of fear of repercussions, because of cost, because of a lack of trust in the system, and because in the cold light of day the process seems to be another hurdle acting against the desire for peace, no matter what the price. So we applaud the move to issue immediate temporary protection orders, which will have the effect of removing the alleged offender from the home for a period of up to 5 days. Our caucus was absolutely unanimous in our support for this initiative, which in effect removes the problem from the home.

I remember the advice of Moana Jackson at the whānau support workshop held at Hopuhopu last year. His view was “Stop the hurt, explore the reason, deny the presumption, and address the causes”. Outsiders often look at situations of family violence and express frustration, even contempt, at the way in which family members will continue to return to the family home and be accepted within the folds of family—the family in which gross violence has occurred. In my work with Te Ratonga Ture and with Women’s Refuge I know it was common for women to return seven or eight times to a violent situation before enough was enough. The point is that these women love their partners. It is the violence they hate. The same thing can be said for families who welcome home an offender. Men who have come home straight from prison, after serving a sentence for violent assault, are embraced as fathers and husbands, despite the fear and devastation created from their lack of control. We support the move to implement police-issued protection orders, which have the effect of removing the problem from the home in order to allow the hurt to stop, and to allow time and space to explore the reason. We also support the intention to make it an offence to contravene a protection order, and believe that a breach can lead to an immediate arrest. This must be explicit in the legislation.

This bill achieves progress in amending the Domestic Violence Act 1995, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Bail Act 2000. It strengthens the response of the police and the courts to acts of domestic violence, in order to enhance safety of whānau and victims, and this is a good thing. But we must not stop just at this legislation, in isolation of the wide-ranging approach we can take, and all should take, to stop family violence in our midst. I was greatly moved by the wise advice of one of my aunties from Christchurch, Aunty Kiwa Hutchens, who told the select committee: “Kaua e utua ki te kino, me haere anō i te rangimāria.” Do not punish wrongdoing with unkindness; seek peaceful solutions.

We are obviously concerned about the potential damage to our tamariki and our whānau if our children are to be separated for any great time from their caregivers, their mothers, and their fathers. I am mindful too of the guidance from the Nelson Rape and Sexual Abuse Network, which reminded us that violence is not likely to be an isolated incident but rather a part of a long and insidious build-up, generally over months, if not years, where the alleged offenders slowly but surely, through threat, fear, and other tactics, including actual physical or sexual violence, isolate the women and the hidden victims, the children. We must take a proactive and comprehensive approach that supports and nurtures family and whānau to take collective responsibility for each other. We call that approach whānau ora. It is singularly the most significant step this Government can take to create futures free of harm. Finally then, the Māori Party will support this bill as a move towards whānau ora.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to stand here this afternoon and take a call on the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. First, I acknowledge all the hard work that the Justice and Electoral Committee did in bringing this bill back to the House and the adjustments it made through that process. The select committee was chaired by Chester Borrows, MP for Whanganui, who is unique in the experience he brought to that committee. He was a policeman—a detective—for 20 years, and then he was a lawyer. The experience and first-hand knowledge he brought to this bill was pretty significant, as was his understanding of how domestic violence impacts on individuals and the victims themselves. He has seen so many of those victims himself, having gone into houses as the first policeman on the job. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a victim of domestic violence—I really cannot. It must be a horrific experience. The fear must be incredible, and to live like that, day after day and year after year, as some of these women and their children do, is pretty incredible. It is hard to believe that in New Zealand there are 80,000 domestic violence cases a year. That is just incredible in a population of 4 million. Over 200 women and children have been killed as a result of domestic violence over the last 12 years, and, in fact, in the last month two women have been killed by domestic violence. That is absolutely appalling and there is no excuse for that in New Zealand.

This legislation is not a silver bullet, because there is no silver bullet for domestic violence. There has to be a holistic approach, one that looks at all parts of our society. It is not just the responsibility of the Government to have an answer to this; people need to take responsibility for what is happening in their homes, their families’ homes, their neighbours’ homes, and the communities they live in. If we all tackle this issue together, then we will start making some difference. It is not just that; the Government has a responsibility to those women and children and it has to ensure that when they are in trouble or when there is violence and the police are called, the police can do something. That is what this legislation is about. It is about giving the police some more tools in their tool box to make more of a difference.

