Moroney Sue: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
Moroney Sue: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6739] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 On Saturday New Zealand celebrated 116 years since women won the right to vote in this country and it was a hard fight to win. I have been sitting here listening to the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and wondering whether Kate Sheppard and the other suffragettes would have anticipated that some 116 years later these issues would be before our Parliament. I imagine that they thought that having women involved in the political process able to vote and able to influence political decision making leading to women gaining roles in Parliament and becoming Ministers of the Crown would enhance the status of women and perhaps level the power balance and influence ideas about how women would be treated in New Zealand. I imagine that they would be somewhat devastated to listen to the debate we must have in this House today. 
I think it shows just how far we still have to go in terms of levelling the power imbalance. Although I do not want to diminish any sort of domestic violence whatsoever no matter who is involved the amount of domestic violence targeted towards women is much greater than that targeted towards men. It is a fact that not only the numbers but also the nature of the violence targeted towards women has more extreme outcomes than it does for men. Therefore I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the second reading of this bill because this is an issue that sadly primarily affects women in this country. 
When we hear as we did from the Green Party that there is one domestic violence event every 7 minutes in this country it is very sobering. It is shocking but I venture that perhaps there is a silver lining in that the police are called to a domestic violence event once 7 minutes in this country. I do not imagine for a minute that domestic violence was not a feature of New Zealand in Kate Sheppard’s day. I imagine that almost certainly it was a feature but that it was OK for that to happen in those days. 
The very successful campaign that has been running here in New Zealand with a range of community leaders saying that domestic or family violence in any form is not OK has I believe made a real difference. It has meant that women and others in family violence situations have been able to blow the whistle. It has given them the confidence to stand up and say that what is happening behind closed doors should not be happening and they are calling the correct authorities to have those issues dealt with. 
This bill is important in dealing with that situation in that it gives some more tools to those people primarily women who are in that situation. I particularly want to commend this bill for bringing forward the concept of police safety orders being able to be issued basically on the spot by police for issues of domestic violence. It has long seemed quite ironic to me that in a situation where domestic violence has occurred or where a woman more often than not has been beaten up it is the perpetrator—the violent offender—who gets to stay in the family home. The victim the woman who was being beaten is the one who has had to leave the family home sometimes with her children in tow. She is the one who has had all the inconvenience caused to her and who has moved out of that situation and into a women’s refuge. 
I do not suggest for a minute that that will not continue to happen because of course the primary concern is about the safety of the victim. In many circumstances the choice of the woman will be to seek refuge in a place apart from the family home but this gives another option for women—to choose to have the violent offender removed from the family home. It seems ironic that in a domestic violence situation the perpetrator of the violence gets to stay in the family home get up in the morning shower and go to work as if nothing has happened. It is the victim who has been completely removed from her natural environment and who has to make that readjustment through no fault of her own. I think this gives another option to that situation. 
It has also been really sad to hear through the course of this debate about the number of submitters who were concerned to increase the amount of days that the police safety order would continue in force. I was not on the select committee but having listened to the debate this afternoon it seems to me that many of the submitters were concerned about extending those days because of public holidays. That is a very sad commentary on what is happening in some of those homes. I think those submitters quite rightly pointed out that there was a spike in domestic violence around times that ought to be happy times for our families: public holidays Christmas New Year’s Eve and those sorts of celebrations. In fact what ends up happening as anyone who works in this field knows is that incidents of domestic violence go up at a time when our families should be happy in their own company. Although I applaud those submitters for bringing forward that issue and arguing for the extension I think the reasons why they brought that forward are a very sad reflection on our society. 
I think that this bill could have been stronger and it could have gone further. If this Government had picked up the work that the previous Government had done—in fact the work that is still sitting on the Order Paper and which the Government could choose to pick up right now—then we could have had an even better bill before Parliament and I would have felt even better about getting up and supporting this bill at its second reading. The big gap in this bill concerns the information sessions on gaining protection orders. Of course protection orders still remain and they should be pursued by people who are in a situation where the police safety order has already been put in place. But they still need information in order to learn how they can pursue a protection order which is not such a temporary measure and which can give them even more protection in that situation. 
This bill has also removed an issue that Labour wanted to pursue which was that victims would also receive advice on social assistance that they could seek in that situation. This is all about education and education is about empowerment. Because domestic violence is about power and control empowerment of the victim I believe is fundamental in helping to resolve this issue. 
I hope the Government will also reflect on what it has done in the education sector which I think will take us backwards in this area. Some of the cuts to adult and community education funding actually take us backwards in this area. For example in Hamilton the Alternatives to Violence Project is a very very good programme that has worked with violent offenders to get them to change their views and behave in a different way. It is one of the programmes that will be cut as a result of the adult and community education funding cuts. Yesterday I visited the Christchurch Women’s Centre and the staff there told me that every single one of the programmes that they held in order to empower women and raise women’s self-esteem were being cut through the adult and community education cuts. I think the Government should really reflect on not only this legislative measure but also the empowerment of women and what that means for reducing and stopping domestic violence because it seems to be going backwards on that front at the moment. 
As domestic violence increases in this country—or at least as the notifications increase—additional pressure is put on social services. So again I take this opportunity to ask the Government to reflect on its decision to stop the Pathways to Partnership funding which goes to those organisations that are at the front line in dealing with domestic violence. Those organisations are dealing with these increased numbers but the rug has been pulled out from underneath them with the cutting of funding for Pathways to Partnership which ensured that they had sustainable services going forward. 
In conclusion I support the words of my leader Phil Goff who said at our conference: “I will make it a priority to improve the quality of life that kids will have. Labour will support good parents and we will expect parents to do their bit too. I want more children to grow up in stable loving families with good parents with a steady income a good home and health care when they need it.” That is the sort of vision that we need going forward. We need to not just say it in words but also support it with the programmes that we are prepared to fund. We need to support it by supporting the social agencies that are working in this area. Certainly this legislation is one of the pathways but the speakers— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired.