Barry Maggie; Williams PotoHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in the second reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill. I am a relative newcomer but I am on the Justice Committee and have heard many of the arguments talked about and heard some of the submitters as well. So my call tonight is to emphasise that I am very sympathetic to the aims of this bill. I am sympathetic to the member Jan Logie who proposed it and as others have said there is no doubting that member's sincerity and her desire to improve the plight of the victims of domestic violence. We don't agree that this is the way to do it but I absolutely agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. A culture change within this country needs to happen. I do not believe it is an employment issue; I think it is more a health and welfare issue and I have been speaking about this with my colleague Harete Hipango who has had more than 30 years working in the area of law and family violence. When we look at the measures and protections that are already available under existing law around domestic violence protection orders stress and medical certificates that provide leave for people it does appear to me that this bill takes New Zealand's small businesses in a direction that they cannot afford.There are larger businesses in Australia who have been able to accommodate these kinds of leave provisions. When you have a team of 2000 or 3000 employees that kind of arrangement is relatively easy to achieve. It does require an enlightened employer. But in a small environment—and New Zealand has a great many small to medium sized enterprises with very small employer bases—employers could not afford and could not sustain an individual taking an additional two working weeks' leave for domestic violence. So when we discussed this at select committee level we looked at the way in which for example a corner dairy might cope with having somebody come into work and say I need time off for domestic violence leave now." At that time—and I see it's back in the bill—there was also a provision for a support person to take leave to be able to assist the person who was the victim to drive them and so forth. But again in a very small employment situation it is almost impossible to imagine that being able to work without it seriously undermining the business and therefore endangering the jobs of not only the people who are the victims of domestic violence but also those who are employed by the small to medium sized enterprise so we felt it was impractical at that level. We support the spirit of the bill absolutely but look at what it seeks to do. The bill proposes to make changes to five Acts: the Domestic Violence Act the Employment Relations Act the Health and Safety at Work Act the Holidays Act and the Human Rights Act. When we look at the Employment Relations Act to allow employees who are victims of domestic violence to request a variation of their working arrangements and then under the Holidays Act to have those 10 days' paid leave we are starting to see building up a situation that is very difficult and very difficult to sustain long term for a small business in terms of there being any of the opportunities that might exist to support somebody who has been a victim of domestic violence. When we were in the committee and in reading the papers and the advice from officials we were provided with many examples of employers who are doing the right thing who are recognising and providing appropriate support flexibility and leave for employees who are affected by domestic violence and who need to suddenly go and see a lawyer go and take their children from school to medical appointments and so forth. Any of us who have raised a family know very well how quickly we need to be able to respond as parents to the needs of our family particularly if we are also in a situation where there is a domestic violence overlay.When we see employers willing to take action and there are measures and provisions within existing laws to enable that action to occur one starts to wonder what the real advantages of this particular bill would be. So in discussion at the select committee we all agreed that there needed to be not only enlightened employers but also an awareness campaign for the public so that victims of domestic violence employers and everyone else frankly in this country who are not aware be aware of what they are allowed under the law and what the provisions are.The flexibility and leave provisions do already exist. The employers have a responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work Act to provide a safe workplace including protections while at work against threats that may be posed to a victim of domestic violence. So the opportunities for individuals who are victimising their partners for example or for someone in their wider family to come into the workplace and threaten partners—they can be blocked in their access not only physically into the workplace but also via email or telephone. Employers are required under existing law to consider requests for flexible working arrangements—and that's provided for in Part 6AA of the Employment Relations Act—and employers must provide sick leave under the Holidays Act for an employee whose physical or mental health is affected by domestic violence. I would suggest to the member and to others who are in agreement with this legislation that the additional measures within this bill are not ones that are going to comprehensively change the landscape but they will in a very real and meaningful way make it very difficult for small and medium sized enterprises to accommodate victims of domestic violence.I mean really in terms of the essence of this bill if an employer decided that they would not allow domestic violence leave then in the provisions of this they can do that. They can turn it down on the basis that it would be difficult for them to be able to afford it and that is a provision that an employer could easily and readily use. There are rights of appeal and we talked around those but ultimately it would be very difficult for the person who is a victim of domestic violence to argue against an employer who said "This cannot be afforded. This business will go under if we have to allow these provisions so I am going to turn it down." So ultimately how much real momentum and real power would come from this bill? I would suggest: nothing very much.There is nothing stopping employers from offering more in addition and as I said at the select committee we have heard a number of excellent examples of ways in which employers have accommodated the domestic violence issues of victims because they want to keep these good staff because they want to support them and because they are human beings who understand on that human level how important it is to have a supportive working environment. If an employer has spent a lot of time training and nurturing an individual who is an employee that employer is going to be highly motivated to try and keep that person and support them through a time of stress. So given the ability of an employer to act flexibly now and to offer more in addition why would we not—through awareness and public awareness campaigns in particular—ensure that people know to ask and know to request it from an employer?I think the additional administrative requirements under this bill were too extensive for us to support. Providing 10 days' leave for a support person does require employees to provide domestic violence documents such as a police complaint or a statement from domestic violence support organisations so there is a lot of additional material that would be required. I think the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 41 in the name of my colleague Mark Mitchell—which we'll go into in more detail at another time—is a very good compromise and we need to do all that we can to reduce domestic violence. The measures that he has outlined are a more moderate change that makes it clear to employers that the reasons associated with domestic violence are valid ones for granting annual and sick leave but that that be taken within the existing provisions. So when we look at what is around at the moment we already have four weeks of annual leave 11 days of public holidays five days of sick leave and three days of bereavement leave and they are provided currently under the present law. It can be a very big burden on some employers and we are genuinely fearful and have spoken with a number of employers who do not feel that they would be able to in addition to those provisions that already exist allow an additional two weeks of paid leave—10 extra days. So the SOP which the Hon Mark Mitchell will be tabling is one that I think will be enlightening for many of the members.Labour didn't agree to have a support person. Labour didn't agree to the 10 days unless it was limited to 12 months. So there are a number of difficulties with this bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise—your time has expired."