Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. We all know that family violence is a problem in New Zealand, accounting for over 80,000 recorded events per year: 39 percent of homicides, 42 percent of kidnappings and abductions, 44 percent of grievous assaults, and 64 percent of serious assaults. We cannot legislate away behaviour that is clearly the product of broader social attitudes that, we hope, will shift—but only over time. But the way agencies respond to family violence can save lives and reduce the impact on victims. This bill is the criminal justice response to some of those issues. It is predicated on the belief that we can still do more to strengthen the response from the criminal justice authorities to protect victims of family violence and to stop them from becoming another statistic.

The main purpose of this bill is the introduction of police-issued on-the-spot protection orders—a move that was first announced by John Key on 1 November 2007. At present, family violence protection orders are made by a Family Court judge and restrict the alleged offender’s contact with the victim. However, victims must apply to the courts for protection orders, and many never go through with this process because of either the delay, the costs involved, a lack of trust in the system, or fear of repercussions. Against the background of a steady increase in reported family violence, the number of applications for protection orders has actually declined 26 percent from 1999-2000 to 2005-06. This bill allows police to issue on-the-spot protection orders to address the immediate safety of victims—that is, the vulnerable partner and children—in the violent situation by removing the alleged violent person from the home for a period of up to 5 days.

Police will issue the orders in situations where there is an insufficient basis to arrest—that is a very important distinction to make—but where they believe there is a likelihood of domestic violence occurring and an order is necessary for the safety of the victim. The orders will provide a period of safety in which victims can consider their future options, including the possibility of a court protection order. Significantly, it will not be the police’s responsibility to find accommodation for alleged offenders for the duration of the order. It is important that these alleged violent offenders take responsibility for their actions and realise that their actions have consequences. Another serious consequence for the subject of the police order is that while the order is in force the provisions of a parenting order or an agreement allowing that person day-to-day care of or contact with any children is suspended. This measure has been a long time coming. I acknowledge the Hon Annette King’s work and the previous Government’s commitment to legislation in this area. Unfortunately, it was not until 2 days after the Parliament was adjourned in September that the last Government’s bill was tabled. We indicated early that we would have supported that legislation throughout this process.

Once this bill is referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee I will be particularly interested in hearing the select committee’s work about views on the time frame for the police-issued on-the-spot protection order. The proposed duration for the order in the bill is for a period not exceeding 5 days, which is longer than the proposal that the previous Government had suggested—that is not a criticism; it is just a fact—but shorter than the 2-week period I personally would have liked to see in respect of this. I say to that select committee that I encourage genuine discussion about the appropriateness of the time frame, and I look forward to receiving their advice on that issue.

The bill also provides an opportunity to re-examine other provisions relating to the protection of victims of domestic violence. The current criteria for arresting those who breach protection orders are repealed because they create more hoops for police when deciding to arrest than exist for offences under the Crimes Act. The two-tiered penalty structure for breaches of protection orders is removed, leaving only the maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years. In addition—and, I think, extremely important—failing to attend a court-ordered programme such as anger management will attract a specific penalty of up to 6 months’ imprisonment. The bill also amends the Sentencing Act so that when the criminal courts sentence a person convicted of a domestic violence offence they must also consider imposing a protection order on behalf of the victim. This is important because it does not place the victim in the situation of having to request or seek the order; rather it leaves the court in the position of being able to make the order without putting the victim in a very difficult situation, as is often the case in our courtrooms. Finally, this bill proposes a change to the Bail Act 2000, so that when police arrest persons for domestic violence offending they may also impose bail conditions that more explicitly protect children.

The review of the Domestic Violence Act undertaken by the previous Government identified other matters relating to the Care of Children Act. I know from discussions with the Opposition spokesperson on justice, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, that she is keen to see those issues advanced. I can tell her that I have asked officials this morning to revisit the matters more closely related to the Family Court. But this bill is quite deliberate in its focus on the response of the criminal justice system. I do not pretend that this bill will stop violence from occurring in the home, nor do I imagine anybody in this Parliament does. But as a first step it is designed to give both police and criminal courts enhanced tools to provide victims of domestic violence with immediate protection and to help keep victims safe from further violence. That, I hope, will in turn help those victims to reclaim their homes.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I am pleased to be able to advise the Government that the Labour Opposition will support the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. We are very pleased that this bill, unlike all the others included in the urgency motions of the past 2 weeks, will go to a select committee. But, in saying that, I have to also say that I am disappointed that the Government has decided to introduce a slimline version of the bill that the previous Government had on the Order Paper—the Domestic Violence Reform Bill.

The reason I am disappointed is that the bill introduced by the Hon Annette King was far more comprehensive. It changed the definition of a child from a person under the age of 17 years to a person under the age of 18 years in order to align the age in the Domestic Violence Act with that in the Care of Children Act, and also with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This proposal had flow-on effects throughout the legislation—for example, increasing the age at which minors could apply for protection orders in their own right. It empowered the court to make interim care or contact orders to protect the welfare and best interests of the child in cases where an applicant with a child applied for a protection order. It required a judge declining a without notice application for a protection order to provide written reasons for declining the application, giving the applicant time to decide whether to proceed on notice.

The bill made provision for applicants to be able to attend information sessions that would provide information about making effective use of protection orders and on social assistance that may be available. It provided the court with the power to direct attendance at an addiction treatment programme. It amended the Care of Children Act to extend the definition of violence to include psychological abuse and extended coverage beyond when allegations of violence are made to any case where there is a current protection order in force against one of the parties for the protection of the child or the other party. It amended the Hague convention provisions in the Care of Children Act that were proposed in response to a recent court decision ordering the removal of a child from New Zealand even though considerable time had lapsed since the original order had been made. The court noted the absence of a mechanism to discharge a section 105 order implying that the order would have been discharged had such a provision been available—and I make a plea to the Government on behalf of the constituent in my electorate who is the subject of that court case, and which our previous Government was seeking to address. That is why I am very keen to see that provision reinstated.

