Little Andrew: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13487. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): The issues in Part 2 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill are not extensive. It is a very important rewrite of crucial parts of the Domestic Violence Act and in principle there can be no objection to that. This part of the bill and the changes that it makes to the Domestic Violence Act include—which the Minister of Justice seems to have omitted in her comments—an amendment to the definition of “domestic violence” to now include “financial or economic abuse” as a new form of domestic violence. I think there is justification for that addition or at least for a clarification of what constitutes a form of violence.The redrafted provisions make a distinction between safety programmes that are programmes for victims of domestic violence and the part also provides for what are called non-violence programmes for alleged abusers or those who commit violence or domestic violence. As the Minister correctly pointed out there is now a registration process for service providers.The reason I wanted to take this call was to just make this point. This is not to detract from these elements of the bill but to say that there is a real risk under the redrafted provisions—as in fact there is today—of the credibility of these provisions being undermined if the District Court is not properly resourced to exercise its jurisdiction not only in granting protection orders and making orders in relation to safety programmesbut also in its safety valve role in ensuring that objections to the granting of protection orders can be properly heard.I simply want to relate the facts of a case that is known in New Zealand—and is in fact known to the Minister—where a man who was the subject of a protection order following an altercation between him and a former partner was then under police investigation for assault. He was the subject of an application for a protection order without notice which was granted. He was ordered to attend a non-violence programme. There was a 10-day objection period but because this was around Christmas time he missed the 10-day cut-off. He said that it was partly because of bad advice but in any event he missed it. It was then 4 months before he could have his objection heard. By that time the police had concluded the investigation into the alleged assault and found that not only was no assault committed but in fact the antagonist was the former partner who was held responsible for the altercation that occurred.By the time his objection was heard he was part-way through the non-violence programme having been told that if he failed to attend he would be subject to arrest. He is still to this day waiting for the court’s decision on whether or not the protection order was properly granted and whether he was required to attend a non-violence programme.I might add that he has completed the programme. He is a supporter of the Domestic Violence Act. He is a supporter of protection orders and the orders contained in the Act. But he has been dealt an unfair deal and been given a dirty blow because of the lack of resourcing of the courts and this Minister as the Minister of Justice is responsible for that. She has to understand that if the courts are not properly resourced then this sort of legislation which she sponsors will not be regarded with any great credibility. The credibility will be undermined. She needs the confidence and the support of the community for these sorts of measures to be properly supported and to work.I simply ask the Minister to please give us an assurance that when these sorts of applications are being provided for—when people’s liberties have the potential to be constrained—let us have the judicial safety valves in place properly resourced and able to deal with those sorts of objections. At the moment clearly there are people who are being treated unfairly and who are victims of injustice if those resources are not there in place. This provision of the bill these redrafts of these parts of the Domestic Violence Act will be given scorn and derision if those safety valves are not put in place. I simply ask the Minister to give us an assurance that people will not be treated unfairly when they are faced with these orders—these very important orders that are about securing people’s safety—if indeed the resources are not there.