I believe that the big part of this legislation is the on-the-spot protection orders. They allow the police to go in and give a protection order to women and their children on the spot for a period of up to 5 days against the person who is doing the domestic violence. Also, the police themselves can make the decision that the protection order needs to be put in place, because many women and their families are totally dominated by the males in those houses and would not do that out of fear. I understand that in 2005 this issue was discussed in some workshops, and there was a strong view from Women’s Refuge that the police should not be giving protection orders and we should not be increasing those powers because police do not enforce them—they are so busy doing other police duties and actually need to enforce the protection orders that are out there. But I think it is good we are increasing protection orders, and it is also good that we are increasing police numbers to ensure that those orders are enforced.

I wanted to take a short call on this today. I believe that this is strong legislation that will help women and their children out there, and the other legislation that will come through later in the year will go hand in hand with this. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : On Saturday New Zealand celebrated 116 years since women won the right to vote in this country, and it was a hard fight to win. I have been sitting here listening to the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and wondering whether Kate Sheppard and the other suffragettes would have anticipated that some 116 years later these issues would be before our Parliament. I imagine that they thought that having women involved in the political process, able to vote and able to influence political decision making, leading to women gaining roles in Parliament and becoming Ministers of the Crown, would enhance the status of women and perhaps level the power balance, and influence ideas about how women would be treated in New Zealand. I imagine that they would be somewhat devastated to listen to the debate we must have in this House today.

I think it shows just how far we still have to go in terms of levelling the power imbalance. Although I do not want to diminish any sort of domestic violence whatsoever, no matter who is involved, the amount of domestic violence targeted towards women is much greater than that targeted towards men. It is a fact that not only the numbers but also the nature of the violence targeted towards women has more extreme outcomes than it does for men. Therefore, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the second reading of this bill, because this is an issue that, sadly, primarily affects women in this country.

When we hear, as we did from the Green Party, that there is one domestic violence event every 7 minutes in this country, it is very sobering. It is shocking, but I venture that perhaps there is a silver lining, in that the police are called to a domestic violence event once 7 minutes in this country. I do not imagine for a minute that domestic violence was not a feature of New Zealand in Kate Sheppard’s day. I imagine that almost certainly it was a feature, but that it was OK for that to happen in those days.

The very successful campaign that has been running here in New Zealand with a range of community leaders saying that domestic or family violence in any form is not OK has, I believe, made a real difference. It has meant that women and others in family violence situations have been able to blow the whistle. It has given them the confidence to stand up and say that what is happening behind closed doors should not be happening, and they are calling the correct authorities to have those issues dealt with.

This bill is important in dealing with that situation in that it gives some more tools to those people, primarily women, who are in that situation. I particularly want to commend this bill for bringing forward the concept of police safety orders being able to be issued basically on the spot by police for issues of domestic violence. It has long seemed quite ironic to me that in a situation where domestic violence has occurred or where a woman, more often than not, has been beaten up, it is the perpetrator—the violent offender—who gets to stay in the family home. The victim, the woman who was being beaten, is the one who has had to leave the family home, sometimes with her children in tow. She is the one who has had all the inconvenience caused to her and who has moved out of that situation and into a women’s refuge.

I do not suggest for a minute that that will not continue to happen, because, of course, the primary concern is about the safety of the victim. In many circumstances, the choice of the woman will be to seek refuge in a place apart from the family home, but this gives another option for women—to choose to have the violent offender removed from the family home. It seems ironic that in a domestic violence situation, the perpetrator of the violence gets to stay in the family home, get up in the morning, shower, and go to work as if nothing has happened. It is the victim who has been completely removed from her natural environment and who has to make that readjustment through no fault of her own. I think this gives another option to that situation.

