Child and Family Protection Bill

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I move, That the Child and Family Protection Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its consideration of the bill. The committee received 23 submissions from interested groups and individuals and heard eight submissions, with the majority of submitters generally in support of the bill. I consider the committee’s recommended amendments increase the protection of children in domestic violence situations and clarify the intent of the bill. This Government acted swiftly to protect victims of domestic violence and ensure perpetrators are made accountable for their behaviour. The legislation arising from the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, and which we passed within our first year in office, strengthens the police response to domestic violence with the introduction of on-the-spot police safety orders. I am both pleased and saddened to report that between 1 July and 8 September approximately 700 police safety orders were issued.

The Child and Family Protection Bill is the next step in delivering on the Government’s ongoing commitment to strengthen the domestic violence legislation and enhance the protection of victims, particularly child victims. First, the bill makes changes to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to better provide protection for child victims of domestic violence. Specifically, the bill increases the existing protection order cover available for children who remain living with the applicant by allowing young people who have reached the age of 17 to apply to the court for continued cover. The select committee recommended that this provision be amended to provide automatic continuation of protection order cover for young people who remain living with the applicant after they turn 17. The Government agrees with this amendment, as it reduces the burden on the young person by removing the requirement to apply to the court for continued protection. I understand that the Labour and Green members of the committee suggested that children should continue to benefit from the protection orders when they no longer live with the applicant. The majority of the committee disagreed because it would deny young people leaving home permanently an active choice about the protection they require. There would also be a number of complex legislative and operational implications.

The bill also provides the court with a new discretion to offer an early opportunity to review care and contact arrangements where a temporary protection order is made. Some submitters raised concerns about the provision, stating that it would be unfair to expect an applicant to attend a review with the respondent so soon after a temporary protection order was made. The Government is confident these concerns are mitigated by the provision that neither the applicant nor the respondent has to be present at the review; they can be represented by their lawyer. The clause expressly states that the judge may make an order only if both the applicant and respondent attend or are represented at the review. In response to suggestions from submitters, the committee has recommended that the lawyer for a child appointed under the Care of Children Act, along with any other person the Family Court judge permits, such as a support person, can be expressly enabled to attend such a review.

Second, the bill makes changes to the Care of Children Act 2004 to provide greater clarity and flexibility regarding the protection of children. The bill amends the Act to adopt the definition of “violence” that is in the Domestic Violence Act, clarifying that “violence” means physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, and includes both direct and indirect abuse. I note the strong support for this amendment from submitters, and, more broadly, their support for the increased consistency between the two Acts. The bill also extends the existing provision for deciding parenting order applications where physical or sexual abuse is alleged against a party by incorporating the concept of psychological abuse. The bill ensures that where a protection order has been made against a party, including on the grounds of psychological abuse, the court will not grant the violent party care of, or contact with, a child unless the court is satisfied the child will be safe. I note there was also widespread support for this amendment, and I welcome the committee’s recommended amendments to the drafting to make the clause clearer.

Finally, the bill creates a new offence in the Adoption Act 1955 of improperly inducing consent for the adoption of a child, which is punishable by up to 7 years’ imprisonment. This is the last legislative amendment required for New Zealand to ratify the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. I support the committee’s recommendation to widen the offence to apply to agencies as well as to individuals. The Child and Family Protection Bill demonstrates this Government’s continuing commitment to improving the responsiveness of the courts to domestic violence and to enhancing the protection of children and families. It is with some pleasure and a huge amount of pride that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

It is my pleasure to rise and speak to the Child and Family Protection Bill, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered the bill. I will say up front that Labour will support the bill, as we support any measures that are aimed at preventing and mitigating the harm done by domestic violence.

It is fair that I also state up front that we continue to urge the Government to take up some of the other opportunities in respect of existing legislation in this incredibly important area. At this stage, I do not believe we have had an adequate response from the Government as to why it is unwilling to progress some of the legislation on the Order Paper. I will briefly highlight some of those bills. The Domestic Violence Reform Bill has not yet been progressed. When the Minister of Justice appeared before the select committee, we asked him why that bill has not been progressed. He stated that there are insufficient resources within the Ministry of Justice to pursue that particular bill. In fact, he gave that same reason for why provisions in legislation relating to the Family Court, which has already been passed by this House under Labour, have not yet been enacted. That legislation would give the Family Court the power to use registrars as mediators in order to reduce the caseload in the Family Court. Again, I would have thought that particular scenario would ultimately save time and money for the ministry, so I do not understand why the Government has not progressed that legislation.

I am also concerned that the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) is still languishing on the Order Paper, but I might come back to that one because it bears some relevance to this legislation.

I will talk briefly about some of the differences between the Child and Family Protection Bill and the Domestic Violence Act, because they demonstrate where there are still some obvious differences between where Labour and National would like to see us go. The Child and Family Protection Bill omits five important clauses that were included in the original legislation. One clause related to the definition of the age of a young person within domestic violence legislation, which is set out under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In this bill, a child is anyone under the age of 17. Labour has continued to push for that age to be lifted to 18 in line with our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That definition applies not just to domestic violence legislation but also to matters before the Youth Court. We continue to push for that age to be lifted, and we may see some amendments in that regard.

The Child and Family Protection Bill does not provide the court with the power to direct respondents to an addiction treatment programme. That provision may have been more fitting in respect of domestic violence legislation that we dealt with earlier in the year, but the issue was not addressed then, so I wish to raise it now, as it is the Opposition’s prerogative to do so.

Labour’s original domestic violence legislation introduced a provision requiring any judge who declined a without notice application for a protection order to at least provide a written reason for declining that application, and that would enable the applicant to decide whether to proceed on notice. I am interested to hear why the Government continues to cite resourcing as the reason for not pursuing that provision when the work has already been done—the bill exists.

Labour has also proposed to make provision for applicants to be able to attend information sessions that would provide advice on making effective use of protection orders and any social assistance that may be available. This issue is raised almost every time that we deal with domestic violence legislation. It was raised with regard to police safety orders. There is ongoing concern from the National Council of Women and Women’s Refuge that when we use tools of the law, we need to provide women with adequate information and support to navigate their way through the criminal justice system, because they undertake an incredibly difficult process to pursue forms of protection. Unfortunately, I have heard reports, in Auckland, in particular, that with regard to police safety orders, wraparound services are not being provided. Women fear taking out police safety orders because they are temporary. That concern was always discussed by the select committee, but our view was that we could mitigate that factor if women were provided with support to pursue a longer-term protection order during the 5 days that they were covered by the police safety order. Unfortunately, it seems, anecdotally, that that is not happening, and perhaps we, as members of this House, should be investigating that in our electorates.

As the Minister has pointed out, we are dealing with an incredibly large number of incidents through legislation like this. In 2008, police responded to over 82,000 incidents of domestic violence. Although I express my reservation that the Government is not going far enough with bills that have already been drafted, I am still pleased that we have this bill before us at this time.

I thought that it might be useful to talk in a little more detail about one of the clauses that has caused some disagreement between Government members and Opposition members. In some ways, this provision is not the most significant part of the bill, but it happens to be the provision on which there were divergent views. Clause 6 extends the protection of children under the Domestic Violence Act, amending section 16 of the Act to clarify how protection orders work for an applicant’s child who is under the age of 17.

The bill in its original form covered a child up until only the age of 17, not 18, and then the order immediately expired, regardless of where that child resided. Even if the child was still living at home under the care of the individual who took out the protection order, the protection order would expire because of the child’s age.

The committee decided that it would be useful to ensure that the protection order goes beyond that age if the child ordinarily or periodically continues to reside with the applicant. I think that was a good decision. However, Labour, and, I believe, the Greens, advocated that the provision go further. It was our view that if a child who ordinarily is covered by a protection order chooses to leave home and live independently, in many ways that child becomes more vulnerable, not less vulnerable. We agreed with a number of submitters who suggested that protection orders should continue to apply to a young person after he or she turned 17, whether or not he or she resides with the applicant. We also agreed that protection should be maintained until the young person decides that a protection order is no longer required. Opting out of a protection order is much simpler and much less bureaucratic than having a young person pursue a protection order in his or her own right. We will be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper on that matter. We will also be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper proposing that this provision should apply to children up to the age of 18 years, not just 17 years, in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I want to very briefly mention the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6), which was introduced in December 2007. It goes to the heart of some of the issues of the care and protection of children. It is timely because today the Children’s Commissioner released a report of an interview of over 5,200 children who are in the care of Child, Youth and Family Services. The report highlights the inadequacies in the way that we deal with children in foster care. I acknowledge the work that the Minister has done in terms of continuity for children, but more work can be done if we progress the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6), which addresses several of the recommendations made by the Children’s Commissioner, especially around the transition into independent living. I have seen damning cases where 17-year-olds have come out foster care and have moved into prostitution or have committed suicide because they have no longer had any support from anyone. Their biological families are not in their lives, their foster parents no longer have any obligation to them, nor does Child, Youth and Family Services, and they have simply dropped out of the system, to their detriment.

The issue of children’s participation in planning and decision making, which is a recommendation from the Children’s Commissioner, is also in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6). If this Government is serious about children and young people who are in the care of Child, Youth and Family Services, it would do well to bring that bill before the House so that we can incorporate those further recommendations.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

The Child and Family Protection Bill enjoyed good and wide discussion and debate, and no small degree of consensus, when it came before the Justice and Electoral Committee.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this

Labour supports the Child and Family Protection Bill. Labour supports any measure that aims to mitigate and prevent the harm of domestic violence. However, Labour would say to this Government that this bill is not ambitious enough for our children. Labour believes that this bill is not ambitious enough about protecting children who are the victims of domestic violence. So although Labour supports this legislation, we believe that the Government can, and should, be doing more to mitigate and prevent domestic violence.

