Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on the Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill at its second reading. I didn't get a chance to talk on this bill at the first reading and indeed I wasn't at the Justice Committee but I have read the select committee report. I would just like to start by taking the opportunity as many of the members have done to congratulate Jan Logie on this bill and commend her for bringing it to the House. I do know from having debated Jan prior to the last election in my very first ever debate—she may remember it at Auckland University where I was very much outnumbered by many people in the audience as well as speakers; it was a pretty tough night. But listening to her then and listening to her since then in the House I have great admiration for her hard work in making a difference in this space for her tenacity for her determination and for her passion.Domestic violence in this country is a great stain on our reputation and it is something that we need to take seriously. It's a significant and insidious issue that we must strive to reduce. Now the intentions of this bill on the face of it are very good and its aims are worthy of consideration. But just because something sounds good doesn't mean that it is good and when you delve down into this bill it is quite clear that the bill won't actually make any real difference despite its very good aims. As we've heard from a number of speakers tonight including Jan Logie herself there are a very small number of ratbag employers who will always exist and will continue to exist under this bill.Most businesses—99 percent of businesses—are flexible. They give victims of domestic violence time off under the current legislation—and even above and beyond that—allowing people to see the police to get their kids sorted and their lives in order. But for the very very small percentage of ratbag employers—as we've heard about tonight—this legislation won't make any difference because they will continue to be ratbag employers because this very bill gives them a huge out. New Part 69ABD—grounds for refusal of request by an employer—gives them an incredibly long list of outs. So while this bill sounds great and gives many rights to an employee it then takes that all away by saying Well ratbag employers can continue to be ratbag employers by using the refusal to request the application under this very legislation." So while we're putting this in place we're going back and taking it all away again.I was the chair of the business association the Browns Bay Business Association not the biggest business association in the country but they're a very important one in my electorate and—Hon Member: Vital.ERICA STANFORD: Vital. I would like to say that in dealing with all of those businesses I can say that they were all fantastic employers. They were decent human beings as Tracey Martin said and they looked after their employees. Most businesses in New Zealand do that already. For the very small percentage of ratbag employers they're going to continue to do that under this legislation. All we are doing is taking a giant stick to very good employers and smacking them about the head and saying "Well you're already doing a good job but here's some more compliance costs. Here are some more costs on your business even though you're already doing an amazing job." The very small percentage of ratbag employers will continue to be like that.The division between this side of the House and the other side basically boils down to a couple of points: that there is no clear evidence to show that employers aren't currently recognising and providing appropriate support. In fact the select committee heard from many employers who were doing a very good job. There was no real overwhelming evidence to show that there was in fact a problem to solve.Secondly the bill uses an incredibly wide definition of domestic violence which includes verbal abuse monetary pressure and other aspects that are difficult to define. On top of this wide definition the Government is proposing amendments to put no time limit on how long ago that domestic violence occurred. So we have no identifiable problem within our current legislation no reliable definition of domestic violence and no set time limit.While the spirit of this bill is commendable the current leave framework is working and there is no requirement for such a bill. We will not be supporting it. Thank you."