It has also been really sad to hear, through the course of this debate, about the number of submitters who were concerned to increase the amount of days that the police safety order would continue in force. I was not on the select committee, but having listened to the debate this afternoon it seems to me that many of the submitters were concerned about extending those days because of public holidays. That is a very sad commentary on what is happening in some of those homes. I think those submitters quite rightly pointed out that there was a spike in domestic violence around times that ought to be happy times for our families: public holidays, Christmas, New Year’s Eve, and those sorts of celebrations. In fact, what ends up happening, as anyone who works in this field knows, is that incidents of domestic violence go up at a time when our families should be happy in their own company. Although I applaud those submitters for bringing forward that issue and arguing for the extension, I think the reasons why they brought that forward are a very sad reflection on our society.

I think that this bill could have been stronger and it could have gone further. If this Government had picked up the work that the previous Government had done—in fact, the work that is still sitting on the Order Paper, and which the Government could choose to pick up right now—then we could have had an even better bill before Parliament, and I would have felt even better about getting up and supporting this bill at its second reading. The big gap in this bill concerns the information sessions on gaining protection orders. Of course, protection orders still remain, and they should be pursued by people who are in a situation where the police safety order has already been put in place. But they still need information in order to learn how they can pursue a protection order, which is not such a temporary measure, and which can give them even more protection in that situation.

This bill has also removed an issue that Labour wanted to pursue, which was that victims would also receive advice on social assistance that they could seek in that situation. This is all about education, and education is about empowerment. Because domestic violence is about power and control, empowerment of the victim, I believe, is fundamental in helping to resolve this issue.

I hope the Government will also reflect on what it has done in the education sector, which I think will take us backwards in this area. Some of the cuts to adult and community education funding actually take us backwards in this area. For example, in Hamilton the Alternatives to Violence Project is a very, very good programme that has worked with violent offenders to get them to change their views and behave in a different way. It is one of the programmes that will be cut as a result of the adult and community education funding cuts. Yesterday I visited the Christchurch Women’s Centre, and the staff there told me that every single one of the programmes that they held in order to empower women and raise women’s self-esteem were being cut through the adult and community education cuts. I think the Government should really reflect on not only this legislative measure but also the empowerment of women, and what that means for reducing and stopping domestic violence, because it seems to be going backwards on that front at the moment.

As domestic violence increases in this country—or at least as the notifications increase—additional pressure is put on social services. So, again, I take this opportunity to ask the Government to reflect on its decision to stop the Pathways to Partnership funding, which goes to those organisations that are at the front line in dealing with domestic violence. Those organisations are dealing with these increased numbers, but the rug has been pulled out from underneath them with the cutting of funding for Pathways to Partnership, which ensured that they had sustainable services going forward.

In conclusion, I support the words of my leader, Phil Goff, who said at our conference: “I will make it a priority to improve the quality of life that kids will have. Labour will support good parents and we will expect parents to do their bit too. I want more children to grow up in stable loving families, with good parents, with a steady income, a good home, and health care when they need it.” That is the sort of vision that we need going forward. We need to not just say it in words but also support it with the programmes that we are prepared to fund. We need to support it by supporting the social agencies that are working in this area. Certainly this legislation is one of the pathways, but the speakers—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I rise to speak on the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I am happy to say that ACT members fully support this bill, and that we will be voting for it right through. This bill is another tool in the Police’s kit for dealing with serious offenders. Let us be clear that when we are dealing with domestic violence, every offender is a serious one.

In my short time here I have tried hard, and until my naivety and greenness go I will continue to try, to find something to agree on with speakers on the other side of the House. I came into the House to hear Ms Moroney’s speech, and it is not hard to agree with something that she said: the ability to issue on-the-spot protection orders will be a godsend to victims of abuse. Sadly, though, I do have to disagree with Ms Moroney to an extent, in that she focused very much on violence against women, and suggested, I think, that it was always a male on female thing.

In my first speech on this bill, I touched on my own family situation, and I thought long and hard about whether to do that again, and I decided that I would. My own family situation was one in which there was very little violence, but the violence that there was was from my mother. I recently saw a poster at my daughter’s school. I cannot remember the exact wording, but the gist of it was that psychological abuse is abuse, too. If something like this bill had been in place in 1973 it would have been my mother who would be removed from the home and who would be subject to on-the-spot protection orders.

