Ardern Jacinda: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6744] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I too am pleased to take a call on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and particularly as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee to comment on some of the recommendations and changes that have been made by the committee. 
I think all the speakers who have spoken before me have highlighted the importance of this bill. The statistics that we have heard reported are an indictment on this country and also an indictment upon all of us if we do not act in our roles as politicians and community leaders in doing what we can from a legislative perspective to address the issue of domestic violence. It is true that there have been 80000 recorded incidents of family violence per year and 39 percent of our homicides are related to family violence. This bill is intended to go some way towards acting as a preventive tool in addressing that issue. 
Before I continue I thank the officials who were involved with the work of the select committee particularly because the select committee chose to take a very pragmatic approach in the way it discussed the bill. Committee members wanted to know how it would work in practice and to test whether the various layers we were adding in would complicate the way this process would be used in a practical context. It was very important for instance that we had the input of the police and front-line workers to establish that we were going down the right path. Equally I acknowledge all of those who submitted to the select committee. Their submissions added the detail the knowledge the understanding and the perspective that we needed as members of the select committee to make sure that we were addressing all variations that manifest in domestic violence situations. I also thank very briefly the chair Chester Borrows. He managed the select committee well; we had robust discussion and most important he chaired it in a very constructive way. 
I want to highlight though those areas in which we in Labour continue to feel some disappointment and some disagreement with the Government on the way it has chosen to progress this particular part of what is a much wider package of policies to address the issue of domestic violence. I think we have lost an opportunity despite the assurances given by Minister Power—for instance in the application of the rules on age as they relate to children. We continue to advocate that the definition of a “child” be 18 and under as opposed to 17 and under. We have always pointed out that this is not only a consistency issue but an issue of international obligation. I find it ironic that Minister Power explained that the reason for the delay of the second bill the Child and Family Protection Bill was so that the Government could ensure that it used that opportunity to make sure the legislation was compliant with the optional protocol to the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why then are we ignoring the fact that we are not compliant with that convention? It is entirely inconsistent that this is a reason to delay one bill but not on the other hand a reason to address an ongoing issue. We continue to call for that consistency. My second disappointment is as my colleague Lianne Dalziel pointed out the lost opportunity around the compulsion of addiction programmes. She has already highlighted the linkage between domestic violence and substance abuse. Again this was a prime opportunity to add an extra layer into this Government and this country’s policies on domestic violence. 
Having said all of that I think it might be helpful if I spend a little time going over some of the more significant changes and the issues that the select committee addressed in order to give some context particularly to those who later on will be implementing these new provisions in the field. The select committee chose to change the name of the safety orders that we were looking at which are brand new powers given to the police. We chose to call them police safety orders. We wanted the distinction to be very clear. We wanted to be clear that these are not long-term protection orders. We wanted to ensure that was clear also through highlighting the need for these orders to be explained at the time they are issued. I highlight again the importance of distinguishing between these orders and the longer-term orders. 
The length of the orders also consumed the select committee for quite some time. Previously Labour when in Government had looked at a period of 3 days. We resolved at the end of hearing all of the submissions from different organisations that up to 5 days was a better length of time. The primary reasons for that resolution were twofold. One was to ensure that women had the opportunity and the time to seek additional support advice and access to the courts if required if they wanted to put in place a more enduring order to ensure their protection. But also it was an acknowledgment of the fact that New Zealand is a rural and provincial country. Access to some of these services is limited particularly over weekends and public holidays as my colleague Sue Moroney has pointed out. The issues that we discussed around timing highlighted again for the committee that although the purpose of these new orders is to provide an intervention to provide a tool for prevention to allow a cool-off and to allow women to consider their options and seek further assistance there are still significant barriers for rural women in that regard. We discussed this with Women’s Refuge and it too acknowledged that there is a need for its service provision to be much broader and much wider and it is looking at ways to do that. I think this highlights that we do not just have legislative tools available to tackle this issue; we have community-based ones and they need our ongoing support if they are to plug the gaps that legislation can never fill. 
I want to cover off three other quick issues. They are addressed in the commentary on the bill by the select committee. One is the fact that the committee grappled with the issue of who these temporary protection orders could be issued against. We decided that for the sake of consistency we needed to amend new section 124B(1) to include partners from previous relationships. That brings this bill into alignment with the Domestic Violence Act and I think that is important. We also removed one of the conditions when issuing one of these temporary orders which was the word “immediate”. We felt that two words in this legislation—the words “immediate” and “serious”— were very imprecise and potentially very very subjective and may mean that there would be confusion for those constables issuing the orders which may mean they miss opportunities where in fact an order might be necessary. Let us be clear. When it comes to the police they will be the ultimate arbiters of who may receive these orders. They hold one of the most critical roles in the implementation of this legislation. We discussed as a committee the importance of the police having adequate training to identify aggressors and to identify whom it is most appropriate that these orders are issued against and in what situations. 
We have to remember that we are implementing here as a Parliament a preventive order. A crime in itself will not have been committed when one of these orders is issued; it is a very different tool. That fact provided the select committee with quite a lot of discussion around not only how we empower the police to make sure they get this right but also how we deal with the spin-off. How do we make sure this legislation is implemented properly when we are requiring the creation of offences—new offences—if the provisions of these orders are broken? Even if the police safety order is not issued for a criminal offence a criminal offence would be committed if there was non-compliance with that order. That was quite a tricky issue for us to deal with but I think we got it right. 
I finish by again highlighting that we cannot stop at legislative tools alone when we address issues of domestic violence. We have a long way to go and it will include further policy but also it must include further empowerment of those community groups working in our communities who are ultimately the ones ensuring that women in particular and children have the support they need to rid this country of domestic violence.