I would like to share some statistics on domestic violence in New Zealand that highlight the point we are making—that the Government can, and should, be doing more to prevent domestic violence. In 2008 the police responded to about 83,000 incidents involving some form of domestic violence. Four to 10 percent of New Zealand children experience physical abuse; 24 percent of girls and 11 percent of boys experience sexual abuse. In 2007, 6,400 children were involved in applications for protection orders. Most of those children had witnessed violence. Some had been subjected to violence directly themselves. So New Zealand’s domestic violence rates do not compare well with other OECD countries, and we have the worst rate in the world of child death by maltreatment. A recent report commissioned by Every Child Counts found that child abuse and neglect in New Zealand costs around $2 billion per year.

These statistics would probably mean more to members of the House if one were to sit down and talk to the children who are the victims of domestic violence. Yesterday the Social Services Committee visited a local organisation that provides support, encouragement, counselling, and, indeed, love to a group of young men who range in age from 12 to 19 years. Members of the committee heard, firsthand, the horrific stories of young children. One as young as 4 years old was left to look after younger siblings. They had been abandoned by their parents who were out on a drinking spree, and left to fend for themselves with no food in the cupboards. We heard terrible stories and graphic detail of how children were beaten up, sexually abused, or witnessed the degrading of their mother.

I apologise to the House in advance, but I would like to share some of the stories of the lives of some of these children who are victims of domestic violence, just to make the point. One young man revealed how, at night, a wahine, as he described it, would enter his bedroom and sexually abuse him. He prays to God for help. God does not answer him, and the abuse continues. This young man now hates God. Another said that whenever his dad was drunk, the son would have to sit on the laps of his dad’s friends and he would massage each of his father’s friends. He was 6 years old. He hates his father, but he also needs him. Another young boy, at 9 years old, was raped by his mother’s boyfriend. The boyfriend pushed his head into the mattress and said: “I’m doing this to teach you to respect me.” His mum does not want to know what happened. The boy wishes his dad were alive so he could do something about this guy.

There were also stories of how these young children witnessed the degrading of their mothers. One boy described how his dad tried to kill his mum by pouring gasoline on her while they watched. Their mum is depressed and shuts them out now. Another boy described how his dad gave his mum a beating and she was bleeding all over. This was when he was only 4 years old. His father made him clean up all the blood. Another terrible story I heard yesterday was about a father who likes getting drunk and who beats up his wife and forces her to prostitute. Whenever she finishes taking men, the father insists on knowing all the graphic details of what they did. One time the father forced the mother to have sex with a dog, while he watched. The young daughter who witnessed all this, later in life became a prostitute herself and would beat up the men she was with. She ended up going too far and killed a man, and now she is in prison. Yet another story, just as horrible, is that of a 6-year-old who was beaten by her mother because she could not read. When she played with matches, she was threatened with burning by having her hand held over a lit stove. At 7 years old her father sold her so he could buy alcohol, and she was raped 40 times.

I have recited these stories to underscore how important it is to be ambitious about protecting children from domestic violence and abuse. These stories come from Māori, Pākehā, and Pacific kids. I highlight that fact, as there are many myths about domestic violence. When we read letters in newspapers or blogs on the Internet, or listen to radio talkback shows, we hear a host of myths about domestic violence being regularly promoted. They include suggestions that only drunk or mentally ill men are violent. Others blame women for staying in abusive relationships or provoking the violence against them. The reality is that although some who perpetuate domestic violence are drunks, many are not; some abusers are mentally ill, but many are not. But, most of all, responsibility for abuse must lie with the person who is abusing others. No one ever deserves to be abused, struck, or beaten.

One myth that has proved particularly stubborn to shift has been the suggestion that domestic violence occurs in certain sectors of society and not in others. It is often suggested that domestic violence is something that occurs only in poor neighbourhoods or in Māori and Pacific families. However, as at least one high-profile domestic violence case in recent times has shown, men who physically abuse their partners and children come from all occupations, classes, religions, and ethnicities. Although domestic violence occurs in Māori, Pākehā, Asian, and Pacific families, that does not mean that any one-size-fits-all approach is called for. Domestic violence, whether one is Pākehā or Pasifika, Māori or Asian, is never right. At a Pacific Champions of Change: National Fono on Stopping Violence earlier this year the Governor-General made these remarks: “Cultural norms can never be used as an excuse for violence, whether that be within the family or elsewhere. To those who would argue otherwise, I would respond that the ‘tradition’—and I place the words in quotes—has either been twisted and misinterpreted or simply has no place in New Zealand society. Using a supposed cultural norm as what can be described as a kind of ‘fig leaf’ for domestic violence does more than just disempower victims. It attempts to co-opt the wider cultural and ethnic group into condoning violence and debases that culture’s proud history and traditions and, as such, it brings shame on everyone.”

I come back to my former point and where I began. What I have attempted to highlight is that we have a problem. It is a national problem. It needs to be a collective problem. That is why Labour is supporting this bill. But I say to members on that side of the House that they need to reconsider and look further into the bill that the honourable senior Labour members introduced. That will give some indication to the Minister and the Government of how we can better improve this bill, and be ambitious about protecting our kids. That is what we strongly recommend to this Parliament.

