Pillay Lynne: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6734] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand to take a call in the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I am very pleased that at last it is being debated. I will go through the positive parts of the bill of which there are many but I also join my colleague Lianne Dalziel in voicing my disappointment that the bill is not as comprehensive as Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill which is currently on the Order Paper albeit towards the bottom. 
I note that the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill does not comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—an issue that was raised during its first reading. With Labour’s bill we had the ability to change the definition of a child from someone under 17 years to someone under 18 years thereby increasing the age limit at which minors can apply for protection orders in their own right. That would have given a lot of younger people so much more protection. Along with Lianne Dalziel and my Labour colleagues I am very disappointed that it has not been incorporated into the bill that the Minister has signalled will have a reading in the House hopefully very soon. 
It may seem a little negative to talk about this but domestic violence is a cruel vicious situation. Every day that we cannot provide enhanced protection and safety is a day too long. I note that the Justice and Electoral Committee reported back the bill on 29 June 2009. I along with my colleagues certainly would have been very happy if the bill had gone to the top of the Order Paper so that it could have been enacted by this stage. It saddened me to see urgency taken last week on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill which with no ill effect could have had enhanced debate and closer scrutiny. It was a bill on which there was not a meeting of minds and there should have been more debate on it and the public should have had a chance to have more input. I think putting the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill through under urgency would have served a far greater purpose but that did not happen. Certainly as I said before I am very pleased that this bill is now before the House and is being progressed and I look forward to further protection for victims in the future. 
This bill is about safety. It ensures that a violent situation is calmed as soon as humanly possible. It is absolutely untenable that in situations of domestic violence it frequently is the victim and young family members who have to leave the family home for their security and safety. I pay tribute as Chester Borrows did before me—and he did an excellent job chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee—to the people who came and spoke to the committee. An impression of “like minds like message” came through from the vast majority of submitters. I think there were over 20—from memory 22 or 24—oral submissions the majority of which were very very clear and very very consistent in their support for the bill. Many submitters raised adding the provisions relating to particularly the protection of children that are in Labour’s bill. We took advice on that matter but unfortunately those provisions were outside the scope of this bill. But the vast majority of submitters were very very clear that this bill did give enhanced protection and the sooner the better. 
A minority of submitters and I stress that it was a very small number of submitters felt that it was unreasonable for the partner to be removed on the chance that issuing the police safety protection order may in the future be deemed to be an unjustified action on the part of the police—I should have said police safety order; we had numerous discussions about what the order would be called. But the members of the committee had all agreed by the end that that view was not reasonable and from the outset I certainly did not hold it. It seemed to me to be completely unreasonable if one balanced the very rare potential instance where an order is given and it is then deemed inappropriate—and I do not believe that would happen—with the paramount issue of the safety of predominantly women and children and removing the risk of extreme violence against them. That far outweighs any argument about an unjustified protection order. I am really pleased that all the members of the committee agreed with that position. 
There was also considerable discussion about the 5-day duration of the order versus a shorter period. A few submitters wanted to see the period extended in case it was not long enough to allow for public holidays. Again a very small number of submitters believed that 5 days was too long and that 3 days would have been preferable. There was complete agreement from all committee members—and I thank the officials who gave us very sensible advice—that the period should be up to 5 days. That is the most sensible way to go if we are concerned to ensure safety and security. 
We also had considerable discussion on the need to explain the protection order. After a protection order has been issued it must be made very very clear to the person—and generally it is a man—what the order means and what the consequences are of failing to comply with it. We improved the bill by including a requirement to attend a stopping violence programme and by specifying the consequences of failing to attend that programme. 
I believe that the committee worked very constructively and that the changes that have been made have considerably improved the bill. I am very pleased about that. I take this opportunity to again acknowledge all of the submitters who came and told us in many instances incredibly painful stories about their own personal situations of stress anxiety and fear. To do that was a very brave act. I think this debate is a great opportunity in this House to acknowledge women and families who have gone through that situation and to acknowledge the support that is given to them by the refuges and other organisations that work in this field giving support to victims of violent crime. Those organisations ensure that those victims are supported and have a safe haven.