Chadwick Steve: Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) Care of Children Amendment Bill Adoption Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chadwick Steve: Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) Care of Children Amendment Bill Adoption Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20594. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak to this legislation and it is nice to see consensus in the House. I somehow always have an affinity towards those members who have a focus on domestic violence and on the future and the potential of our children in New Zealand. I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this legislation. I wish that there could be a bipartisan approach to the care of our children and to domestic violence because I believe that all parties in the House have measures that they are desperate to see introduced that collectively would make a difference. It is sad that having consensus between political parties on the way forward is an opportunity that was not taken up by John Key when it was offered by former Minister Annette King. 
I congratulate the Government on what it has done about domestic violence so far in New Zealand but I have to say that a piecemeal approach to solving problems of child and family abuse is not working. I have a background in setting up the first Women’s Refuge in Rotorua as a midwife seeing the number of young women coming into maternity who had been physically abused. One never knew about the emotional abuse; one could only see that from their withdrawal and their inability to give birth confidently. I know that the Minister opposite is trying to do something about these problems of abuse. We believe that there is urgency to this and that is why I personally like the approach that Annette King has shown leadership on saying that we know what needs to be done we now just need to get on and do it. This legislation is part of the answer but only part of the jigsaw of domestic violence. 
I wanted to mention and get on the record the lost opportunity to include some things that sadly are not in the legislation proposed today which has been broken up into three bills. There was the need to define the age of a child for the purposes of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and for those who are covered by parenting orders. Currently a child is defined as anyone under 17. Under Annette King’s bill we would change that age to 18. I would have liked to see that amended. 
We also said that when a judge declines a without notice application for a protection order through the courts process the judge should given written reasons for why they are declining. Then the applicant will know what they have done wrong in the process and they will be able to decide whether to proceed or withdraw from proceeding on notice. This bill does not include that provision and I think taking the opportunity to include it would have meant a more comprehensive approach. 
The other issue that was raised when we drafted our Domestic Violence Reform Bill came from the National Council of Women who are predominantly very sensible pragmatic women involved in family violence prevention support services or who are actual practitioners in the law themselves. A lot of women choose to go to a woman lawyer if they are undergoing domestic violence. They said that one of the most important aspects was for an applicant to attend information sessions so that they understood what a protection order was about so that they would comply and also so that they would then know where to go for any further social assistance. The requirement to attend information sessions is not in the legislation before us. That is opportunity lost three times. 
Also—and I think this is the biggest—in our approach we felt that the court should have the power to direct attendance at an addiction treatment service. That is not in the bill. I think one of the underlying factors that we all now accept in timeliness that has changed so much from 1995 is that alcohol and addiction are becoming one of the precursors and the drivers of domestic violence. The courts having the power to direct one to attend an addiction assessment and treatment programme was another opportunity we put into the provisions of our bill. I think it is an opportunity lost. 
I hope that at some stage when there is a comprehensive review of the legislation rather than a piecemeal approach one after the other we will see the omission—not commission but omission—of those small but significant steps that make a huge change to how we look at the role of police and enforcement in protection orders the role of the courts in domestic violence matters and how the Family Court could have widened powers. It is not done by just one bill. Sadly in these three bills that amend these Acts all the aspects I spoke of today are omitted. 
That is a pity when all of us in New Zealand know that the facts are clearly on the table. Even the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor has said that we have the evidence and now we must get on and do something about it. Four to 10 percent of New Zealanders experience physical abuse and we do not know the percentage of those experiencing emotional abuse. So we support this bill and hope we are not back in the House within the next year with another little bright idea and another amendment bill. In the future when Labour gets back into Government we will bring forward our bill which languishes way down the Order Paper. Thank you.