SpeechHon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I am very pleased to come and take a call on this bill tonight and on this issue and can I begin by just acknowledging the member whose name the bill is in Jan Logie for her very genuine commitment to this issue. I know that it is one that the member feels—and has felt for a long time—very strongly about and I want to acknowledge her not only for her work on the bill but for her work in the area and the work that she has done with me as we have discussed issues around domestic violence in the time that I have been the Minister of Justice. Can I just reflect on one of the aspects of Ms Logie's speech which is to share in her joy when Parliament can recognise issues that are of importance to us all. In the time that I have been working on these issues—which is the entire time I have been the justice Minister—right across Parliament actually it is probably the one issue more than any other on which I have found that the party affiliations go by the by and I want to just acknowledge not only Jan but all of my colleagues across Parliament for their work on the issue. I have got to say that I have been utterly appalled as I know other members of the House have been at the sheer scale of this issue in New Zealand. I have said from the outset that I certainly do not claim to stand before any group and suggest that I have all the answers but what became patently clear to me very early on was that as a country the first thing we have to do is ensure that right across New Zealand the conversation is had about the importance of the issue the scale of the issue the severity of the issue the trauma it causes and the intergenerational flow-through effects of those families that experience family violence. Let us be quite clear that whether or not the victims are getting physically assaulted and whether or not the violence is interpersonal violence between partners everybody in that family everybody in that whānau is affected—particularly when it involves children. They suffer tremendous trauma. This House I am sure will know that last year in New Zealand we had notifications to police of family violence upwards of 105000 times over the year. That is about once every 5 minutes. And if that is not appalling enough—and it is—the police will tell us that actually on average a woman victim where it is a woman victim will often have suffered episodes of violence up to 21 times before an initial reach out for help is made. When you think about those two facts beyond anything else 105000 to 110000 notifications a year represents the very smallest part of the scale of the problem. I must say that I never thought I would be in this House long enough to hear a member of the Green Party quoting John Key with respect. Ka pai to you—I think that is a great step forward Jan. Jan Logie: Building bridges. Hon AMY ADAMS: Building bridges. But you are absolutely right and the former Prime Minister was equally absolutely right when he said that this is a problem for everyone—everyone. I am not in any way shying away from the responsibility of Government to lead in this space or the responsibility of this House but equally we kid ourselves if we think that this Parliament or any Government can fix this on its own. If there was a bill that you could pass or if there was a programme you could fund that would put an end to it no Government would have said no to that and we all acknowledge that. That is not to say that we cannot do more and that is why with my colleagues—Anne Tolley in particular but colleagues across all the portfolios that impact on this space; 16 in total—we are overturning every rock and asking every question about what we can do better because we have to do better. But it has to be more than the Government. It has to be a problem for New Zealand and every New Zealander. The point I made when I made the commitment on behalf of the National Government to support the bill—certainly through the first reading and through to a select committee—was that what we do know and what we must know is that whatever the answer is business has to be a part of it and that is the absolute agreement I am in with the member. I think actually there is far more that the member and I share in common ground on this than we may differ on which is not a bad starting point. But none the less it is incumbent on us to test carefully everything we do because although the issue is significant and serious and real as with anything in this space we have to be very careful to ensure that we get our responses as right as we can. But what we absolutely know—and what I agree with the member on and what we have a chance to discuss—is that that does have to involve how we support these victims in their employment. I agree with the statistics that the member quoted around the impact on victims and the additional trauma and difficulty and challenge if they also lose contact with employment relationships. Equally we know that someone going through particularly serious domestic violence when they are trying to get out of an abusive relationship or trying to stay in one safely and successfully will put needs and pressures and requirements on that victim and their support network that are unique to them and again it is incumbent on us to think about how the system supports that. So although in terms of the Government we are not yet sure whether the answers in the bill as drafted are exactly the right mix we are very happy to have an open conversation and explore that. Can I also say and put on record my—delight" is the wrong word in this context but my great pride I guess in New Zealand that so many parts of New Zealand in the public and private sectors have already taken steps down this road. You know I have been an employer. I have run businesses. What you know when you run businesses is that your staff are your biggest asset and frankly it is just good business and good economics to look after them. It is not about doing something because you have to do it; it is about investing in the people who pay you far more in dividend when they have a happy and productive and successful life. But I also know as a mother of young children who has had to balance things that when businesses are prepared to be flexible with you it engenders a loyalty and a commitment and a productivity that I have always thought paid itself off in spades. I do want to acknowledge with pride in my fellow countrymen the businesses that have seen this and that do work—and I know they are many and varied—to support their employees when they are in situations of domestic violence. I also want to acknowledge that across the Public Service we are seeing a tremendously strong response in this respect. We tested it with our 10 biggest Public Service agencies and 84—no I think all of them sorry. Those agencies covering 84 percent of all public sector employees all had arrangements in place to think about and work through how they would respond to an employee in this situation. What I think will be very valuable through the select committee process is to hear more and learn more from those businesses that have put arrangements in place—what has worked how they have found it works best and what has not worked. The member in her introduction made reference to the five pieces of legislation that this bill amends and each one of those will have its own impacts which we need to carefully understand. I will admit to some nervousness around for example the width and the concept of the domestic violence document and how we frame that—how it works how we set it up and what impact that has on victims—and we do have to tread very carefully around how that is simply operationalised. So these are things that I think are worth exploring. It is also worth reflecting I think that if those 110000 incidents that I calculated last year would have qualified under the domestic violence document heads—and that would be a conservative estimate because we know only what is formally reported—there is a huge continuum of circumstances in that. Parliament and laws are by definition blunt instruments. I think we have to be very careful to ensure that our response is not so blunt across that huge continuum of circumstances for New Zealand men women and children who are represented in those 110000 incidents but to ensure that we are able to arrange a framework that is proportionate responsive sensitive and appropriate for that whole continuum. All incidents are serious and we take none of them lightly but there is a very different support system required for example when the police are called out to a very heated verbal argument compared with obviously where a woman and her children are desperate to get out and to keep themselves safe. We have to ensure that our responses recognise those differences and reflect the needs of parties in each case. So this is a discussion that we are interested in having because as I said how we think about and support domestic violence victims is a multifaceted approach. We have a huge programme of work under way looking at a number of aspects but we are never so closed-minded that we are not prepared to consider other aspects. What I will say though is fundamentally—and on International Women's Day I am going to be unashamedly gender-biased for one moment because actually in most of the serious cases it is women who are the victims. Yes men are victims but more often than not it is women who are victims and if you want to know when the women of New Zealand will be safe it will be when the men of New Zealand respect them and stop beating them. Fundamentally we can keep women safe and we can do what we can to support the women but if we want to stop this we have to change the behaviour of the men who beat the loved ones in their life and nothing will change until we change that. Can I just end by again welcoming the discussion and welcoming the debate. We are going into it with an open mind and registering some genuine concern about the bill as drafted but very happy to engage in the process."