Finally—and I note that my time is up—YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki made a submission, which I simply want to highlight because it is significant and we support it. The bill needs to amend the definition of child within the Domestic Violence Act to include young people under the age of 18. That brings us into line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

The Green Party—like, I believe, every other party in this Chamber—is very pleased to be supporting the Child and Family Protection Bill, but we agree with previous speakers that it does not go nearly far enough in protecting children who are victims of domestic violence. Su’a William Sio has really grounded this debate by telling us those horrific stories. We need to hear them to realise the horror of what we are dealing with and the need for this Parliament to do everything that it possibly can to help protect victims of domestic violence.

We agree, obviously, that protection orders should continue to apply to children when they turn 17, but also we think that they should continue beyond when children turn 17, whether or not they reside with an applicant. Really, it should be up to young people themselves to decide that a protection order is no longer required. We will strongly support amendments to extend the age limit—certainly to the age of 18—because surely the threshold should be in keeping with New Zealand’s responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would be to set it at 18.

We very much support the idea of extending the definition of violence to include psychological abuse. We have just heard stories of psychological abuse. It is absolutely critical that that provision goes through. We also agree that it is important to make the amendments that are proposed in this bill to the Adoption Act so that New Zealand can ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

We will be supporting this bill, and we will be supporting amendments to strengthen it. We agree that it is just a first step, a baby step, for Parliament in terms of extending protection to children who are the victims of domestic violence, and that a great deal is still left for this Parliament to do.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

That was a powerful speech indeed from the Labour member Su’a William Sio, and I agree with much—almost all—of what he said. We do have a national problem and we should be ambitious about it. He graphically, but necessarily, gave us some powerful examples of the kind of abuse children in this country face, see, and have perpetrated against them.

When I was a prosecutor, I prosecuted a large number of sexual cases like the ones that the member opposite talked about. I remember cases of daughters being raped from pre-pubescence to their late teens, and those rapes were enforced by regular beatings from the start. It was tempting to think then—and I do not have the facts and the figures before me now—that we had an epidemic of abuse in this country. That is a national shame.

As I said, I accept that we should be ambitious about this problem, but I will also pose another challenge. I hope this does not sound like a cop-out, because it is not meant to be; Parliament should face up to the problem fair and square and do what it can about it. But it should be put on record how deeply complex abuse is and how deeply it runs in parts of our society. Just as law change may be required, and we are doing some of that today, there is also very much a need for deep cultural and societal changes.

Let me give members an example from when I prosecuted these kinds of cases that I thought of as I was sitting here—and I am talking about serious cases. One I recall resulted in a 17-year imprisonment for rape charges, which is right up there with the longest sentences for rape in the country. There were two or three in that category because the rapes had occurred over a period of years. Newspapers and other media in this country were not interested in covering those cases. They were too real, they were too graphic, and they were too nasty. Maybe they said something about our society and what is happening in this country that we do not want to know.

I accept much of what my Labour colleague said about how this is an area of shame for our country, but I say as well that while law reform is called for, there is a wider societal issue that people other than politicians can show leadership on, whether they are from the media or from organisations that already show a leadership role in relation to this area, such as the organisations involved in the Every Child Counts campaign.

I will not say that the Child and Family Protection Bill will solve all the problems that we have in this area, but it is a quality bill that amends a number of Acts: the Domestic Violence Act, the Care of Children Act, and the Adoption Act. It does that, as I think it says in the purpose clause, to provide for the welfare of children. Those changes will make some difference. As we talk about the welfare of children and families, I will give a thought to the trauma that children and families are facing after the Christchurch earthquake. The biggest eye-opener to me about that earthquake has been the toll on children and families, the trauma that has come from lack of sleep because of the aftershocks, and the fear that children face. We heard from Amy Adams about that yesterday and about how it leads to parents being tired, emotional, and traumatised themselves. It was in the newspapers earlier this week that the pressures from this earthquake—and I in no way excuse it—have led to much higher levels of domestic violence in Christchurch. That is in no way excusable, but it perhaps gives us some understanding of the pressures in families that lead to understandable—but not right—outbreaks of violence.

In response to Su’a William Sio’s speech I have departed from some of the things I wanted to say in this speech. I will finish with this related topic: the changes to the Adoption Act. I spoke about them in the first reading of this bill. I have felt for some time that child trafficking is a problem on the rise in the world we live in. It is a very serious and growing problem, and we are—again—not doing everything that could be done about that in this bill. But we are making some changes that bring our laws in this country into greater rationalisation with other countries, and that is a good thing.

I suppose this may seem like a strange or random thought, but I thought about the Prime Minister’s comments some time ago about boat people and the inevitability of boat people reaching these shores. There is a global trend towards boat refugees and the like, and it is inevitable that at some point they will come to our country. We could say the same thing about the child trafficking that we see around the world. In poor countries in Africa and in other continents, parents are being tricked, and children are being tricked into child slavery, sexual slavery, and all sorts of hideous forms of bondage. We could see that happening in this country and we should not be complacent about it.

