Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I am absolutely thrilled to stand and speak at the second reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill. Right I'm just going to go very briefly into what this bill does and then recall some I guess case studies as it were based on the years that I've spent in the sector working at the front line with women who've experienced this. So what does this bill do? It's an omnibus bill which means that it will amend a whole suite of Acts: the Domestic Violence Act particularly but also the Employment Relations Act the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Holidays Act as well as the Human Rights Act.Now we've all stood up—well from both sides of the House members have stood up today and acknowledged the fact that domestic violence has damaging impacts on the people who are subjected to it—largely women. We've also acknowledged that staying in employment is critical to reducing that effect of violence. We've all talked about it yet only one side of this House actually supports this bill and puts our money where our mouths are. Everyone has the right to live a life free from violence and as I mentioned no one disputes that. For many though that's just words and talk is cheap. Many women I've worked with in this sector and as I mentioned I've worked for many years at the front line I recall spending hours advocating on behalf of women who needed some sort of reprieve at points some sort of compassion from employers because of what they were going through and how that impacted on every facet of their life including their lives at work.Many of them needed someone to advocate on their behalf because of the trauma that they'd gone through—the fact that reliving what had happened in itself was re-victimisation the fact that there is still stigma and shame that disproportionately affect women from some groups especially some of the ethnic communities that I come from because we're already small communities and reasonably marginalised. So understandably the entire community doesn't want to feel like they're being tarred with the same brush but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the fact that it exists and the impact the disproportionate impact that has on women from those communities.I remember specifically two stories that I will recall today. One woman I worked with was a cleaner at a reasonably large hotel. She'd experienced high levels of physical emotional and psychological abuse. She wasn't sure what to do whether she could speak to her employers about the fact that she needed some assistance or not. In her case and in the case of the other woman I worked with who was in an admin role in a company I picked up the phone spoke to their employers for them and for them luckily their employers were willing to listen and willing to accommodate what their needs were.Some women don't necessarily want to talk about it because they're just tired and having to explain time and again to people who are supposed to be helping them or supporting them can just make things too difficult really. That's why this bill is important because one of the things that it does is send a really strong signal across our society that we all have a role to play in keeping women and children safe.So what exactly are we talking about here? In terms of safety when we talk about safety there's the direct safety of course that women—and I say women" because disproportionately women are impacted by domestic violence. But there is extensive research that tells us that it's at that time when she leaves the abusive relationship—that's the time when it's most dangerous for her and her children. That's the time often that women's lives are at risk. And what happens? Why is it important that women need to have some sort of accommodation at work? Because that's often where the stalking happens. It's about disrupting routine because domestic violence is not just about incidents it's not just about physical emotional physiological sexual and financial abuse; it's about power and control which then means that when an abuser is wanting to continue to exert that power and control over a woman they then look for what that woman's routine is: "Where can we stalk her? When she drops the kids off at school when she goes to work. We know what her email address is."I read in one of these papers that the most common form of harassment is through phone calls and emails at work. Physical stalking happens at work as well and that's why flexible working arrangements or paid leave when a woman needs it are crucial to keeping her safe because they disrupt that routine and not one person on that side of the House has even alluded to them. That's what this bill will do.Members opposite have talked about the fact that there's sick leave that there's bereavement leave and that there's paid annual leave that women can access. Two points that I'd like to make to that: firstly that's not what sick leave is for or what any of those other types of leave are for. Secondly in many cases especially when there's physical abuse involved women have already used up their sick leave.There is the safety of children as well in terms of the disruption to children's lives in terms of direct safety to children and in terms of the indirect safety that children need to be protected from when the mother is being abused stalked and harassed. The break that we need the disruption to the stigma and the shame that still exist that prevent people from talking about it—so making it OK for women to talk about what's going on at the workplace and to seek help. We're not saying as some members opposite have said that somehow—the Hon Scott Simpson mentioned that members on this side of the House are somehow implying that the employer's at fault—no we're not—or that there's some kind of connection between employment and violence.There's a connection between violence and every aspect of a person's life. We take our whole selves to work and we should have the right to stay safe wherever we are whether that's at home on the street or at work. Unfortunately the Hon Scott Simpson used the words "punish and hit" employers. No that's often what happens to the women who are experiencing violence. The cost for the employers was brought up but there's a cost to not acting. My colleagues on this of the House have talked about the cost directly to employers. There's a massive cost—I think it was $7 billion—to society as a whole when you include the flow-on costs of domestic violence as well.An interesting point that I want to note that the Hon Maggie Barry made actually and I quote so that there's no issue around misrepresentation is—I quote—"employers … are already doing the right thing". So if this is the right thing why aren't we doing it? That's what I want to know. Why is this House not voting—why is that side of the House not voting to do what is apparently the right thing? So is it right or is it not and if it's right why won't members opposite support it? That's what I want to know.The member also mentioned that it's not an employment issue—I think I've addressed that—that there's domestic violence protection orders medical certificates. It's not a sickness. It's not a sickness and that's not enough. That's not good enough. And that it's easier to achieve for large employers and not for small—yes I take that point. It is easier to achieve for large employers but what are we saying here—that it's too difficult that safety that protecting supporting the safety of women and children is too difficult for us to do? Erica Stanford talked about ratbag employers. It's not about the employers; it's about the message that we send. It's about ultimately the protections and the supports for the women who are undergoing or who are subjected to this.There are horrific statistics that we have in New Zealand around domestic violence and we have an opportunity here. This may not be the be-all and the end-all. Minister Andrew Little has talked about everything else that this side of the House is doing to end violence against women but this is one critical part of it. It's a critical role that we stand here to play to ensure that we all play the role that we can play to end this scourge on society.With that—actually one more quick point: I understand from submitters that actually more employers were in support of this bill than against. I put that to members opposite in consideration of this bill and with that it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you."