Given that this bill is going to a select committee there is no reason why the Domestic Violence Reform Bill could not have been brought up the Order Paper with the Minister announcing that the Government intended to increase the number of days that the police orders would be good for, and indicating an early report-back requirement for part or all of the bill, given that this part of the bill was being progressed to meet the 100 days of action requirement. I have no difficulty with the new Government setting out an agenda such as this one has, but I am deeply frustrated when I see the significant work being cast aside for nothing more than political expediency. I have taken an interest in domestic violence since I sat on the Justice and Law Reform Committee, as it then was, when I first came to Parliament in 1990. I remember the report commissioned by the Victims Task Force that was rewritten within the Department of Justice to soften the very powerful message it contained on behalf of women who had died at the hands of men they had once loved.

I remember visiting the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project, as it then was, and being impressed with the approach it had adopted—being built as it was on collaboration and a shared understanding of the nature of power and control against Government and non-government agencies alike. I remember returning there in 2005, and finding that the over-arching violence intervention project was struggling to make ends meet, and that one of the most critical components of the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project, the court advocates who appeared for the victims of domestic violence, had disappeared with its pilot status in the late 1990s and no one could tell me why. I could not even find an evaluation of the pilot project, which meant that the real lessons were never passed on, and despite the successful results the project could identify it was still not universally rolled out around the country to every place that needed it.

By the time I was appointed as Minister of Women’s Affairs after the 2005 general election, the Government had established a Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families. The task force was led by two State sector chief executives to signal to Government agencies the priority that was attached to this issue. The involvement of the judiciary, the police, and representatives of non-governmental organisations, including the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges meant that the quality of advice from the coalface was second to none. Sitting alongside the task force was a ministerial group that met regularly to respond to ideas that came through from the task force and any other sources. In June 2006 one of the country’s top policemen, Acting Assistant Police Commissioner Roger Carson, raised the issue of police issuing on-the-spot protection orders when they attend domestic violence incidents rather than waiting weeks for the order to be issued through a court. He said at the time that he had picked up the idea during an Australasian conference in Sydney on policing family violence.

Unfortunately the initial response from the most important stakeholder was very negative, with Heather Hēnare, chief executive of the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, saying the idea was not welcome and that the collective would prefer that the police concentrate more on lifting their game in dealing with breaches of existing protection orders. She also expressed concern that it would take some of the decision-making process away from women. The local Police Association said the idea should be looked at because, in its view, officers at domestic scenes were often in a better position to judge the need for protection than people in court who are viewing an incident after the accused had calmed down. As a result, the then Minister of Police, the Hon Annette King, asked the police to undertake work on the subject. Because Women’s Refuge then raised the issue with me in my role as Minister of Women’s Affairs at its 2006 conference, I asked the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to make some inquiries.

Out of this I arranged to meet with police in Hobart, Tasmania, when I was there for the APEC Small and Medium Enterprises Ministerial Meeting. What I discovered was a programme called Safe at Home. This programme was designed to address domestic and family violence where the safety of victims is paramount, and was unprecedented in Australia in terms of funding, resourcing, law reform, and departmental culture change. The criminal justice focus on pro-arrest, pro-charge, and pro-prosecution was underpinned by an integrated coordinated service response, and the cooperation and collaboration of the Department of Justice, the Tasmania Police, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Under Safe at Home the police were responsible for providing immediate intervention to secure victims’ safety, manage the risk of repeated or escalated violence, and to undertake risk assessments and safety audits. Specialist police victim safety response teams provided follow-up contact and support to victims. The pro-arrest approach was coupled with a presumption against bail, and because this increased the likelihood that witnesses would be compelled to provide evidence this required the gathering of strong corroborative evidence. I mention this because the whole system was underpinned by weekly integrated case coordination meetings in each district; they were essentially forums for key stakeholders and service providers to share case management information from the family violence management system in order to monitor and respond to the changes to the level of risk and threats to safety.

I make this point because what we need in terms of domestic violence relates to the whole question of an integrated response. It is not simply one response that is required; it is an integrated response that is required. I also make the point that some of the proposals in the original Domestic Violence Bill came directly from the Waikato University report that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs commissioned on women’s experience of protection orders. It will be an enormous disappointment to the ministry and the dozens of women they interviewed that, in fact, the whole bill will not be pursued. That is why I would like to seek the leave of the House at the conclusion of my address to have that bill referred to the select committee, with no debate, so that the provisions of that bill could be considered by the select committee at the same time as this issue is being considered by the House. I remember the closing words of the dedication of the writers of the Victims Task Force report to the women who had died when they wrote their earlier report. They wrote: “The days of your death were marked by the system’s trivialisation of the dangers you faced.”

The Labour Party is willing to work cooperatively with the Government to ensure that we remove that risk of trivialising the dangers that are faced when the violence is so close to home. But at the same time, we call on the Government to learn the lessons of the past. It is a multifaceted challenge to take on the scourge of domestic violence, and I am disappointed that only the part of the comprehensive reform bill that made it into National’s election policy is being addressed in this bill. I urge the House to support my request to the House that we consider the other bill at the same time at the select committee. I seek leave to have the Domestic Violence Reform Bill referred to the same select committee as the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) : What a powerful general policy statement it is in the explanatory note to this legislation that states in these short sentences: “For a significant number of victims of violence, the most dangerous place they can be is in their own home. In 2007/2008 family violence accounted for approximately 39% of homicides, 42% of kidnappings and abductions, 44% of grievous assaults, and 64% of serious assaults.” I commend the Opposition for its indication that it will unstintingly support this legislation, which is part of a package of measures that the Government continues to advance to implement effective law and order policies that will safeguard community interests and, in particular, the interests of victims.

To summarise this Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill in short order—what will it do? First of all, it will enable the police to issue on-the-spot protection orders, police 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 the offender is more explicitly considered when setting the conditions of police bail. It will provide that when the criminal courts are sentencing a defendant convicted of a domestic violence offence, those courts will have to consider whether a protection order should also be made on behalf of the victim. It 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.

For those who are interested in law and order issues there always has existed, and will continue to exist, the opportunity of travelling with the police at night, in the back of a police car, to witness firsthand some of the things that occur in our community. Like other members of this House, I have had that opportunity on a number of occasions. Almost without exception, certainly on the occasions that I have had that opportunity, we have come across worrying incidents of domestic violence that have imposed considerable difficulties in the context of the police having to deal with those issues. The police are called to about 80,000 domestic violence cases a year. They currently do not have a lot of scope to deal with potentially dangerous situations, beyond advising families to leave the home themselves and to seek help from family or Women’s Refuge.