I can recall, as a child, the police being called to the house quite frequently, normally by my mother. The police would get there and listen to the sorry story while the children were, sadly, also listening. The police never arrested my father; it would have been an injustice if they had done so. I say that now as a man of 51, but it was obvious to me then, as a young child of 8 or 9. My mother was an evil, toxic woman. She subjected my siblings to a toxic environment that continues to affect all of us to this day to some degree or other. Sadly, I have very personal knowledge of the reality that abuse, as a broad term, is not always a male on female thing.

This bill gives the police more flexibility to deal with those crimes or those situations through the issuing of on-the-spot protection orders. As I said in my first reading speech, a police officer on the scene—as I saw as a child—will often be a better judge of a situation than a judge hearing an affidavit written by lawyers who have been coaching the deponent. Anyone in this House who is a lawyer who has practised in a firm that has a family law department will know very well the truth of what I am saying. Frequently affidavits, not only by women, contain words that the deponent cannot pronounce, let alone spell. Allowing a qualified constable to assess a situation to determine whether there is a threat to someone’s safety and to act to mitigate that threat cannot be other than a good thing.

I agree that today my own situation would still be a minority and that, sadly, it is probably mostly men who are guilty of this behaviour. They say there are two sides to every story, and perhaps in some situations an order that requires either party, but usually the male, to be absent from the house for a while would be a better way of handling it than an arrest. I think in the last 20 years the police have moved very strongly and firmly to a situation where if there is any real damage done, particularly physical damage, arrests are made, and I do not think anyone would or should disagree with that.

I note that electronic messages are also included in protection orders, and that has to be a good thing also. It removes the ability of offenders to exploit a loophole and harass their victims through mediums that are becoming more and more mainstream. Just in the very short time I have been in this House I have heard of Twitter, which thankfully I have no knowledge of how to use, and I do not intend to try, but it is an illustration of how things are moving in that regard.

Another important change that ACT firmly supports is the widening of the scope of the bill to include partners from previous relationships. Sometimes breaking up with someone does not put an end to the violence and abuse, and I am glad that the bill now provides protection from those who simply will not let go. In a similar vein, being able to issue on-the-spot protection orders without the consent of the victim is another necessary and positive amendment, and there I think the speakers from the other side of the House, epitomised by Ms Moroney, have it 100 percent right. Sadly, the victims who are intimidated, whether emotionally or physically, into forgiving the abuser are probably mostly, if not always, women. From the outside looking in, it may make no logical sense, but clearly often it is too easy for the victim to be intimidated or emotionally blackmailed into allowing violence and abuse to continue.

I am disappointed, though, that the police are still not allowed to issue protection orders against children. I was reading my first reading speech this morning, and noted a line in it that may have been thought to be facetious. I said that many of my 16-year-old Tongan relatives are larger than me and that is just the female ones. But that is in fact correct. “Children” these days can be pretty darned big. In my youth the word “child” conjured up images of meekness and innocence. Of course that is not true in all cases—perhaps then, and certainly not now. It is a sad reality that teachers now report children of 15 or 16 coming up to them, “in their face” as the youth say, and saying: “You can’t hit me, but I can hit you.”, and normally adding an epithet at the end. This kind of bullying happens in the home also, and I find it strange that both Labour and National have been eager to ban light smacking, but will not do anything to protect parents from being hit themselves.

Overall, though, both I personally and the ACT Party are pleased to vote for this bill and its provisions. As I have said, it gives the police greater ability and power to deal with serious issues of domestic violence—and they are serious. In turn, I hope this will give greater ability and power to victims to get away, and to offenders to break their offending cycle. Thank you.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Anō nei ngā mihi ki te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to support the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill 2008. The bill will enable the police to issue on-the-spot protection orders for a period of up to 5 days. It will ensure that the safety of children in a domestic relationship with the alleged victim and/or offender is more explicitly considered when setting the conditions of police bail. It will provide that when the criminal courts are sentencing a defendant who has been convicted of a domestic violence offence, they must consider whether a protection order should also be made on behalf of the victim. The bill will repeal the criteria for arrest without warrant for breach of a protection order, and it will amend the structure and penalties for the offence of breach of a protection order.

