Twyford Phil: Child and Family Protection Bill — Second Reading 
Twyford Phil: Child and Family Protection Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13877] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I do not think there is any argument in this House that we have a problem in New Zealand with family violence. We have one of the lowest ratings in the OECD and we have the highest rate for child death by maltreatment in the world. I was in the Solomon Islands recently and I spent some time with New Zealand police who are serving up there with Operation RAMSI the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands. They go out on patrol with the local Solomon Islands police. The problem of violence against women and children is particularly acute in the Pacific Islands. 
Typically the New Zealand police would be called out to a domestic violence incident in the suburbs of Honiara and they say the situation is very much like New Zealand’s situation 30 to 35 years ago. The courts and the police force do not take domestic violence very seriously. The issue of women getting beaten up in the home is considered to be a domestic issue and therefore not appropriate for legal intervention. The police were shocked by the situation there. 
We can all reflect on how far New Zealand has come on this issue in the space of a generation. We have come a long way. In our lifetimes there has been a massive change but the statistics that colleagues this afternoon have read out in the House and the stories that Su’a William Sio recounted are a reminder of just how shocking the problem is in New Zealand and how far we have to go. That is why Labour will support the Child and Family Protection Bill. This bill takes us further ahead. It gives more tools to the courts to reduce the harm of family violence but it does not go far enough and that is the shame of this bill. Labour wishes the bill were more ambitious but it is not sadly. 
I remind members of the object of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 which is one of the Acts this bill seeks to amend. Section 5(1) of the Act states: “The object of this Act is to reduce and prevent violence in domestic relationships by—(a) recognising that domestic violence in all its forms is unacceptable behaviour; and (b) ensuring that where domestic violence occurs there is effective legal protection for its victims.” Amongst submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee and amongst agencies non-governmental organisations Government agencies all around New Zealand and the general public there is an extraordinary degree of consensus behind the object of the Act. We should be trying to strengthen the legislation and it is a shame that this bill does not go far enough. 
I want to talk about clause 6 which is problematic and I will respond to some of the comments that were made by Chester Borrows earlier in this debate. The bill extends protection under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and it amends section 16 of that Act making it clear that a protection order applies for the benefit of a child of an applicant until the child reaches the age of 17 unless that order is discharged sooner. The select committee recommended amending clause 6 to provide that the child of the applicant’s family would not be required to apply to the court for a direction and that the protection order should continue for the child’s benefit after he or she turns 17 while he or she continues to ordinarily or periodically reside with the applicant. The select committee was agreed on that point and it has been reflected in the bill that has come back before the House. 
However there is disagreement over whether the provisions should apply after the young person leaves the home of the applicant. It is the view of the Labour and Green members of the committee that there should not be a time limit; that if a young person leaves home goes to university or wherever the protection order as it applies to that young person should not automatically expire; and that it should be up to that young person to make their own decision about whether they wish to continue to be covered by a protection order. 
We heard Chester Borrows say that typically when young people turn 17 they move away and the need for the protection order dissipates. I do not know how the member could know that the need for a protection order dissipates. Should young people not be allowed to make that decision for themselves? Mr Borrows said that 17-year-olds are mature enough to make a decision about reinstating a protection order. I challenge that view and I ask members to put themselves in the shoes of a young man or woman who has grown up with a violent and controlling father. Turning 17 or 18 does not make someone less scared of that person or less vulnerable to control. I think young people would be put in an extremely difficult situation if they were required by law if they want to continue that protection after their 17th birthday to actively make the decision to go to the court go through the legal process and seek another protection order. In that case the law would potentially be putting that young person in grave danger. 
If we are serious about the intent of this legislation which is to give people proper substantial legal protection and give young people in this case the chance to live a life free of fear and violence then I challenge the Government’s judgment on this provision. 
There are a number of provisions in Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill—which as my colleague Carmel Sepuloni noted has been left at the bottom of the Order Paper—that we believe could have and should have been included in this bill but the opportunity has been missed. This bill is weaker than it could have been. As far as we can tell there is no good reason for those provisions to be omitted. Let me touch on them. One concerns the definition of “child” in the Domestic Violence Act. Under our current law a child is a person under the age of 17. Labour’s bill would raise the age from 17 to 18 and that would be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
One of the other provisions we think should have been included in this bill is one that would require any judge who declines a so-called application without notice for a protection order to provide written reasons for declining that application. An order without notice is commonly used. This means that a protection order is given against someone who allegedly has been committing acts of violence against the applicant and it relates to situations where the evidence is sufficiently strong and the risk is sufficiently great that the order is given without any prior notice or warning to the alleged perpetrator. 
The problem with that kind of provision is that judges who are not required to give a written reason for declining an application can then set in train a sequence of events that would put the applicant who is usually a woman at risk again. If the judge was required to give a reason the applicant would be able to engage and bring more information in order to make the case again. Without that the risk is that sometimes a sequence of events is set in train that would result in notice being given and that can put the woman at risk. We think that that would have been a sound provision and there is no good reason that I can think of or that I have heard of for it to be omitted. 
Labour members support this bill. We think it will strengthen the law in some key areas but it is just a shame that the Government has not gone further and been more ambitious.