Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It is with great pleasure absolute privilege and indeed goose bumps that I rise to speak to the Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill at its third reading. I'll do a quick summary as to what this bill does because it's so very important.Many of us in this House—indeed we come to this place to make changes like this one changes that will protect lives. This bill supports victim/survivors through paid leave and flexible working arrangements to have the stability and indeed the freedom to escape violence. This bill is one that benefits us all: victim/survivors members of the community our employers—it keeps us all safe. Why is this bill important? Why are we on this side of the House so adamant in our support of it? Firstly we've heard members before me who have spoken about the horrific rates of domestic violence in New Zealand and the fact that it's incumbent upon all of us to do everything we can to eliminate it.Domestic violence is a scourge. It takes many forms. It can be physical sexual emotional or financial. It affects us across ethnicities and socio-economic status regardless of education levels where we are who we might be and where we might have come from. It's not just isolated incidents of violence as some members have said. It's actually a pattern of power and control and that's an incredibly important point when we look at the context within which this bill sits. Typically women and definitely women I've worked with over the course of my working life—many don't actually want to leave necessarily. Many just want the violence to stop but are forced to leave because in many cases leaving is the only option available to them to keep themselves and their children safe.This bill plays an incredibly important role in taking away one of the barriers that prevents women from leaving and that's the financial barrier. This bill enables them to stay in paid employment. It also does something else that's incredibly important: it provides safeguards for them at work. It allows them to request flexible work arrangements and leave to deal with some of the consequences of the violence that women have to deal with—and I say women" because unlike the previous member who spoke Barbara Kuriger I absolutely believe the stats that tell us that this is a gendered issue; that predominantly women are victim/survivors of violence. It doesn't mean that we don't stand against all forms of violence but that's what the statistics tell us. If we don't acknowledge that we will never fully acknowledge the drivers of domestic violence in this country.Now women I've worked with over the course of many years when it gets to that point that they've got to leave the abusive relationship and break the cycle of domestic violence perhaps go to a refuge and there are a number of concerns at that point. One of course is to deal with the fact that this is actually happening—that they've actually got to leave to keep themselves safe—and that's massive. The other is some of the practical concerns—children's schooling getting the medical or the legal help that they need—and that takes time.At this point I want to bring in some of the voices of the women who have been victim/survivors of violence. I want to thank Ann Simmons who was a nurse and who spoke about losing her job after being subjected to violence including rape at the hands of her partner. She spoke to members of the Justice and Electoral Committee as it was then in the previous Parliament on behalf of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. She recalled the experience of a woman with two young children who came home from an afternoon shift as a nurse an hour later than expected. The busy shift was not an excuse her partner would accept. He punched her in the face and in the stomach threw her across the room and raped her. Soon after he passed out as he was extremely drunk she told the committee. The woman's partner was arrested and charged but was released once he sobered up and he was still incredibly dangerous she said. She needed to tell her boss she couldn't go to work. A white university graduate woman with two children needed to say "I am the victim of domestic violence and I cannot come to work." That is so hard to do. She had no annual leave. She had used most of her sick leave due to previous assaults and staying at home to protect her children. Her work suggested she resign. If there had been any leave available to her she may have been able to hold on to her job and not become yet another solo mum on the DPB. She says "This story is me." and that is typical of the stories of women who need this bill to stay safe and indeed in many cases not to be killed. The time when a woman leaves the abusive relationship is often the most dangerous for her. I recall the faces of two women specifically who I worked with both of whom had come to Shakti's refuge where I worked. Because of the horrific violence that they had gone through they needed some time to deal with the consequences and asked if I would speak to their employers on their behalf to get them that leave that they needed—some compassionate leave for them to have that space and that time. One worked with a rather large employer a hotel chain and another with a small business. Both employers understood the positions that they were in and said yes. They were lucky. But it shouldn't be the luck of the draw. I acknowledge the many businesses in New Zealand like Countdown The Warehouse ANZ and others who already make provisions to support victims of domestic violence but it shouldn't be the luck of the draw.At this point I just want to counter some of the many myths that members opposite have raised or touched upon in their speeches tonight. The first is Alfred Ngaro who talked about the fact that they on that side of the House support flexible working hours or arrangements. The member might have had a memory lapse because back in 2009 when former Green MP Sue Kedgley had her flexible working arrangements bill which helped to break down some of those rigid and inflexible working hours to allow employees to balance paid work and caring responsibilities what did National MPs do? They voted against. What was their rationale for voting against? They opposed the bill saying that legislation was unnecessary and working conditions were best sorted out in negotiations between the employer and the employee. National MPs argued that many workplaces and sectors were not suitable for flexible working arrangements and that employers would be placed in an impossible position. That seems to be the standard response from that side of the House any time we talk about flexible working arrangements. So if any National MP lauds the fact and claims the credit that they championed flexible working arrangements I say maybe have a think about their memory loss.Some of the more common concerns raised from members opposite were the fact that there are already leave provisions that women can avail themselves of. But there's only sick leave bereavement leave and annual leave and none of those apply. Why should a woman who has been subjected to violence and who has probably—in the case of Ann Simmons for example—already used sick leave and annual leave—what is she supposed to do? What leave does she have left to use?Before I end there are many people to thank. But I want to thank many who are in the gallery today and many who are not for the work that they have done in championing this bill: the unions; the domestic violence prevention sector; the NGOs that have supported; businesses that support; all those who submitted to the select committee; Dr Jackie Blue for her work in pushing this bill through as well; officials who've worked on this; the Minister of Justice Andrew Little for his support; and absolutely last but not least the member Jan Logie. For your bravery for the courage that it takes to stand time and again and push for this for the work that you've done tirelessly across both select committees and for seeing this bill through to this day—I am incredibly proud to be a member of Parliament on this side of the House to stand alongside you and all of those who have worked to get this bill to where we are today to stand on the correct side of history and to commend this bill to the House. Thank you."