Moroney Sue: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 July 2011. Volume:674;Page:20149. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It was very useful to listen to that very good contribution from my colleague Ruth Dyson who gave the background to Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill which one could say precedes the Child and Family Protection Bill. 
I think it is very relevant and very appropriate that we are debating the Committee stage of this bill on the eve of the school holidays because I know that for far too many children this time may not be one they particularly look forward to. Many of our children particularly at this time are very much looking forward to the school holidays because this term has been an incredibly long term given that things have been changed around for the Rugby World Cup. I think that many families are thinking: “Good grief! How many more sleeps before our children get a rest. It’s been a very very long school term indeed.” But for far too many children the prospect of spending more time at home amidst violence will be a very very hard prospect indeed. 
I say at the outset that I am concerned about the sheer length of time it has taken for this bill to make its way even to the Committee stage and how much faster the legislative process could have been if the Government had simply picked up Annette King’s bill which as we have already heard was already on the Order Paper but has languished there ever since the change of Government. We could have made much quicker progress on not only the issues addressed by this bill but also a whole range of other issues that would strengthen and protect children in violent situations much more than the current bill does. 
I think the legislative history of this bill tells us everything we need to know about the priority and the speed that the Government places on this particular issue. I know the Government will say it is a top priority for it to protect children but this bill was first introduced on 20 August 2009—20 August 2009—yet here we are nearly at the end of the parliamentary term and we are only in the Committee stage. I think that is an indictment on the priority that this Government places on this very serious issue. The Government had choices. It had choices to make about which legislation it would use this parliamentary term to make progress on and sadly this bill has not been at the top of that list. 
This bill had its first reading on 11 February 2010. It was then referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee and public submissions were called for. Those submissions closed on 1 April 2010. The select committee did its work in a timely fashion. It reported back to the House on 10 August 2010. The second reading happened quickly thereafter; on 9 September 2010 the second reading of this bill happened. The Committee of the whole House which is the stage we are in at the moment also started in a timely fashion; 21 October 2010 was when we started the stage we are debating today. But what has happened in the interim? Fast forward to July 2011 and we are still debating the Committee stage of this bill. The Government could have chosen to have the Committee stage over and done with by now if it really wanted to prioritise this bill. 
There were other pieces of legislation and gosh I could name a handful of them just standing here—like the national standards legislation which suddenly we had to put through under urgency. That legislation could have been left aside. This Child and Family Protection Bill does much more for children than the national standards legislation ever will do yet that legislation was pushed through under urgency. Annette King’s very good domestic violence bill languishes on the Order Paper but then the Government’s own watered-down version of that bill has done the same thing. I would like to hear from members opposite what was so important what was so much more important than the protection of children that meant this bill did not come back and proceed through its Committee of the whole House stage in that period. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before I call the member again I tell her we are in the Committee stage. She needs to concentrate on what is in the bill not the historical background—that is what a first reading speech is about. Please concentrate on what is in the bill. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Here we are in the Committee stage and I say that despite the concerns about how long it has taken to get here and despite the fact that we believe there is currently a much stronger bill on the Order Paper Labour supports this legislation. However we think the Government should be doing more to prevent domestic violence and to mitigate its harms. 
Stopping family violence and preventing those tragedies of child and partner deaths in New Zealand is an urgent priority for all of us. As well as progressing this bill the Government has progressed other domestic violence legislation such as the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and it has introduced on-the-spot protection orders which were also originally provided for in Labour’s bill. However there are some major omissions from the Child and Family Protection Bill. The Government has claimed in previous readings of this bill that it does not have the resources to progress the other provisions but strangely enough it does have the resources to give tax cuts to the wealthiest chunk of New Zealanders. I think that again demonstrates exactly where the Government’s priorities are. 
It was really interesting to hear Ruth Dyson talk about the cross-party working-group that she brought together which underpinned the development of this and other legislation because it is actually quite different today. That was when Labour was in Government and Labour actually asked for a cross-party group in the interests of children. Today we have had every other party wanting to form a cross-party group in the interests of children and the governing party National is the only one to say no it will not take part in a cross-party forum. I think it is time that the Government put aside party politics to actually work with other parties to get the very best legislation we can. I urge Government members to show a sign that they are capable of doing that by supporting Supplementary Order Papers 179 and 178 put forward by my colleagues Jacinda Ardern and Lynne Pillay respectively. The Government says it will address those issues at some other time but—for goodness’ sake—the Government is running out of time. An election has been called for 26 November. What other time will the Government take to actually pick up those issues if not now? It has the perfect opportunity to do that right here right now today by supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that will strengthen this bill. They will actually strengthen it in order to protect children because that is what we are talking about here. 
A number of important changes have been missed out. We do not have Supplementary Order Papers on all of them but one of them is Labour’s amendment that would change the definition of “child” in the Domestic Violence Act to be someone under the age of 18 to make it in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Currently a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18. That is the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 179 which Jacinda Ardern has put forward. We heard Chester Borrows say earlier that National members are ideologically opposed to it but I did not hear why. I got the fact they were ideologically opposed to it but heard no practical example of what National would do with regard to the protection of children. That is what we are trying to do here: we are trying to offer the maximum protection possible. I am sorry but the explanation that children can choose to leave home at 16 years old does not actually cut it for me I tell Mr Borrows. What is wrong with affording them continued protection even after they have the right to leave home? I think we all know of very sad situations in which exactly that protection is needed. For those young people in a violent situation with a violent parent leaving home does not necessarily remove them from that harm. That is what we are trying to resolve here. What Labour is desperately trying to resolve is to make sure that up to the age of 18—only 18—they can have that protection. But the Government is saying no they can have that protection only up to the age of 17. I think that is wrong. The Government will need to put its hand up if something terrible happens to someone between those ages because the Government has been unable afford them that protection because it was too short-sighted and too pigheaded.