As my colleague Katrina Shanks said earlier, this is not a silver bullet. But it is starting to take us along a path of giving real, practical attention to an everyday scourge on the population of New Zealand. Women and children are being beaten and killed in homes—homes that are supposed to be the sanctuary of families—up and down this country every day, and we must take urgent steps to stop this occurring. We must create an environment not only where the police must step in, but also where we, as citizens of this country, consider it unacceptable for this to go on in our society.

This bill is part of a series of measures that we as a Government are committed to taking—not just talking about dealing with this issue, but actually getting on and doing something practical. The police are called to 80,000 domestic violence cases a year, and over 200 women and children have been killed in domestic incidents in the last 12 years in New Zealand. This is an utter shame on the record of our country. We call ourselves civilised while we continue to allow domestic violence to occur in our country. We must take urgent and real steps to stop it.

I take the point that my colleague David Garrett made today. Domestic violence is not always men against women, but in most cases it is. Whether it is men against women or women against men, domestic violence is unacceptable. The act is unacceptable in itself, and it is certainly unacceptable for the heritage and the legacy that it imposes upon children that they carry into their adulthood. The cost is not just the bruises, the broken bones, and the blood shed by the victims at the scene. Domestic violence, as my colleague said, goes on to haunt the lives of people who have experienced it, and that, too, is a cost on our society and a shame that we should put to rest. We must take action against it.

Although the number of reported assaults has gone up by 21 percent since 1998, Family Court statistics show that the number of protection orders has decreased by 30 percent. Not surprisingly, many victims simply do not apply to the court for a protection order, either because of the associated delays and costs or because of a fear of repercussions. The on-the-spot protection orders give victims the opportunity of 5 days to be rescued from the situation they are in, so that they are able to take time to think about the course of action that might be available to them. As our colleague Sue Moroney on the other side of the House mentioned, it is an utter and bitter irony that usually it is the offender who gets to stay in the home, and it is the women and children who have to seek refuge elsewhere. It is important that we lay the responsibility of the assault at the foot of the perpetrator, and that we make it safe for women and children to stay in the only place they know. They should not have to struggle with being in strange surroundings while also dealing with the bruising and the battering that accompanies domestic violence.

While I am on my feet I would like to pay tribute to Women’s Refuge, which by the way is opening its new office here in Wellington in a couple of days’ time, for all the work it does every day, 24/7, up and down the country. This organisation and other such organisations are to be applauded for the work they do in such a sensitive area. I believe that when it is passed this legislation will give greater support to the work those organisations do for women and children.

We think that empowering the police to take immediate action will ensure potential victims are protected until the courts are able to fully deal with the matter. In turn, it is incumbent upon the police to treat breaches of protection orders with the severity they deserve. This Government is working hard to bring down violence in our society, but it cannot do so alone. The Government needs the help of all New Zealanders to lead by example, to take personal responsibility for their actions, and to report any incidents of violence to the police.

I take up another point made by my colleague David Garrett. Violence is not just the actual act of physical assault upon another person, which itself is unacceptable. Psychological and emotional violence is also equally unacceptable, and is another area where, when we see that occurring, we need to stand up and take action. We need to create a culture of unacceptability of any kind of violence in our society so that legislation such as this and the police executing it become only one part of the equation. The actual taboo of allowing it to occur is something that all of us can be soldiers in the cause of. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I too am pleased to take a call on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and, particularly as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to comment on some of the recommendations and changes that have been made by the committee.

I think all the speakers who have spoken before me have highlighted the importance of this bill. The statistics that we have heard reported are an indictment on this country, and also an indictment upon all of us if we do not act in our roles as politicians and community leaders in doing what we can, from a legislative perspective, to address the issue of domestic violence. It is true that there have been 80,000 recorded incidents of family violence per year, and 39 percent of our homicides are related to family violence. This bill is intended to go some way towards acting as a preventive tool in addressing that issue.

