Pillay Lynne: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:984] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 First I congratulate the Government. This is the first time since this Parliament began that we have debated under urgency a bill—the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill—that will be referred to a select committee so that the public can have a say on it. I acknowledge that that is a good thing. This is also the first bill this Parliament has seen that does not take a major step backwards; that has been very sad to see in this House over the last 2 weeks. 
I register my disappointment but firstly I congratulate Lianne Dalziel on a fantastic speech and more important on the very constructive proposal she put to the House that this bill be accompanied by Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill which is far more comprehensive. It is the culmination of so much work and it would do so much more towards addressing domestic violence and giving more support to women and families in our country than the current bill. I am very very disappointed about that. I note that Simon Power made some commitment towards engaging with and working on this bill but National’s very next move denied the opportunity for a more comprehensive bill and for more ideas to be considered. That is disappointing. 
The Labour Government did so much work around the issue of domestic violence. As I said before I pay tribute to Lianne Dalziel a former Minister of Women’s Affairs—a position I have to say that a while ago National did not think was even necessary—and the Hon Annette King who put so much time and energy into working with the justice sector. All of that feedback was incorporated into the Labour Government’s bill. Under Labour a family violence ministerial team was established to work with all stakeholders in the State sector and across the myriad of non-governmental organisations that work at the coalface. I acknowledge in this House all those organisations and the absolutely fantastic and wonderful work that they do whether they are women’s groups that educate and empower women family organisations that work with families in education and that support and promote alternatives to violence or our schools in terms of the implementation of many anti-bullying messages. 
The previous Labour Government introduced all these initiatives to raise awareness and to say that violence is not OK. I also acknowledge the refuges and emergency houses that provide a safe haven for women but more than that provide the opportunity for women to begin the recovery process—not just physically but more important emotionally and psychologically. That happens day after day in our communities. I know that many organisations have said to the Government that they are most appreciative of the support they have received. I urge the National Government to continue the commitment to support those organisations and the work they do. 
All of that work culminated in the Government’s commitment to strengthening the Domestic Violence Act. I want to talk just a little about some of the things that are missing from that Act. When the Act was reviewed one of the key proposals—which obviously this bill addresses—was short-term safety orders. Other proposals were strengthening the penalty system; providing victims of domestic violence with more information when the court declines an application for protection orders; requiring the Family Court to scrutinise more carefully applications for discharging a protection order; requiring criminal courts to consider making a protection order on behalf of a victim; improving access to programmes for respondents protected persons and their children; and ensuring further consistency between the Act and the work that is done in the courts. 
I also comment on where this bill is sadly lacking: on the definition of “child” which may seem quite a small issue. The bill is very light on this—it is not only light; it does not address it. If as Lianne Dalziel pushed for the bill had gone to a select committee then far more comprehensive and important things would have been addressed. Simply changing the definition of a child from “under the age of 17 years” to “under the age of 18 years” which lines up with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child would give so much more protection to minors: it would mean that they could apply for protection orders in their own right. It is very sad that that has not been addressed. 
I see Chester Borrows in the House today. He sat with me on the Justice and Electoral Committee as it heard submissions on section 59 of the Crimes Act. I hope that the select committee will address this bill in a very constructive and non-partisan way so that we can address many of the discrepancies and initiatives that are lacking in it. 
Also missing is the empowerment of the court to make interim care or contact orders to protect the welfare and best interests of the child where an applicant with a child applies for a protection order. We want to require a judge declining an application without notice for a protection order to provide written reasons. We also want to make provision in the legislation for applicants for protection orders to be able to attend information sessions that will provide information about making effective use of protection orders and provide advice on social assistance that may be available. Also missing is the power to direct attendance of an addiction treatment programme. The bill does not include an amendment to the Care of Children Act to extend the definition of “violence” in section 58 to include psychological abuse and to extend the coverage in section 59(1) beyond cases where allegations of violence are made to any case where there is a current protection order in force against one of the parties for the protection of the child or the other party. 
These are all very very important parts of the previous Government’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill which was so much more comprehensive than the bill before the House. The public—and I am talking about all organisations—made comprehensive submissions on it through the select committee process. It really saddens me that despite the rhetoric and the words that bill will not accompany this one. I would urge the Government to reconsider that. It is not too late; there are many more speeches to come from Government members and perhaps during the course of this debate it could reconsider its position. 
Domestic violence is up there with the most abhorrent crimes in our communities and our society. To address the problem we have to own the problem. We have to own the problem within our communities and as a nation. The previous Labour Government—and I say this with real pride—really pushed for public discussion on all aspects of domestic violence. I acknowledge all the strong women who have told their stories. It is a very hard and painful thing to do; it means reliving their experience of abuse. But they do it because they see how vital it is for every member of our society to say out loud—and to know without any doubt whatsoever—that violence is not OK. It is the responsibility of all members of our society to speak out and to report if they see violence occurring or if they believe that violence is occurring. I know that this public discussion would not have happened if the previous Labour-led Government had not raised awareness. That is something that I am really proud of. I support this bill. Thank you.