Dyson Ruth: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7352. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I will begin by acknowledging the member who has just resumed his seat. Not only was that a considered contribution to this very important debate but also I understand that he was very well regarded as chair of the committee not just in the way he dealt with other members of the committee but also in the way he dealt with submitters and I acknowledge him for that. I am not likely to do that often given his current political affiliation but when it is warranted I certainly will. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just wait! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is right. When he moves on from that position we never know what might happen. 
I acknowledge the Hon Annette King who put a huge amount of work into preparing the Domestic Violence Reform Bill and also all the officials who worked so hard not just with Annette King when she was Minister but also with community organisations up and down the country to make sure that that bill had really strong input from people who knew the outcome they wanted. There is no debate about the outcome that is required but these issues are not always as straightforward as they seem. The bill that Annette King introduced to the House was the result of widespread community consultation and that is the point that I want the Minister to reflect on before he takes the next call. 
I will add that it was one of the few pieces of legislation that went to the cross-party family violence prevention group which had every single party in Parliament tragically with the exception of National represented on it. That cross-party group looked at various options in terms of enhancing safety in the home and supported the progress of the bill. It certainly is not often that we have people like Heather Roy Tariana Turia Sue Bradford and Judy Turner in the room together all working on one cause with a great deal of passion and commitment. I regret that National left the group and did not come back because it was an opportunity that was lost. 
The original bill came forward with a lot of support from both outside and within this Parliament. Part of the bill that I am referring to the Domestic Violence Reform Bill has been picked up by the Minister Simon Power and I acknowledge his commitment. I have no doubt about his personal commitment to enhancing safety in the home and I acknowledge that as well. But I find it quite puzzling that despite him introducing a second bill there are still quite important issues from the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill that have been omitted. Frankly if we have an opportunity as a Parliament to make our homes safer for everyone and particularly for women and children why would we throw away that chance? That is the question I want the Minister to answer. There was a bill already before Parliament that had majority support in this House without doubt. There may have been some small parts of it that could have been debated but I doubt even that. 
The Minister went to all the trouble of introducing his own bill which took part of that original bill and sent it to select committee and then went to another lot of bother to introduce a second bill. Still he missed out four quite important parts of the original domestic violence reform legislation. Why would anyone want to reduce safety by taking away some of the key elements? That is what I would like the Minister to answer because it seriously is a puzzle to me. 
My colleague Jacinda Ardern outlined some of the concerns that were raised both by members of the select committee and by submitters to it. I want to proceed with asking the Minister directly for his views on the four points that have been omitted in both pieces of legislation and that were in the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill. The first omission is changing the definition of a child from under 17 years of age to under 18 years of age in the Domestic Violence Act. Obviously that would give us compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and that is a good thing. It does not improve anyone’s safety but it is always good to sign up to United Nations conventions when we can and when it makes sense for our nation. It also would align the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act. It is very puzzling that a Minister who is generally regarded as having quite a lot of rigour showing attention to detail and common sense would waive the opportunity to make a very straightforward move aligning the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act; it puzzles me. 
The second omission was the decision that has specifically been made to not require reasons to be given in writing when a without notice application for a protection order is declined by a judge. To the best of my knowledge there has been no explanation from the Government as to why it specifically made the decision not to proceed with including that provision in the legislation. Again this is something that was worked through by experts in the field by people who are survivors of domestic violence and by people who support them to move from being a victim to being a survivor. It was worked through with the police and the Ministry of Justice—the people who know what they are talking about. This was the advice that was given to us; we took it from the best sources. But the Minister said: “No I’m not going to do that.” Once again it is a big puzzle and I would like the Minister to take what will be one of the last chances to explain that second puzzle to me. 
The third omission from the original legislation was the decision not to introduce information sessions. That is contrary to all the evidence around the fact that protection is best given in a situation where an individual knows how he or she can access support and that person also understands the nature of the threat that he or she may be faced with in the future. That message does not seem to be understood by the Government even though people in our country die at the hands of partners who often have quite recently professed to love them. They have been frightened and they did not understand what may happen to them. Information sessions are a critical part of enhancing an individual’s safety. We literally have people in our nation killed and we may have an opportunity to enhance the safety of someone who could be in that situation tonight. I know the Minister is committed to that aim. I cannot understand why he took that information session provision out of the original legislation because once again it was on best advice that that was included. I hope that this is not a political party issue. I am sure that every single member in this House wants to enhance the safety of individuals particularly within their own homes. Once again I ask the Minister whether he could please explain to the Committee why he did not take the advice that Labour was given when in Government to include those information sessions as part of the legislation. 
The fourth point is the Government’s specific decision not to introduce funded addiction treatment services and again that is despite overwhelming evidence about the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. I cannot fathom why that specific recommendation has been taken out. It is a huge contributor to enhancing safety not only in the home but also in our broader community. In my view it is not too late for the Minister to say that he has changed his mind and introduce some amendments. Labour would support those particular provisions being put back in the legislation. The Minister is able to provide Supplementary Order Papers at a moment’s notice. He has the advantage of having some extraordinarily competent officials on hand. They may well have those amendments drafted just in case the Minister decides that the best evidence is worth taking and that doing every single thing we can to enhance safety in the home is worth pursuing. 
Despite those omissions the parts of the Hon Annette King’s legislation that the Minister has taken on board are very good. I hope they achieve the aims that we all share to ensure that fewer children fewer women and fewer men are harmed by those who should give them the security and the love that they deserve within their own homes.