Before I continue, I thank the officials who were involved with the work of the select committee, particularly because the select committee chose to take a very pragmatic approach in the way it discussed the bill. Committee members wanted to know how it would work in practice, and to test whether the various layers we were adding in would complicate the way this process would be used in a practical context. It was very important, for instance, that we had the input of the police and front-line workers to establish that we were going down the right path. Equally, I acknowledge all of those who submitted to the select committee. Their submissions added the detail, the knowledge, the understanding, and the perspective that we needed as members of the select committee to make sure that we were addressing all variations that manifest in domestic violence situations. I also thank very briefly the chair, Chester Borrows. He managed the select committee well; we had robust discussion and, most important, he chaired it in a very constructive way.

I want to highlight, though, those areas in which we in Labour continue to feel some disappointment and some disagreement with the Government on the way it has chosen to progress this particular part of what is a much wider package of policies to address the issue of domestic violence. I think we have lost an opportunity, despite the assurances given by Minister Power—for instance, in the application of the rules on age as they relate to children. We continue to advocate that the definition of a “child” be 18 and under as opposed to 17 and under. We have always pointed out that this is not only a consistency issue but an issue of international obligation. I find it ironic that Minister Power explained that the reason for the delay of the second bill, the Child and Family Protection Bill, was so that the Government could ensure that it used that opportunity to make sure the legislation was compliant with the optional protocol to the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why then are we ignoring the fact that we are not compliant with that convention? It is entirely inconsistent that this is a reason to delay one bill but not, on the other hand, a reason to address an ongoing issue. We continue to call for that consistency. My second disappointment is, as my colleague Lianne Dalziel pointed out, the lost opportunity around the compulsion of addiction programmes. She has already highlighted the linkage between domestic violence and substance abuse. Again, this was a prime opportunity to add an extra layer into this Government and this country’s policies on domestic violence.

Having said all of that, I think it might be helpful if I spend a little time going over some of the more significant changes, and the issues that the select committee addressed, in order to give some context, particularly to those who later on will be implementing these new provisions in the field. The select committee chose to change the name of the safety orders that we were looking at, which are brand new powers given to the police. We chose to call them police safety orders. We wanted the distinction to be very clear. We wanted to be clear that these are not long-term protection orders. We wanted to ensure that was clear also through highlighting the need for these orders to be explained at the time they are issued. I highlight again the importance of distinguishing between these orders and the longer-term orders.

The length of the orders also consumed the select committee for quite some time. Previously Labour, when in Government, had looked at a period of 3 days. We resolved at the end of hearing all of the submissions from different organisations that up to 5 days was a better length of time. The primary reasons for that resolution were twofold. One was to ensure that women had the opportunity and the time to seek additional support, advice, and access to the courts, if required, if they wanted to put in place a more enduring order to ensure their protection. But, also, it was an acknowledgment of the fact that New Zealand is a rural and provincial country. Access to some of these services is limited, particularly over weekends and public holidays, as my colleague Sue Moroney has pointed out. The issues that we discussed around timing highlighted again for the committee that although the purpose of these new orders is to provide an intervention, to provide a tool for prevention, to allow a cool-off, and to allow women to consider their options and seek further assistance, there are still significant barriers for rural women in that regard. We discussed this with Women’s Refuge and it too acknowledged that there is a need for its service provision to be much broader and much wider, and it is looking at ways to do that. I think this highlights that we do not just have legislative tools available to tackle this issue; we have community-based ones and they need our ongoing support if they are to plug the gaps that legislation can never fill.

I want to cover off three other quick issues. They are addressed in the commentary on the bill by the select committee. One is the fact that the committee grappled with the issue of who these temporary protection orders could be issued against. We decided that for the sake of consistency we needed to amend new section 124B(1) to include partners from previous relationships. That brings this bill into alignment with the Domestic Violence Act and I think that is important. We also removed one of the conditions when issuing one of these temporary orders, which was the word “immediate”. We felt that two words in this legislation—the words “immediate” and “serious”— were very imprecise and potentially very, very subjective, and may mean that there would be confusion for those constables issuing the orders, which may mean they miss opportunities where, in fact, an order might be necessary. Let us be clear. When it comes to the police, they will be the ultimate arbiters of who may receive these orders. They hold one of the most critical roles in the implementation of this legislation. We discussed as a committee the importance of the police having adequate training to identify aggressors, and to identify whom it is most appropriate that these orders are issued against and in what situations.