It is a great outcome at the start of the life of this Government, which I believe will continue in office for a substantial period of time, that we have grasped the nettle relating to this issue of domestic violence in the way the Minister earlier outlined. I hope that the bill will be speedily reported back from the select committee and can be implemented into law without delay.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : First, I congratulate the Government. This is the first time since this Parliament began that we have debated under urgency a bill—the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill—that will be referred to a select committee so that the public can have a say on it. I acknowledge that that is a good thing. This is also the first bill this Parliament has seen that does not take a major step backwards; that has been very sad to see in this House over the last 2 weeks.

I register my disappointment, but firstly I congratulate Lianne Dalziel on a fantastic speech and, more important, on the very constructive proposal she put to the House that this bill be accompanied by Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which is far more comprehensive. It is the culmination of so much work, and it would do so much more towards addressing domestic violence and giving more support to women and families in our country than the current bill. I am very, very disappointed about that. I note that Simon Power made some commitment towards engaging with and working on this bill, but National’s very next move denied the opportunity for a more comprehensive bill and for more ideas to be considered. That is disappointing.

The Labour Government did so much work around the issue of domestic violence. As I said before, I pay tribute to Lianne Dalziel, a former Minister of Women’s Affairs—a position, I have to say, that a while ago National did not think was even necessary—and the Hon Annette King, who put so much time and energy into working with the justice sector. All of that feedback was incorporated into the Labour Government’s bill. Under Labour a family violence ministerial team was established to work with all stakeholders in the State sector, and across the myriad of non-governmental organisations that work at the coalface. I acknowledge in this House all those organisations and the absolutely fantastic and wonderful work that they do, whether they are women’s groups that educate and empower women, family organisations that work with families in education and that support and promote alternatives to violence, or our schools in terms of the implementation of many anti-bullying messages.

The previous Labour Government introduced all these initiatives to raise awareness and to say that violence is not OK. I also acknowledge the refuges and emergency houses that provide a safe haven for women, but, more than that, provide the opportunity for women to begin the recovery process—not just physically but, more important, emotionally and psychologically. That happens day after day in our communities. I know that many organisations have said to the Government that they are most appreciative of the support they have received. I urge the National Government to continue the commitment to support those organisations and the work they do.

All of that work culminated in the Government’s commitment to strengthening the Domestic Violence Act. I want to talk just a little about some of the things that are missing from that Act. When the Act was reviewed, one of the key proposals—which obviously this bill addresses—was short-term safety orders. Other proposals were strengthening the penalty system; providing victims of domestic violence with more information when the court declines an application for protection orders; requiring the Family Court to scrutinise more carefully applications for discharging a protection order; requiring criminal courts to consider making a protection order on behalf of a victim; improving access to programmes for respondents, protected persons, and their children; and ensuring further consistency between the Act and the work that is done in the courts.

I also comment on where this bill is sadly lacking: on the definition of “child”, which may seem quite a small issue. The bill is very light on this—it is not only light; it does not address it. If, as Lianne Dalziel pushed for, the bill had gone to a select committee, then far more comprehensive and important things would have been addressed. Simply changing the definition of a child from “under the age of 17 years” to “under the age of 18 years”, which lines up with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, would give so much more protection to minors: it would mean that they could apply for protection orders in their own right. It is very sad that that has not been addressed.

I see Chester Borrows in the House today. He sat with me on the Justice and Electoral Committee as it heard submissions on section 59 of the Crimes Act. I hope that the select committee will address this bill in a very constructive and non-partisan way so that we can address many of the discrepancies and initiatives that are lacking in it.

Also missing is the empowerment of the court to make interim care or contact orders to protect the welfare and best interests of the child where an applicant with a child applies for a protection order. We want to require a judge declining an application without notice for a protection order to provide written reasons. We also want to make provision in the legislation for applicants for protection orders to be able to attend information sessions that will provide information about making effective use of protection orders and provide advice on social assistance that may be available. Also missing is the power to direct attendance of an addiction treatment programme. The bill does not include an amendment to the Care of Children Act to extend the definition of “violence” in section 58 to include psychological abuse, and to extend the coverage in section 59(1) beyond cases where allegations of violence are made to any case where there is a current protection order in force against one of the parties for the protection of the child or the other party.

These are all very, very important parts of the previous Government’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which was so much more comprehensive than the bill before the House. The public—and I am talking about all organisations—made comprehensive submissions on it through the select committee process. It really saddens me that, despite the rhetoric and the words, that bill will not accompany this one. I would urge the Government to reconsider that. It is not too late; there are many more speeches to come from Government members, and perhaps during the course of this debate it could reconsider its position.

Domestic violence is up there with the most abhorrent crimes in our communities and our society. To address the problem, we have to own the problem. We have to own the problem within our communities and as a nation. The previous Labour Government—and I say this with real pride—really pushed for public discussion on all aspects of domestic violence. I acknowledge all the strong women who have told their stories. It is a very hard and painful thing to do; it means reliving their experience of abuse. But they do it because they see how vital it is for every member of our society to say out loud—and to know without any doubt whatsoever—that violence is not OK. It is the responsibility of all members of our society to speak out and to report if they see violence occurring or if they believe that violence is occurring. I know that this public discussion would not have happened if the previous Labour-led Government had not raised awareness. That is something that I am really proud of. I support this bill. Thank you.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : Domestic violence is a huge and disturbing problem in our society today. When the cross-party working group on family violence—which, of course, was established under the previous Government—visited South Auckland recently, the police were quite clear with MPs that youth gangs were not their major problem, and that a vast amount of their time was taken up dealing with domestic violence, with the majority of it being suffered by women and children.

Sadly, we live in a society where far too many women continue to be physically, sexually, and psychologically battered and abused, and some women are even killed. Police statistics show that between 2000 and 2004, 56 women and 39 children were murdered in family violence - related incidents. In 2005 to 2006, over 65,000 children witnessed family violence, and that is just the number of recorded incidents. Apprehensions by the police of male offenders numbered over 25,000, and in the same year there were over 4,400 breaches of protection orders, nearly 3,000 of which resulted in arrest. Also, half of all murders in New Zealand are family violence - related.

As horrifying as these statistics are, they are just the tip of the iceberg. They are a damning indictment of a society in which so many adults—principally, but not solely, male—still think it is OK to control their partners or children through the use of physical force. For the Green Party, non-violence is one of our four founding charter principles, and our commitment to non-violence led us to take such a firm stand on the need to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act so that there is no longer any defence in law for beating, whacking, or hitting children for the purposes of correction.

