Prasad Rajen: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
Prasad Rajen: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14757] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call and I also have put on my green bandana to show my support for CanTeen—young people living with cancer—this week. I really acknowledge the work of many of the young people who also work with other young people who are suffering from cancer. 
The Child and Family Protection Bill is a very important bill—it is a crucial bill—for New Zealand because it addresses such a serious issue in our homes in our society and in our communities—the problem of domestic violence. The bill addresses a large number of aspects of domestic violence to do with children and I will come back to that as I speak to particular clauses. 
Too many lives in our country are affected by domestic violence. Having worked in this area for a long period and having led the Families Commission through the It’s Not OK campaign and the work behind that one begins to realise what a serious issue this is in New Zealand society. Any work that the Government does and any work it has done to reduce violence in our society and to address it is strongly supported by members on this side of the Chamber. We need only to consider that in 2008 82692 incidents involving some form of domestic violence occurred. The figures are astronomical—4 to 10 percent of New Zealand children have experienced physical abuse. These are the kinds of matters that the provisions of this bill address. In 2007 6400 children were involved in applications for protection orders which are a major aspect of the provisions of this bill as well. New Zealand’s performance compared with other OECD countries particularly when it comes to child deaths is abysmal. The cost of this to the country as evaluated by Every Child Counts is over $2 billion. So this is an important bill for those particular reasons. 
The bill introduces a number of important provisions. It makes changes to three Acts in order to protect the children who are victims of domestic violence. Clause 6 amends section 16 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. It makes clear that a protection order applies for the benefit of a child of an applicant until the age of 17—and that is an important part—unless the order is discharged. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended amending clause 6 to provide that a child of the applicant’s family would not be required to apply to the court for a direction that the protection order continue to apply for his or her benefit after turning 17 years of age while the child continues to ordinarily or periodically reside with the applicant. 
There is an important amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to the bill to change the age to 18 years. Another amendment to clause 6 in the name of Lynne Pillay states that the protection order should extend to when a child no longer wishes to be subject to it. Those are very very important aspects of this bill which are missing at the moment. Those are its shortcomings. As the previous speaker and my colleague Jacinda Ardern said this is an opportunity to address those aspects of the bill. The Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy needs to explain why that is not possible and what the difficulties are with that. This is an important opportunity to explain that aspect. 
The bill also amends the Care of Children Act 2004. Perhaps the most satisfying aspect of the provisions here is the inclusion of psychological abuse. Psychological abuse is one of those silent killers that one sees so often yet because it leaves no marks and no visible signs of abuse there are few provisions to address it. The knowledge that it will now be one of the important aspects that the Family Court will take into account is also an important aspect of this bill. 
I am also pleased having worked in the adoption area myself over the years that the bill addresses some of the issues under the Adoption Act and will address some of the international matters that need to be addressed. I am pleased to see that as well. But perhaps the disappointment with this bill is that the opportunity has not been taken for a comprehensive examination of this matter. Thank you.