Borrows Chester: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6732] 
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.