The Green Party is very aware of the deficiencies in the current domestic violence legislation, which became law in 1995. Prior to the election we had welcomed Labour’s proposal to amend the Domestic Violence Act. Like other parties, we have had only a day to consider the new Government’s Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, which we are debating today, but at this stage we support the legislation at its first reading, although we acknowledge that there may be some issues with its implementation and more that needs to be done in this area.

We are very relieved that the bill is going to a select committee. We are very thankful for that because there are, we believe, a number of sensitive issues around the law in this area. We need the input of experts in the field. We need to hear the voices of those who have experienced domestic violence at first hand, of those who have worked with victims and offenders, and of legal experts, who have a much greater knowledge of the finer points of this area of the law than lay people, which most MPs are.

The key element of the bill in front of us is that it introduces the ability of the police to make on-the-spot protection orders for victims of domestic violence. These orders will allow police to remove offenders from the home for up to 5 days, allowing time for the victim and her children, if she has them, to make arrangements for their ongoing safety and well-being. These on-the-spot orders will be applied only where the police do not actually arrest the offender but believe there is an ongoing risk to the victim. There will not be a requirement for the victim to consent to the protection order.

The positive aspects of this step are that the orders have the potential to keep women safer, for it removes the necessity for a battered partner to be the one who has to say whether an order should be issued. A further advantage is that from the point of view of the subsequent Family Court proceedings, the fact that the police have initiated a protection order as a result of being present at an incident of domestic violence means there is little room for argument as to whether something has happened. In addition, these on-the-spot protection orders have the potential to help prevent further violence, because once an order is in place, and if a partner breaches it, the police have the immediate power to arrest and charge the offender when the breach occurs.

The downside is the well-known difficulty of getting the police to respond adequately to breaches of protection orders, and this is another implementation issue that needs to be addressed by improving the culture around police responses. Another risk we see with the amendment is that the police may not necessarily be well trained or experienced in dealing with domestic violence. Offenders can present as being in control at a scene of violence while a victim can be distressed and out of control, and it can be easy for a misplaced judgment to be made in favour of the calmly manipulative partner. Another downside is that because the order can be instituted without the involvement of the woman, she can end up feeling even more disempowered about her life and her situation.

So in supporting this aspect of the bill, we believe that certain safeguards need to be put in place. The police need more and better training in dealing with domestic violence, victims deserve to be put in touch with advocates immediately and in every such situation, and groups that provide those advocates, like Women’s Refuge, need to be funded adequately to cope with the workload professionally, as well.

There are several further aspects to the bill beyond the introduction of police-initiated protection orders. It proposes that when criminal courts are sentencing someone convicted of a domestic violence offence, the court will be obliged to consider making a protection order on behalf of the victim if it is for the victim’s protection and if the victim does not object, and, once the order is made, the defendant will be required by law to attend a Stopping Violence Services programme. All of this sounds fine, as long as the organisations responsible for the Stopping Violence Services programmes, again, are adequately funded for the vital work they do.

A third key element is an amendment to the Bail Act, allowing the police to impose bail conditions that will provide more explicit protection for children. Again, on the surface of it, we find it hard to see any downside to this amendment. Children are often the unseen and unconsidered victims in adult domestic violence situations. We support anything that can be done to better cater for their welfare and well-being. For all these reasons, the Green Party will be voting for the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill today, and, looking beyond this particular bill, we hope the Government will act quickly to sort out a number of other problems in this area as well. We would like the bill amending the Domestic Violence Act that the Labour Party brought forward to proceed as well.

There is an urgent need to lower the costs of obtaining protection orders. It is all very well for the police to grant an order for 5 days, but victims still have to find a way to fund getting a further order after that if they need one. More training is needed for all involved in implementing the laws around domestic violence—not only the police but also lawyers, counsel for children, and judges. Victims of violence should be eligible to receive free counselling and more support beyond what is available through the Accident Compensation Corporation. But above all it is up to all of us to do everything we can, whoever we are and wherever we are in society, to help end the culture of violence against women and children—and of course against men, where that happens, too. All of the social marketing campaigns, changes to the law, and fine words in Parliament will not alter anything as long as citizens in our country think it is OK to carry on with this kind of behaviour themselves, or to remain complicitly and covertly in support of the abusive actions of others.

Finally, we also point out that as long as we have television that is saturated with violence, and as long as we have young children growing up watching videos, television, and computer games that instil a culture of violence and make violence seem an acceptable and legitimate way of solving disputes, the sort of violence we are discussing in this debate will continue to pervade our society. We need to take action to reduce the culture of violence in New Zealand and the amount of violence on television, as well as taking the positive steps that this bill proposes to take.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I rise to speak on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, and I am very pleased to speak on this bill as my first duty since I gave my maiden speech last night. In that speech I said we needed a revolution to repair our broken justice system. I wish to put on record on behalf of both the ACT Party and me personally that any perception coming from abroad that we think society’s violence problem is confined to the streets is completely wrong. Yes, as a country we have become much more violent on the street, and, yes, aggravated robberies, beatings, and homicides have increased on the street, but a great deal of the violence problem comes from the home.

I wish I could wholeheartedly agree with the previous speaker from the Greens, but I need to point out that a couple of things Ms Kedgley said were not correct. Firstly, it is not 50 percent but 39 percent of homicides that occur in the home. Secondly, until the very last couple of minutes of her speech, Ms Kedgley referred exclusively to “the woman” and “her children”. Sadly, the problem is not exclusively limited to women. The figures in front of me show that one in four women and one in five men will be a victim of domestic violence. The domestic violence I witnessed as a child was perpetrated exclusively by my mother. My sad, wimpy father took it and never retaliated, and of course in those days he did not call the police, either. I think it is quite important to realise and acknowledge that this problem is not limited exclusively to men on women. Men suffer from it as well. I was also interested to hear references from members opposite to psychological violence, and I think that is something that certainly should properly be raised at the select committee.

