Dalziel Lianne: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6730] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Although the Labour Party will support the passage of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill we do remain disappointed in the Government’s decision to introduce two bills as opposed to the omnibus bill introduced by the previous Labour Government as the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. That bill is still on the Order Paper admittedly at the bottom of the Order Paper in the name of the Hon Annette King. The use of the two bills actually disguises the decision the Government has taken not to proceed with certain elements of the previous Labour Government’s bill and now that this second bill has been tabled we can see exactly what they are. The most significant differences that still remain absent from the two bills appear to be first the changing of the definition of “child” from under 17 years of age to under 18 years of age in the Domestic Violence Act. This would not only have allowed further compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child but would have aligned the Domestic Violence Act with the Care of Children Act. It makes no sense that the Government still leaves this out. 
The second difference is that the decision was made obviously by the Government not to require reasons to be given in writing when a “without notice” application for a protection order is declined by a judge. Again we have had absolutely no explanation from the Government as to why it has made the decision not to proceed with that recommendation. 
The third difference is the decision not to introduce information sessions despite all of the evidence around the fact that protection is best given in circumstances where an individual knows what he or she can access by way of support and if the person understands the nature of the threat that he or she faces. That is the one message that I do not believe that this House has actually picked up on yet—that most women who die at the hands of an intimate partner do so not knowing the nature of the threat they face. Sure they were frightened but did not really believe that their husband their partner their former husband or former partner would actually take that final step and kill them. And even if the women had been saying “I think he’s going to kill me.” deep down in their hearts they find it hard to believe that somebody who loved them once—and said that they loved them and continued often to say they loved them—would take their life. The Government’s decision not to introduce information sessions for the victims of domestic violence is a very dangerous decision to make and I hope that it is able to reflect on that when we get to the Child and Family Protection Bill—the second bill. 
The Government’s decision not to introduce funded addiction treatment services again despite all of the evidence around the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse— again I cannot understand why the Government would not proceed with that provision but that could be dealt with in the context of the second bill. 
Obviously Labour fully supports the provisions relating to police orders although I did think it was interesting that the Government decided to change the name of them to something based on the person who grants them as opposed to their purpose. They were called “safety orders” under the previous Labour Government’s bill and I think there is an important distinction and it explains some of the reason why there was concern about the orders being introduced in the first place. 
I do not think there is much difference in the time frame of them. Our bill said the duration period may not exceed 3 days; the Government’s bill says 5 days. We are happy to support that proposal. It is important for the House again to understand that this provision was not universally greeted with enthusiasm when it was first proposed by Labour in Government. I was the Minister of Women’s Affairs at the time and the women’s refuges and other groups were very concerned about the risks that these orders might pose. If I could just summarise their views—and I hope I do them justice because I do this by way of recall rather than having a particular document in front of me—one was about the victim’s consent to the order not being required. There was a real concern about the question of disempowerment: whether this was going to disempower people in terms of their ability to take control of what was often when they were victims of domestic violence a lack of control. 
There was a concern that police would not be sufficiently well-trained in the dynamics of domestic violence to assess the circumstances in which orders should be made. I know that the Government has said that it will put a lot of emphasis on training police to deal with these situations and we certainly look forward to seeing that happen. The third reason they were concerned that men would claim that women had been the instigators of the violence and would seek instant protection orders from the police and then coupled with the lack of training around the dynamics of domestic violence there was a concern that that would be a genuine fear to have. 
As a result of these concerns when I was Minister of Women’s Affairs I personally visited the police in Tasmania when I was over there for a meeting and I was very impressed with the approach that they had adopted. Interestingly in Tasmania it was an Attorney-General who spearheaded the law change which actually enables a police protection order to stand for an entire year and it does so for very good reasons. She had been determined to get this change in place because she had seen the horrific consequences of the failure to act even when the police had been involved. I know that representatives of Women’s Refuge visited another Australian state around the same time and gained a similar level of reassurance from the advice that it received. That is why when we started to talk about introducing these provisions the issue was a lot better received than it had been originally. The issue certainly has been thought through but these police safety orders will not protect people who do not come into contact with police. They just simply will not. I think everyone understands this and they also will not be effective if they are not backed up by realistic levels of support. 
My electorate has been shocked by the events of the past few weeks culminating in the death of Rebecca Somerville caused by her husband and the discovery of the body of Tisha Lowry a neighbour who had been missing for just over a year. I went with the community to the tapu-lifting ceremony before the police cordon was lifted the Monday before last. Can I say that the Christchurch police have been absolutely amazing. They have worked really closely with the community. They have been very respectful of their needs despite a detailed double-murder investigation and members can imagine how much effort has had to go into that. I went into the house with the floorboards gone in the kitchen where the bodies were found and the soil that had hidden those bodies—one for over a year as I say—lay very neatly arranged below us. It was deeply upsetting and I really cannot tell members how upsetting it was. I felt actually no comfort in being there but it was important to be there with the community with the mayor with the local councillor Chrissie Williams and the leaders in the community who were there to lift the tapu and to make the community whole. Can I say to the neighbours that it is right that they do not return to the house where a wall separates the house but not what was a grave but please respect the grief of the families of those who have died. Let people assist you but quietly and behind the scene because yours is not the most pressing need. 
I have already spoken to individuals about identifying the wider victims of crime in a situation like this. Neighbours are the victims of a crime such as this and it is important that we find ways to ensure that the news media are not the first people to notify neighbours of such tragedies. But the most important focus of our consideration and in the context of the bill is the question that must be how we stop these deaths from occurring. I am strongly of the view that we have to learn the lessons of the lives that have been lost. A police order would not have saved Rebecca Somerville’s life unless she had called them to her house to ensure her immediate safety. For the kinds of intervention we have to put in place we have to learn from the experience of the police who have been going to these kinds of cases over and over again. I have seen the checklist that the police have put together. It shows that there are signs that can be looked for that show increasing levels of violence and the much higher likelihood of them leading to death. We have to learn these lessons or we will be condemned as a community to continue to see them being repeated. 
It is absolutely critical that the bill strengthens the sentencing provisions for breaches of protection orders but I come back to the fact that courses for the offender for stopping violence are not the most effective intervention; it is empowering the victims of violence so that they are able to have the strength to get away from a situation that will clearly be more dangerous to them than anything else they could have imagined. It is very important that we take a holistic approach to domestic violence. I am hoping that as a Parliament we can make these changes but it is not just the law that will do that.