We have to remember that we are implementing here as a Parliament a preventive order. A crime in itself will not have been committed when one of these orders is issued; it is a very different tool. That fact provided the select committee with quite a lot of discussion around not only how we empower the police to make sure they get this right but also how we deal with the spin-off. How do we make sure this legislation is implemented properly when we are requiring the creation of offences—new offences—if the provisions of these orders are broken? Even if the police safety order is not issued for a criminal offence, a criminal offence would be committed if there was non-compliance with that order. That was quite a tricky issue for us to deal with, but I think we got it right.

I finish by again highlighting that we cannot stop at legislative tools alone when we address issues of domestic violence. We have a long way to go, and it will include further policy, but also it must include further empowerment of those community groups working in our communities who are ultimately the ones ensuring that women, in particular, and children have the support they need to rid this country of domestic violence.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : With my arm in a sling, I imagine I may look a little bit like a victim of domestic violence at this moment, but I do not wish for one moment to make light of a very serious topic that touches on a disturbing feature of our society and perhaps even of our national identity. I sometimes worry that Alan Duff’s Once Were Warriors is celebrated as a literary and cinematographic achievement in New Zealand without it being seen as the alarming reflection of the all-too-prevalent attitude that it was and is. Violence is not acceptable and too many New Zealanders live in fear of it. Yet a worrying aspect of our cultural identity often tolerates it and sometimes even encourages it in others.

As others speakers have done, I commend the officials and the Justice and Electoral Committee members who have worked hard on the bill. I also commend those who had the courage and the concern for others to make submissions on the bill. I did not have the privilege of hearing them, but I always admire those who make the effort to submit to select committees, especially when they do so on a topic so distasteful that for some, I imagine, it evoked awful memories and personal distress.

As has been a feature of most of the new Government’s justice initiatives—and I am proud that there have been so many of them in our first 10 months in office—this bill again places the interests of victims at the forefront of our justice system, with the ultimate aim of trying to reduce the number of victims in our society. I welcome the broad support for the bill that has been indicated by the speakers from various parties who have preceded me.

It is sobering and dreadful to note that our police, as we have heard from previous speakers, are called to about 80,000 domestic violence incidents each year. That figure in a country of just 4.5 million people defies belief and is truly horrific. It is a shocking and disgraceful statistic. I have no doubt that alcohol and drug abuse are closely linked to much of the problem, so I am very pleased that this House will soon be turning its attention again to those matters, too. I am holding public meetings on proposed liquor reforms in the Hamilton West electorate this month, and I know that the police representatives who are speaking at those meetings will be tracing the link between alcohol abuse and domestic violence.

For too many New Zealanders, the most dangerous place they can be in is their own homes. In the last year for which statistics are available, violence accounted for approximately 39 percent of homicides, 42 percent of kidnappings and abductions, 44 percent of grievous assaults, and 64 percent of serious assaults. I pay a sincere tribute to those who work at the front line of this issue on a daily basis, whether running women’s refuges, or working for the Salvation Army, the police, the Child, Youth and Family agency, or one of the many other wonderful support groups and agencies in our society that are there to help in the most challenging and distressing of circumstances. I say “Kia kaha!” and offer my warm thanks to each and every one of them.

I endorse the concerns and convictions of those who have spoken before me in this debate. As my colleagues Katrina Shanks and Hekia Parata noted earlier, there are no easy solutions, and a holistic approach is vital to make a real difference. But we can and must all play a part in saying no to domestic violence, and in modelling the type of behaviour that impressionable young people need to see if they are not to go down the awful path of intimidation, bashing, and an absence of self-control that this issue throws so sharply into the national spotlight. Let us stand united in this House against this scourge. In passing this bill, we will certainly be taking a significant step in that direction.

• Bill read a second time.