I looked at new Part 6A, and I thought that it had a great deal of merit and that a great deal of thought had clearly been put into it. Of course, the primary purpose of this bill is to allow police to issue on-the-spot protection orders. I think that is a very good thing, perhaps for reasons that are somewhat different from those given by members opposite. As a lawyer, albeit not one practising in family law, I am aware, as every other lawyer in this House will be, that there are cases where protection orders are issued on the basis of affidavits that are, to put it mildly, embroidered somewhat with the assistance of lawyers. I think it was Ms Pillay who made the point very well, and I agree with her, that a police officer who is on the spot is better able to judge what has gone on than a court can 5 days later. I say that for reasons that are somewhat different from Ms Pillay’s. The court hears an affidavit and sees both parties on their best behaviour. The police officer, on the other hand, is there on the spot seeing broken furniture and a split lip, and although I am not naive enough to think the police always get it right, I would say that perhaps they might get it right more often in those particular instances.

However, I noted a couple of things about the provisions on police orders. In particular, one was the proposed provision precluding police from issuing orders against a child. I wonder why that provision is there. Members may think I am being a little facetious when I point out that children of 16 can be 6-foot tall. Some of my Tongan relatives of 16 are considerably bigger than me, and I am talking only about the female ones. I think that is something that could be looked at, as well. One hears of children terrorising their parents, and I wonder whether that is an area that could be looked at by the select committee.

As I have said, I agree with the Hon Lianne Dalziel that police are often better placed to judge circumstances, but I also point out—and again, I think this is something that should be canvassed before the select committee—that in my local area alone I am aware of two instances involving male acquaintances, not friends, where allegations were made against them and were accepted without any evidence, at all. Both of those men spent a couple of days in jail, as both incidents happened to occur on a Friday. I think the standard of proof and evidence required in such cases needs to be looked at more closely as well, both for police orders and for protection orders generally. I am not saying for a moment that I would wish to reduce or blunt the protection offered to women, but it is not a one-sided picture, as the figure of one in four for women and one in five for men that I mentioned earlier bears out. Having said all of that, the ACT Party and I personally are very happy to support this bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) :Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. It is nearly Christmas, and for many Kiwis Christmas is the time of year for hanging lights, putting up little pine trees, stringing cards on the wall, getting kai ready, organising the hāngi, and getting out the mattresses for all the relations coming home for the holidays. It is a time for family festivities, a time to be with loved ones, a time for family reunions, and a time for unveilings and good memories at the graveside.

But for some families those graveside memories will be overwhelmed by grief and anger at the tragic loss of lives stolen in a haze of alcohol and drug abuse in homes where violence is the norm and murder an ugly companion. This is in a country where, during Christmas 2005, women’s refuges all around Aotearoa were forced to take in 450 battered and fearful women and children, seven mothers were killed in acts of domestic violence, and 19 kids woke up to a life sentence without their mums. Such is the context in which we consider these amendments to the Domestic Violence Act and seek to eradicate violence by strengthening the response of the police and the courts.

I know that it may sound flippant, but domestic violence really is a matter of life and death for a lot of people. It is an explosive mixture of threats, stalking, harassment, raging jealousy, obsession, violence, assault, and murder that runs through every cultural, ethnic, and socio-economic group in the country, but it runs way too deeply in Māori society. The statistics tell us that in 2005 police had to deal with more than 63,000 incidents of family violence, that women are four times more likely to be raped by someone they know than by a stranger in the shadows, and that more than 25 percent of all women are beaten up by their partners. Such are the facts of life for women who are endangered and for children who are cowering in fear—the facts of life that we keep hidden behind closed doors, and the facts of violence that we must put to an end.

I sincerely hope this Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill will help to address the problem by allowing police to break the cycle of domestic violence through on-the-spot protection orders, to protect families from further violence until matters come before the court; by directing courts to take into account when sentencing the fact that victims are children; and by increasing penalties for breaching domestic violence protection orders. Yes, this is a “get tough” approach; yes, there is way more to this than is immediately apparent; and, yes, there is much to be done in the way of community standards. But when the safety and the very lives of our children and women are concerned, somebody really does need to say “Enough is enough”.

Over the last 40 years we have accepted the need for fireworks safety, for seatbelts in cars, and for helmets for cyclists; we can hardly do less for whānau. We need to set standards of safety for whānau, to emphasise child protection, and to sign up to legislation that treats domestic violence as the serious and criminal breach of human rights that it is. People tell us that things could be done better if only the existing framework was implemented properly, particularly in areas like having comprehensive training for everyone working in the sector, including judges, lawyers, court staff, and police; better resourcing for advocacy services; and better collaboration between courts and family violence networks.

One factor that keeps coming up in all of the suggestions we are getting is the call from people like Parekōtuku Moore of the National Network of Stopping Violence Services, which is to speak out against violence, to not allow the issue to be hidden behind closed doors, and to denounce domestic violence in all its forms. For example, last week, some “a-hole” tried to use TradeMe to sell men’s black singlets under the label “wife beater”, but following widespread outrage from all around the country, TradeMe pulled this sicko promotion from its site.

This bill is an opportunity for Parliament to raise awareness about the issue of domestic violence, to remind the nation that there is no acceptable level of domestic violence, to reaffirm our commitment to protecting women and children from domestic violence, to speak up about the impacts of domestic violence, and to lay down markers about our refusal to tolerate it. But this bill is also an opportunity to speak out against the rampant unemployment that has crippled Māori families for the last quarter-century, to protest against the poverty that affects great swathes of the Māori community and that has created the conditions in which domestic violence, drugs, ill-health, theft, and lawlessness prevail, to speak up for those children forced to live in a world where they do not even know they are poor because they have never had anything, to challenge attacks on the rights of workers at a time when unemployment is set to go through the roof, and to speak out against a refusal of this House to make eradication of poverty the priority that it must be if we are truly to deal with the problems of violence and crime that are crippling our society.

All those National members who roundly accuse Labour of playing the nanny State and interfering in the lives of ordinary citizens should know that as National passes this bill into law it is doing exactly what Labour did in the last term—playing a hand in the way in which our society is run in order to ensure that the rights of those who are the most vulnerable are never forgotten. In the same way that the Māori Party stood alongside Labour and the Greens in respect of the section 59 bill to protect the rights of children, so too will we stand alongside National to help ensure the protection of families, as well.

Christmas is supposed to be a time of reflection and joy, but for many families it will be a time of drunkenness, hangovers, anger, and violence. It will be a time when business is booming for women’s refuges, for all the wrong reasons, and police have to tear families apart simply to save the lives of those in desperate need. There are many factors behind domestic violence, not least the destructive violence of poverty, but there can be no excuses for the brutalising of our families in Aotearoa. For all those reasons and more, the Māori Party will be supporting this bill. Kia ora.

Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) : I acknowledge the strong, heartfelt speech made by Hone Harawira MP. I think it is important for men to speak out and take a lead in terms of eliminating violence against women. My first activity after becoming Minister of Women’s Affairs was to hand out white ribbons at 7 a.m. at Wellington Railway Station. I am pleased to say that on that day half a million white ribbons were handed out. The International Women’s Day movement was started by a group of Canadian men with the objective of eliminating violence against women.

The Ministry of Women’s Affairs is charged with providing the Government with policy that leads to the well-being of women. One of the major barriers and obstacles to their well-being is violence inflicted on them. Let me share the following statistic, which will demonstrate why it is such a tragedy that we need to tackle. The 2008 report of the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges stated that every 26 days a woman dies at the hand of her partner or former partner—every 26 days a woman dies at the hand of her partner or former partner. Of course, countless others are injured or scared every single day. That simply is not good enough, and it simply has to stop.

I have the pleasure of taking a call in this House on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. The Prime Minister, the Hon John Key, made this issue a priority of the National Government’s first 100 days, and the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, has brought this legislation, which provides for on-the-spot protection orders, to the House under urgency, and I welcome that. It sends a strong message. The fact that all parties in this House unanimously support the bill being sent to a select committee for examination sends a very positive signal that members of Parliament collectively will not stand for the amount of violence that is being inflicted on the women, the mothers, of our country. It is a very good start to this Parliament.

I have written to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police about several matters, one of which the Green Party member Sue Kedgley pointed out. I support the introduction of the bill, which gives a qualified constable the authority to issue protection orders on the spot, but we have learnt from the experience of Western Australia that among the issues we need to address early on is training the police to detect the problem. As was pointed out by Sue Kedgley MP, a calm and collected offender might give the wrong impression, and the constable might not correctly read the signs. Also, it is important that during the 5 days—or whatever period the select committee might recommend as being effective—of the protection order the victim should be well informed as to the type of service and the level of support available to her and her children. At the same time, we should not forget that the offenders should be told to get some help during that cooling-off period—help that will, hopefully, stop them from repeating their behaviour. I am totally convinced that my colleagues the Minister of Justice, who has introduced this legislation, and the Minister of Police will take up those recommendations in order to make sure that the implementation of the legislation will justify its unanimous support by Parliament.

The other issue is that the Ministry of Women’s Affair, when examining this legislation, wanted to flag that the issuing of a protection order should never be a substitute for the police arresting perpetrators. Obviously, we condone the issuing of an instant protection order for the sake of the victims, but we should tell the police that doing so should never be a substitute for arresting and prosecuting the perpetrators. It is not a substitution.

Once again, I thank the House, in my capacity as Minister of Women’s Affairs, for its unanimous support of the first reading of the bill. I look forward to the report back from the select committee, and to seeing the unanimous support of the House for the bill’s final reading, in order that a very strong message is sent out there that violence against women is simply not acceptable in New Zealand.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : It is my pleasure to rise to speak in the first reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. In looking back over our society during the course of a number of years, I think that today’s debate should give people great encouragement that over a period of time we can, with strong legislation backed up by strong education, actually change the attitudes and views of society. I think that today’s debate really does demonstrate that, because so far no one has got up in the House during its course and said that the Government should stay out of people’s bedrooms. No one has got up and said that the Government does not have, and that society does not have, a right to set standards and expectations in this area. I imagine that if we had been having this debate some decades ago we would have heard those very speeches being delivered in this House. There would have been elements in society arguing that it is not anyone else’s business to interfere in the family home, to talk to families about how they behave, or to set the standards society expects. This demonstrates to me that we as a society have moved on quite significantly.

The best that any of the naysayers in our society can do in respect of domestic violence is to somehow diminish it by not accepting there is a gender imbalance in this equation. That, I think, is as close as naysayers will get to not acknowledging the real issue that exists. Yes, although there are men who are affected by domestic violence, overwhelmingly those who suffer are women—women and children, in fact. If we do not acknowledge that, then we will set out down a pathway that does not address the worst of the problem facing this country. When the select committee looks at this issue of domestic violence, I hope we will not get into a big argument about the gender implications of it in our country, because clearly the issue here is the outcomes of domestic violence for women. The Hon Pansy Wong said in her speech that every 26 days a woman dies at the hands of her partner, her ex-partner, or someone she was once in a relationship with. I think that demonstrates that the outcomes of domestic violence for women are so much more severe, and, although that does not excuse any other element of domestic violence, I think it puts the real context into the discussion. If we do not focus on the very real outcomes of domestic violence, then we will get the wrong solutions to the wrong problem.

The Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill before the House at the moment is supported by the Labour Opposition, because of course we must make steps forward on this issue that is an indictment on our country. But I want to reinforce what the nature of the issue is and how large it is. It is incredibly sobering to read the statistics in the explanatory note of the bill, remembering that statistics are numbers and that behind every one of them is not only a victim but also people close to that victim who are also affected by this terrible scourge on our society. In 2007 and 2008 family violence accounted for approximately 39 percent of homicides, 42 percent of kidnapping and abductions, 44 percent of grievous assaults, and 64 percent of serious assaults. The connection there, I think, is that although we have seen an increase in the reporting of serious crime, these figures tell us the basis of that. The awareness-raising exercise by the It’s not OK campaign has led to a higher level of reporting domestic violence. That, of course, is not something we want to celebrate, necessarily, but we see it as a very important step forward. People now acknowledge that assaults are not OK, and they do report them these days. But the most damning part for New Zealand in the explanatory note is the statement that precedes those statistics. It states that for a significant number of victims of violence the most dangerous place they can be is in their own home. In their own home is where people should feel safest, and clearly that is not the case. So I applaud this bill.

However, I want to point out that there is a lot of room for improvement, and I am so pleased that this legislation is going to a select committee. I think it is the first of the bills we have been dealing with under urgency to do so, and I applaud that, because there are many, many issues that I think need to be added to it. Again, this is a little bit about numbers but I have with me a bit of a visual aid. It is the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, worked on and introduced by the Labour Government, which deals with the same issue but in a much more comprehensive way. The bill before us has 12 pages, the previous bill has 34. Although numbers are not everything, the content is. In the case of the bill before us, it means that significant content, which I hope the submitters who come to the select committee will argue for, has been missed out. The issue of domestic violence is not a simple surface issue; it has many, many layers to it, and we need to take a comprehensive approach. I hope the select committee will get an opportunity to discuss some of the issues in the bill that the Hon Lianne Dalziel was denied leave to table—issues she was concerned about being missed out of the bill before us.