On another tangent, I note George Hawkins’ Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. Although his bill has lots of practical issues to be sorted through during the select committee process—and I have not decided how I will vote finally—it relates to this issue in a funny sort of way. We cannot be complacent in terms of child trafficking and other such issues in this country.

The Child and Family Protection Bill does not solve everything, but at least it puts forward some steps and makes some good changes that I hope will enhance child welfare in this nation.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora tātou katoa. I have been listening to the stories that Su’a William Sio—talofa lava—presented to the House today. I recognise that people like Simon Bridges have had to prosecute people involved in some of the incidents that have been described. It is pretty hard to sit and listen to some of those issues. It pretty much turns me off; I do not want to hear any more. I want to get rid of it and get it out of sight and out of mind.

Having said that, I have been involved with and seen some of these issues amongst my own whānau—not to the degree that has been presented today, thank goodness, but bad enough—such as cases of husbands hitting wives. I am not talking about very close family, but about being in a household where it happened. Those stories bring it all home. In that regard, I am sure it will come as no surprise across the House when we all say that the protection and the best interests of our tamariki and their families is of the utmost importance to us all. That is the declared position of the Māori Party.

During the last couple of days we have talked about section 59 of the Crimes Act—we heard from Mr Garrett and others last night—and about the importance of our tamariki, and in particular our wāhine, and looking after them as te whare tangata. I suppose today I am reiterating many of those discussion points. As I have said in the past—actually, at the start of the week—it is inspiring to know that within our waiata, our haka, and our kōrero in Te Ao Māori there are stories that tell us about the world we have now. Indeed, we have not just the stories but also wharenui. In wharenui we have tukutuku, the coloured panels one might see. There are patterns like kaokao, which are stylised armpit designs that for many represent a parent’s comfort and protection of their children. All the stories are there, whether they are able to be seen in wharenui or in terms of haka, waiata, and poi. As I say, there has to be a real commitment to move back to those concepts while recognising, of course, the statistics in respect of Māori.

I hear from Su’a William Sio that this issue is not solely the preserve of the Māori people but reaches across the country. I will talk for my own people, simply because we have those stories and we need to move back to regaining our tikanga, our own kōrero, and our mātauranga. We are certainly trying to promote that through Parliament but also in terms of a presentation of kaupapa to our people.

We support the intention of this bill: to provide more protection for children who are the victims of domestic violence, to ensure that family courts can manage concurrent proceedings involving children appropriately, and to reduce administrative barriers to court processes. As other speakers have alluded to, the bill gives significance to addressing the needs of children and young people once there has been an incident. Everybody has been talking about the fact that we need to look at that, and in particular at the instances of domestic violence. The Māori Party totally supports the focus on recognising the interests and rights of children exposed to all forms of family violence, including psychological abuse, and we welcome the move to increase consistency between the Domestic Violence Act and the Care of Children Act regarding the day-to-day care of children and contact arrangements for children when violence is present or where an allegation of violence is made. For far too long children have been huddled in fear in a corner, watching on as a violent incident has gone unchecked. Any moves to address that are important.

All we do in failing to address the protection of children is breed another generation of what the justice sector likes to call victims and perpetrators. We prefer to focus on a pathway forward, te ara tikanga, and that is a vision that focuses on whānau ora and the well-being of whānau members. But we must not forget the need for preventive mechanisms, which ought to be put in place to ensure as far as possible that violence does not occur in the first place. We would like to see a greater investment in preventive measures to avoid incidents of violence against children.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister of Justice about the progress of the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which has remained on the Order Paper since its introduction in September 2008. The Domestic Violence Reform Bill includes examples of provisions for preventive measures that could be considered. In particular, the scope of eligibility for people to attend State-funded domestic violence programmes and parenting courses ought to be broadened to ensure that the widest whānau circle can be involved.

I note today that a person in my electorate, Grace Dorset, has been working amongst the community for a very long time asking for more resources to assist in dealing with domestic violence issues, in particular for programmes that are focused on the men themselves. I note that there was a press statement of that nature today in the Daily Post back in Rotorua in respect of the work that Grace is doing, and we fully endorse that work.

For Māori it is essential to understand that violence occurs within a broader whānau and social context, and it is complicated by a range of factors and influences. It is time to open up the curtains on violence and expose it to the light of day. The Māori Party is currently working on some initiatives that we hope we might be able to advance either through Minister Paula Bennett, through the Minister of Māori Affairs, or through Minister Turia. We are interested in empowering whānau to determine their own solutions, which is, of course, at the heart of Whānau Ora, giving the whānau time to put things in order and have a life without violence before the State enters into the whole scenario.

