Dyson Ruth: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7357. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am looking forward to hearing the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power take a brief call. I encourage him to do so because he still has not addressed the questions I raised earlier in the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and those same questions apply to Part 2 which we are now debating. I heard the earlier contribution from the Minister and I thought that it was considered in the main. Some parts of it were quite amusing especially the Chester Borrows fan club section of his contribution but I have serious questions. The Minister is well regarded for taking issues from whatever political party as seriously as they are presented to him. So I say to him quite directly that I am still puzzled about the Government’s reasons for omitting four quite important sections from the Hon Annette King’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill. 
I will refresh the Minister’s memory from the earlier debate. The application of this bill to the Sentencing Act will be very well known to him; he will be familiar with the Sentencing Act I am sure and he will understand how the four points I raise apply to Part 2. These are provisions that the Hon Annette King included in the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. That legislation was well consulted around the country and had overwhelming support from the experts and key players in this area. 
Four provisions of that bill have been omitted from this bill. The first omission is that this bill does not change the definition of a child from a person who is under 17 years of age to a person who is under 18 years of age. The definition in the Domestic Violence Act as noted in new section 123A of the Sentencing Act inserted by clause 9 still applies. The opportunity to align this legislation with the Care of Children Act should have been irresistible. The proposed provision made sense and had wide-ranging support but the Minister decided to leave it out. That makes no sense at all. The second omission —again a specific decision made by the Minister—is that this bill does not require a judge to give reasons in writing when he or she declines a without-notice application for a protection order. That was not an oversight; it was a deliberate specific decision that was signed off by the Minister. From my perspective it is extremely puzzling. The Minister has made no attempt to explain why the decision was made to omit that. 
The third omission is that this bill does not introduce information sessions. In my earlier contribution I explained the importance of that aspect in the protection of women in particular who do not necessarily understand the relationship they are in and the different tack it can take. It is very hard for people who have not been in a violent relationship to understand how a person can still live with somebody who is violent with him or her. An information session is critical for people in their understanding of their relationships and in being able to determine key risk factors for the future. The fourth omission is that this bill does not introduce funded addiction treatment services despite overwhelming evidence about the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. 
I know that we are in urgency and that the Government is under a huge amount of pressure from the extensive legislative timetable it has ahead of it but I consider that the Committee would benefit hugely if the Minister were to spend 5 minutes of his time explaining what he has against those four provisions of the Domestic Violence Reform Bill—and it is still on the Order Paper—that have been omitted not just from this bill but also from the related bill that the Minister introduced. 
Those provisions should be in this bill; those amendments should be consistent with the provisions of the reform bill. The Minister did not need to pass over the Hon Annette King’s bill. He could have short-cut all the systems and just put his name on it. He must have a good reason not to give those protections to women and children who right now right at this very minute as we debate this bill are living in dangerous situations. Why has the Minister not taken that chance? 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 
 agreed to.