One of the things that could be added to this bill is a change to the definition of a child from being a person under the age of 17 years to a person under the age of 18 years, aligning it in that respect to the Domestic Violence Act, the Care of Children Act, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Another issue is that previously the legislation empowered the court to make interim care, or contact, orders to protect the welfare and best interests of the child in cases where an applicant with a child applies for a protection order. I think we must put children at the heart of this, because when children witness domestic violence, we know that it has implications for them for the rest of their lives. Another issue I hope that the select committee will get to discuss, concerns the requirement for a judge declining a without notice application for a protection order to provide written reasons, because I think we need to improve the way in which our justice system responds to issues associated with domestic violence. I also hope that the select committee will get an opportunity to talk about making provision in the legislation for applicants to be able to attend information sessions, which would provide information about making effective use of protection orders, and providing advice on social assistance that may also be available to them. There are a number of other issues that I will not go into in great detail, because a number of my colleagues have already canvassed those details, and, as I said, I hope that the select committee will get the opportunity to do that, as well.

But I want to acknowledge the work that is happening on this issue out in our community. Many speakers have referred to some of the very fine initiatives that happen to be operating in the Waikato area. I am not sure why we have such a focus on this in the Waikato area. Certainly, the statistics would show that we do not have a worse problem with domestic violence than any other part of the country, but we tend to have a significant number of people who are focused on this issue. I acknowledge the work of the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project, and the work that it has been doing. I hope that the project will make a submission to the select committee, because it has a lot to offer.

I also acknowledge the work that has been done by the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges. I had the opportunity to meet with Heather Hēnare from the Women’s Refuge just in the course of this week, actually, and she was urging the Labour Opposition to ensure that this new bill has a speedy passage through the House because of its importance. In terms of timing, I think it is a great shame that we have not been able to deliver the outcome, in relation to the orders that could be made immediately before the Christmas - New Year period, because that is a time of particular stress on families; unfortunately, that is the time when domestic violence tends to increase. Certainly during the course of this year—the Women’s Refuge has informed me—there has been a 16 percent increase in the number of women and children being referred to its service.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to make a few points in respect of the progress of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. We are all agreed, across the House, on a number of statements that have been made by various speakers, and the one just made by Sue Moroney—that children should be at the heart of this legislation—is quite right. The fact is that if young children are growing up in a home of domestic violence, girls learn that it is their role to be beaten and young boys learn that it is their role to beat them or their future partners. So that is why, sadly, when we look back at the victims of domestic violence, we find that women frequently grew up in homes watching their mothers being beaten, and that the perpetrators grew up in homes watching their fathers beating their mothers. We need to do something significant to stop that.

Another point that needs to be made is that there need to be initiatives across pieces of legislation to enhance the ability of the victims, principally women, of domestic violence to be safe. One of the sad things that has occurred, for instance, with the Legal Services Agency provision of legal aid to those in dire need, is that there is less and less of it available because the fees have never been increased. They have not been increased since 1996. There are a number of small towns where the catchment of lawyers providing legal aid services is getting smaller and smaller. For example, in a recent case a woman on the West Coast of the South Island was unable to have representation through legal aid, because no one was prepared to work for her. One of the things we need to look at, at some stage, will be the availability of legal aid for those people who would be seeking replacement protection orders for what has been a short-term protection order given by the police.

It is also important to acknowledge some of the things we will have to consider about the way in which this legislation will be implemented. An issue that bothers me is that the police will issue a protection order on every occasion they attend an address. The problem we have there is that if that is done in an ill-considered way, if it is done for fear of media reprisals if it is not done, or if it is done as a result of a “cover your ass” sort of attitude, then it could well be that the victims of family violence will be re-victimised by the imposition of the protection order if they do not have the ability to assert themselves in that situation. It will also have an effect on a number of men—and I certainly do not have any problem at all with that, if they are the perpetrators of violence, whether it be psychological or physical—but we have to ensure that the interests of justice and the rule of law are confirmed through this legislation, as well.

I also think that there is a slight anomaly, because the imposition of protection orders in this legislation relates only to the situation where a person is not arrested. That person could have a protection order enforced against him or her where there has not been violence, but if there is violence and the person is arrested, he or she will be subject only to bail conditions that do not have the strength of a protection order. So a clinical analysis of it would be that offenders would be better placed in the long term if they used physical violence than if they did not, because protection orders that would later be imposed against those offenders by the court would at least be done by judges, whereas in this case they would be initiated by a member of the police without there being a judicial process.

So there are a lot of things to look at and a very wide gambit of things that need to be considered. I look forward to the bill going through the Justice and Electoral Committee. It will be a bipartisan debate. Thank you.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : It is my pleasure, also, to talk on this bill, and to underscore the fact that Labour supports it. Labour supports any action for the elimination of family violence in our society. We see family violence as a horrible, horrible curse that our nation faces when we look at any figure, any data, that anybody in this Chamber or outside quotes for us. But when it happens in our homes and amongst the ones we love the most in our society, and when it happens in secret, then there is something fundamentally wrong with our society. In the end, it is about us, and we do tolerate violence. We tolerate violence in our society, and we do not do enough to eliminate that from society. We talk a lot about it, but in the end the figures go up and up and up. It is a problem that everyone needs to own—every person needs to own.

One does get frustrated at the violence in our language, the violence in our images, and the violence in talk-back radio programmes. What we want to do to somebody else, and the way we express that in violent language, is really part of the particular problem. These are real families, these are frightened people, and these are vulnerable women and children. Yes, Mr Garrett is right: men are also caught up in this. But, fundamentally it is gendered, because men do so much more damage than women. We need just to look at any data, as well. But I would not be fairly representing the many men who have come to see me, as well, unless I agreed that what Mr Garrett was saying needs also to be said. So without taking anything away from the horrible performance we have as a society, and that of men, it is important to acknowledge that some men are also victims.