I wanted to raise another issue, and that is the relevance of the 1955 Adoption Act. I have been interested in the recommendation from the Children’s Commissioner, John Angus, that a comprehensive review of the Adoption Act itself is long overdue. I note that although this bill proposes a specific amendment to the Adoption Act that will increase penalties for those offering or accepting financial gain for adoption, it neglects to take up the opportunity to look at the bigger picture around adoption.

Māori have frequently raised the view that adoption is a legal fiction, meaning that one can never, and should never, artificially separate a child from knowledge of its birth parents or its whakapapa—its family tree. We would be interested in further discussion around the options of shared guardianship or enduring guardianship where birth parents and whakapapa are valued, and, indeed, around the uniquely Māori concept of whāngai. We would welcome the Minister’s views on the concept of adoption within this discussion of child protection, because protection of whakapapa and the value of whanaungatanga is clearly important to us.

Other aspects to this bill include the mechanism to strengthen the legal framework against international trafficking of children and their commercial exploitation. We, of course, wholeheartedly support that provision. The bill also reduces the risk of children being wrongfully removed from New Zealand, which is another feature that we strongly support. But I refer one further anomaly to the Minister. The amendments to the Immigration Act enacted in November 2009 have effectively cancelled the rights afforded to New Zealand citizen children whose parents are overstayers. The number of New Zealand citizen children affected by these amendments is believed to be more than 1,000, so it is an important issue. Basically, the removal of overstayer parents has resulted in the de facto removal of citizen children by the State, in doing so sacrificing their citizenship right. I would like the Minister’s assurance that that issue could be looked at.

To conclude, despite the issues before us, we definitely support the bill and we look forward to further debate.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

I have listened to the speeches on the Child and Family Protection Bill and I think we all agree that this is an important issue. It is an issue that we take seriously across all sides of the House. There are very few things that we can agree on, but we can agree that there is a great need to still do a lot to address the domestic violence that is occurring in our country. Labour has a strong track record on domestic violence prevention. However, we acknowledge that despite what we have done in this area, domestic violence remains a problem for many New Zealanders and more needs to be done. We will support this bill, but we do so with some reservations because we do not believe that it goes far enough.

Before I get into the detail of the bill, I acknowledge all the organisations out there that work collaboratively and tirelessly to resolve issues around domestic violence and that work with and alongside the victims of domestic or family violence. A number of them could be mentioned, but I make special mention of the collaborative efforts being undertaken by the Waitakere Taskforce on Family Violence. This task force includes Waitakere Anti Violence Essential Services, Waitakere Abuse and Trauma Counselling Services, Man Alive, Viviana, and Violence Free Waitakere. The Waitakere police are part of this task force, as is the Waitakere City Council Mayor, Bob Harvey. In fact, I think it was with his leadership that this task force began, which the Deputy Mayor, Penny Hulse, is also part of. It really is impressive because it is a collaborative group working together to ensure that the way in which this issue is addressed and is resolved in the long term is through collaborative efforts. Everyone knows what everyone is doing, and everyone is working together to address this. I took Annette King to meet with the task force last week and she was equally impressed. She saw the impressive collaborative efforts going on amongst the group and the commitment on this issue that it demonstrated to the families and children of Waitakere and to the community overall, so I really do acknowledge those people before I get into the detail of my speech.

I will talk about some of the background to domestic violence. It is incredibly shocking. I will give the House some of the statistics on domestic violence in New Zealand. In 2008, the police responded to 82,692 incidents involving some form of domestic violence. Four to 10 percent of New Zealand children experience physical abuse. Twenty-four percent of girls and 11 percent of boys experience sexual abuse. In 2007, 6,400 children were involved in applications for protection orders. Most of these children had witnessed violence and some had been subjected to violence directly. New Zealand’s domestic violence rates do not compare well with those of other OECD countries and we have the worst rate in the world of child death by maltreatment. A recent report commissioned by Every Child Counts found that child abuse and neglect in New Zealand costs about $2 billion per year. Those are just some of the statistics in relation to this issue.

Labour, of course, supports any measures to prevent and mitigate the harm of domestic violence. However, in our minds this bill is not ambitious enough and will fail to achieve its aim. We suggest that the Government progress Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which is languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper. The National-led Government prides itself on its record in this area, claiming that this is another bill to protect victims of domestic violence. When questioned about why Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill has not been progressed yet, Simon Power claimed that the Ministry of Justice has insufficient resources. In 2008, the Labour Government introduced the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, and this legislation, as I said, is still on the Order Paper. In the build-up to that bill, whilst it was being pulled together, extensive consultation and research took place. As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, because it is an issue that we all take seriously, National really does need to put aside politics and ensure that the bill is pushed through. National should have put aside politics to ensure that the bill was speedily progressed through Parliament, and it is unfortunate that that did not happen.

The reality is that this bill was languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper when the National Government thought measures like the 90-day trial, fire-at-will bill was something that urgently needed to be put into place in the Government’s first 100 days. That is the reality, when really something like Labour’s domestic violence bill should have been given priority. The Government has progressed other domestic violence legislation, but as I said before it does not go far enough. National members claim not to have the resources to progress the other provisions, yet they have the resources to give tax cuts to the wealthiest chunk of New Zealanders out there. It makes us question what the Government’s priorities are.

The Child and Family Protection Bill omits five important changes included in Labour’s domestic violence legislation. Labour’s bill changes the definition of “child” in the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to that of someone under the age of 18. In accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, currently a child is anyone under 17. This bill does not provide the court with the power to direct attendance to an addiction treatment programme, whereas Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill does give the Family Court this power. Labour’s bill introduces a provision requiring any judge who declines without notice an application for a protection order to provide written reasons for declining the application, enabling the applicant to decide whether to proceed on notice. National’s bill does not include a similar provision. Labour’s proposals make provision for applicants to be able to attend information sessions, which would provide advice on making effective use of protection orders and advice on any social assistance that may be available. Labour’s bill contains better protections and provisions to applicants for discharge of protection orders, and it allows the court to order reports if necessary.

Simon Power says he intends to progress the remaining provisions of the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, but Labour would really like to know when that will happen and why there is a hold-up. If in theory Simon Power supports the provisions that are in Labour’s bill, then there should be no reason to delay it, particularly given the statistics I opened with when I started this speech. Judith Collins issued a media release on 1 October 2009 saying that National’s two new bills would tackle the evil of family violence, but neither she nor Simon Power have explained how the omission of those five changes will improve things.

Labour members on the Justice and Electoral Committee believe that young people who are over 17, and who were protected by an order when they were children, should continue to be protected as long as they want to be. But National members believe that protection orders should protect children only while they live with an applicant.

Labour will be supporting the bill, but I have stated very clearly what our reservations are regarding it. We are concerned that our domestic violence bill is still languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper, and we plead with the Government to take it seriously. We know that Government members are concerned about the levels of domestic violence and the well-being of families and children, just as we are. We know that they are concerned, so we hope, therefore, that they will find a way of pushing through our Domestic Violence Reform Bill in a speedy manner.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this

I stand to support the second reading of the Child and Family Protection Bill. Since this National-led Government, under the leadership of the Rt Hon John Key, was established, it has made a commitment to strengthen the ability of the courts to act to protect children and families from all forms of violence. The Government has sought amendments to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to provide greater protection for children and victims of domestic violence, with the introduction of programmes that are more responsive to their needs. This is met by the introduction of a protection order that applies for the benefit of a child, often applicable until the age of 17 years. It is important to recognise that young people are still children when 17 years old and still require the protection of the law contained in this bill.

This bill also allows registrars to require offenders to attend a Stopping Violence Services programme. Previously only a judge could do that. A change in the Adoption Act has also been initiated. It creates a new offence of improperly inducing consent for the adoption of a child, and that is to be punishable by a term of imprisonment up to 7 years. We have to ensure that the law is thoroughly effective to prevent the illegal trafficking of children, which is a worldwide dilemma. This bill also enhances the protection of children who are at risk from being wrongfully removed from New Zealand. It delivers on the Government’s commitment to protect the welfare and best interests of children internationally. This Government is committed to looking after the welfare of children. The amendments proposed by this bill will improve the safety of children in New Zealand.

As most of us are probably aware, police are called to about 80,000 domestic violence incidents each year. With over 200 women and children killed from domestic violence over the last 12 years, it is clear that New Zealand is facing an epidemic of domestic violence. One woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner every 5 weeks, and annually the Women’s Refuge helps about 20,000 women. It is tragic that about 10 children per year are killed in domestic violence incidents, and more are injured. The Child and Family Protection Bill is a continuation of this Government’s ongoing commitment to dealing effectively with family violence. This Government has not stopped working on addressing the issue of domestic violence. Children are harmed by seeing, hearing, or living with violence in the home. Exposure to psychological abuse can be just as damaging as any other form of violence. The number of children suffering from psychological abuse is increasing in New Zealand, or perhaps it is just that now we are taking it more seriously. This change in the legislation will ensure that those children are taken into account, and it allows the courts to look at psychological abuse in as serious a light as they do physical and sexual abuse.

In conclusion, the ultimate aim of the legislation, along with the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill 2008, is to ensure that the victims are placed at the heart of the justice system. This Government intends on sending a clear message that offences against children are not acceptable. We are working hard to reduce violence in our community, and with this bill we are a step closer.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

I do not think there is any argument in this House that we have a problem in New Zealand with family violence. We have one of the lowest ratings in the OECD, and we have the highest rate for child death by maltreatment in the world. I was in the Solomon Islands recently and I spent some time with New Zealand police who are serving up there with Operation RAMSI, the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands. They go out on patrol with the local Solomon Islands police. The problem of violence against women and children is particularly acute in the Pacific Islands.

Typically, the New Zealand police would be called out to a domestic violence incident in the suburbs of Honiara, and they say the situation is very much like New Zealand’s situation 30 to 35 years ago. The courts and the police force do not take domestic violence very seriously. The issue of women getting beaten up in the home is considered to be a domestic issue and therefore not appropriate for legal intervention. The police were shocked by the situation there.