Anybody who has worked in this particular area would really want to do everything possible to help, so it is important that at this time, and this close to Christmas, when, as Women’s Refuge figures show us, the violence rates go up so dramatically, Parliament must send a message. My colleague Hone Harawira is right to point out that at this time before Christmas it is important for Parliament to send a message—even through this debate and how it is reported in the media—about the importance for our families to focus, and to be conscious over this period of what they do when they believe violence is about to occur, for people to keep themselves safe and to seek assistance, and for those who are perpetrators, when they recognise that something is about to happen, whether it is through drinking or some particular behavioural issue, to get some help in this Christmas period.

I also want to reflect on what Lianne Dalziel said in the introduction. Fundamentally the response to family violence—to all violence—has to be integrated; doing it in a piecemeal fashion is what we have done for years and, in the end, somebody else has to try to fix it again. So I welcome the consensus there is in this House and, indeed, the way the Minister has been conducting himself on this particular issue. As occurred in an earlier bill, there is a willingness to work across parties and that is a genuine offer we certainly want to take up.

However, I want to also reflect on the election campaign we have just had and the way in which, during that campaign, we politicised this question as well, almost beyond belief—even in the way we looked at the violence statistics that were coming out. We kept saying time and time again: “Look at what explains the largest increase in family violence—the 19 percent increase in family violence offences in the June 2008 year.” Much of that was because of the work we had been doing as a society through the “It’s not OK” campaign and how that came through. Yet we did not have an honest discussion about that. I think the figures were deliberately misinterpreted and the suggestion that crime was rocketing in South Auckland, and that South Auckland was a no-go area, was pushed.

I hope we remember the way we had that discussion and debate during the campaign. It was not helpful when it comes down to trying to find real solutions to what is an awful problem. This is not to deny there is a problem. As I have already said, yes, there is. But much of the campaign was orchestrated and sometimes we question the genuineness of some of those marches we saw. I certainly have not seen them on some of the occasions that have occurred since the election. So we politicised the issue.

In 2004 when the then Minister, the Hon Steve Maharey, really heard what the workers in this field were telling him—that there was a problem and we were not getting anywhere—almost in the identical week prior to Christmas 2004, he called a group of us together, sat us down and said: “Find the solutions.” That was the beginning of the family violence task force. It is instructive how that group has worked. It was set up carefully; it took until about June 2005 to set it up for the right people to be brought around the table. Those people, from across Government departments, the non-governmental organisation sector, Māori society, Pasifika society, and Crown entities, were given the responsibility and were told: “Go and find a solution, and find a way of doing this that will give us long-lasting solutions.”

The work of that particular committee is quite instructive about how to go about designing a solid solution to an intransigent problem in our society. We had the right people around the table, and we found out what we knew nationally and internationally about this particular area. Some members may have read the Beyond Zero Tolerance publication from the Families Commission that brings it all together and says to stop doing more research, to take what we know, and to apply it in a systematic way over a long period of time. The evidence said that if we did that we would begin to turn our society around. So what was required was sustained effort in this particular area—something we have not had. We have had single acts of conscience around this particular area but when we bring together a sustained programme we have to realise it will take a number of years.

Senior people came to the task force and they also had to have the authority to commit their particular organisation to work on a consensus basis. The process was owned by the group, we fought and argued, but what came out was a multi-pronged approach to family violence. I hope the select committee has the benefit of that as well when it begins to look at this bill. The group came up with a concerted long-term programme to really change the attitudes and behaviours of New Zealanders. Unless we do that, somebody else will be standing here having the same argument, trying to fix this particular problem. So the “It’s not OK” campaign, which resulted in the “It’s not OK” language now, has been very, very successful. But we cannot just do that and then leave it. There were community-led initiatives throughout the country; there was a whole range of programmes where local people were working on this issue.

Much of what they did was quite fundamental. Leadership needs to develop on this issue throughout the various spheres that influence it—in our families, in our churches, and in our communities. Once we do that, once we bring that together, we can then design the next level of programmes we need to address. Family violence will not go away; it will take a number of years and it will take resources. I hope the Minister is committed enough to this to ensure that those agencies working with this issue have the resources to do it.

Finally, I would like to say that it is good to note before Christmas—and this is a good present for our families—that this bill will go to a select committee. I would encourage those people who know quite a bit about this issue to come up to the committee. There are people from many parts of New Zealand where there are programmes in place: Wairarapa, Waitakere, the business community are engaged, Amokura up north is working in this area, and women’s refuges up and down the country. I hope the select committee invites the family violence task force to appear before the committee so that it can really understand the best effort we have had in this country to address this issue. If that happens, I believe that what comes back to us will be a much better product. Thank you.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : I rise to support this Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I agree with the member Dr Rajen Prasad that this will be a good present for the people of New Zealand when it is passed—and it is appropriate that we are doing this just before Christmas, when domestic violence is a problem. I agree with him also that domestic violence is a curse and a scourge on the families of this country.

My reason for supporting this bill, like members of all parties in this House, is that domestic violence is a very serious problem—indeed, it is an ongoing problem—in this country and our nation. I do not think it is going too far to say that it is mind-blowing to hear that more than 80,000 domestic violence incidents were recorded by the police in 2007. That number of domestic violence incidents represents the population of a city nearly the size of Tauranga—a city that I am privileged to represent—being involved in domestic violence in this country every year. The reason I support this bill is because, like other members, I am sure that it speaks to that problem; it speaks to and addresses in a substantive way the issue of domestic violence.

What is most concerning about the statistic of 80,000 domestic violence incidents is that, according to the explanatory note, the number of protection orders has been going down in the last several years. Victims have been giving up on protection orders, yet, at the same time, domestic violence reports have gone up, although I accept that this is also a matter of reportage. We, of course, want to see the reverse happen, and I hope this bill will go some way to achieving that when it is law. We want to see the number of protection orders go up and the number of domestic violence incidents go down.

Finally, we have had police advertising campaigns and the like over quite a period now. Certainly they are praiseworthy and have been positive, but going by that figure of 80,000 incidents, we can also say that those campaigns have substantially failed to reduce domestic violence. I cast no blame on anyone at all for this, but the State’s response has been inadequate. This bill is part of an approach from the State, from the Government, and from all parties to strengthen the provisions and the law in relation to domestic violence and get that terrible statistic—as I say, it is mind-blowing—of 80,000 incidents in this country down and to deal with the issues of this country.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.