We can all reflect on how far New Zealand has come on this issue in the space of a generation. We have come a long way. In our lifetimes there has been a massive change, but the statistics that colleagues this afternoon have read out in the House and the stories that Su’a William Sio recounted are a reminder of just how shocking the problem is in New Zealand and how far we have to go. That is why Labour will support the Child and Family Protection Bill. This bill takes us further ahead. It gives more tools to the courts to reduce the harm of family violence, but it does not go far enough, and that is the shame of this bill. Labour wishes the bill were more ambitious, but it is not, sadly.

I remind members of the object of the Domestic Violence Act 1995, which is one of the Acts this bill seeks to amend. Section 5(1) of the Act states: “The object of this Act is to reduce and prevent violence in domestic relationships by—(a) recognising that domestic violence, in all its forms, is unacceptable behaviour; and (b) ensuring that, where domestic violence occurs, there is effective legal protection for its victims.” Amongst submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and amongst agencies, non-governmental organisations, Government agencies all around New Zealand, and the general public there is an extraordinary degree of consensus behind the object of the Act. We should be trying to strengthen the legislation, and it is a shame that this bill does not go far enough.

I want to talk about clause 6, which is problematic, and I will respond to some of the comments that were made by Chester Borrows earlier in this debate. The bill extends protection under the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and it amends section 16 of that Act, making it clear that a protection order applies for the benefit of a child of an applicant until the child reaches the age of 17, unless that order is discharged sooner. The select committee recommended amending clause 6 to provide that the child of the applicant’s family would not be required to apply to the court for a direction, and that the protection order should continue for the child’s benefit after he or she turns 17 while he or she continues to ordinarily or periodically reside with the applicant. The select committee was agreed on that point, and it has been reflected in the bill that has come back before the House.

However, there is disagreement over whether the provisions should apply after the young person leaves the home of the applicant. It is the view of the Labour and Green members of the committee that there should not be a time limit; that if a young person leaves home, goes to university or wherever, the protection order as it applies to that young person should not automatically expire; and that it should be up to that young person to make their own decision about whether they wish to continue to be covered by a protection order.

We heard Chester Borrows say that, typically, when young people turn 17 they move away and the need for the protection order dissipates. I do not know how the member could know that the need for a protection order dissipates. Should young people not be allowed to make that decision for themselves? Mr Borrows said that 17-year-olds are mature enough to make a decision about reinstating a protection order. I challenge that view, and I ask members to put themselves in the shoes of a young man or woman who has grown up with a violent and controlling father. Turning 17 or 18 does not make someone less scared of that person or less vulnerable to control. I think young people would be put in an extremely difficult situation if they were required by law, if they want to continue that protection after their 17th birthday, to actively make the decision to go to the court, go through the legal process, and seek another protection order. In that case, the law would potentially be putting that young person in grave danger.

If we are serious about the intent of this legislation, which is to give people proper, substantial legal protection and give young people, in this case, the chance to live a life free of fear and violence, then I challenge the Government’s judgment on this provision.

There are a number of provisions in Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill—which, as my colleague Carmel Sepuloni noted, has been left at the bottom of the Order Paper—that we believe could have, and should have, been included in this bill, but the opportunity has been missed. This bill is weaker than it could have been. As far as we can tell, there is no good reason for those provisions to be omitted. Let me touch on them. One concerns the definition of “child” in the Domestic Violence Act. Under our current law a child is a person under the age of 17. Labour’s bill would raise the age from 17 to 18, and that would be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

One of the other provisions we think should have been included in this bill is one that would require any judge who declines a so-called application without notice for a protection order to provide written reasons for declining that application. An order without notice is commonly used. This means that a protection order is given against someone who allegedly has been committing acts of violence against the applicant, and it relates to situations where the evidence is sufficiently strong and the risk is sufficiently great that the order is given without any prior notice or warning to the alleged perpetrator.

The problem with that kind of provision is that judges who are not required to give a written reason for declining an application can then set in train a sequence of events that would put the applicant, who is usually a woman, at risk again. If the judge was required to give a reason, the applicant would be able to engage and bring more information in order to make the case again. Without that, the risk is that sometimes a sequence of events is set in train that would result in notice being given, and that can put the woman at risk. We think that that would have been a sound provision, and there is no good reason that I can think of, or that I have heard of, for it to be omitted.

Labour members support this bill. We think it will strengthen the law in some key areas, but it is just a shame that the Government has not gone further and been more ambitious.

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

It does not give me pleasure to speak on the Child and Family Protection Bill, and the reason is that it is a sad indictment on society that we have to deal with this sort of stuff. I do not disagree with the examples we heard earlier from Su’a William Sio and the personal experiences of Te Ururoa Flavell. They are sad; there is no question about that. But the sadder situation is the fact that we have to try to legislate for them. In my view, although legislation may do something, the bottom line is that ultimately we cannot legislate against evil.