Debate resumed from 21 October 2010.
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
I will just call attention to Supplementary Order Paper 178 and Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the names of, respectively, Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern, both of whom were members of the Justice and Electoral Committee while this bill was considered. I am very interested to hear from the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, about the Government’s attitude to both of the Supplementary Order Papers. I recall assisting Ms Pillay and Ms Ardern with the drafting of them at the time that they put them forward, back in November 2010. I commend both of the Supplementary Order Papers to the Committee, because I think they would make sensible and helpful changes to the legislation. It would be helpful, I think, given the spirit of cooperation that has surrounded this legislation to date, if the Government were to support the Supplementary Order Papers, as well.
The first Supplementary Order Paper that I will deal is Supplementary Order Paper 179, which sits in the name of Jacinda Ardern. This Supplementary Order Paper would amend the bill to change the definition of a “child” in the Domestic Violence Act 1995 from “a person under the age of 17 years;” to “a person under the age of 18 years;”. That would bring the proposed legislation into consistency with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which New Zealand is a signatory, as well as with the definitions currently in the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003.
I would have thought that that was a very logical thing to do. There is no particular common sense surrounding the choice of the age of 17, which is what the legislation as drafted plumped for. If the Minister thinks there is any particular compelling reason to defy our international obligations and to legislate inconsistently with two important existing pieces of child welfare legislation, then I think the Committee of the whole House ought to hear what that justification is. If the Minister does not know because he has had to take the chair on behalf of a colleague, then I note that he has the assistance of officials available to him. I think it would be very helpful, as I have said, as well as being consistent with the spirit in which this legislation has been advanced—it has been cooperated on by, certainly, the Labour Opposition—to hear why this inconsistency continues to be supported by the Government.
The second Supplementary Order Paper I referred to and now wish to speak a little bit more about is Supplementary Order Paper 178, in the name of Lynne Pillay. Lynne Pillay chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee for 3 years in the previous Parliament, and I think her views are entitled to some weight. She would not have put this Supplementary Order Paper forward unless she had given it a good deal of thought. Her Supplementary Order Paper is designed to try to provide some enhanced protection for the children of applicants under the Domestic Violence Act 1995.
The Supplementary Order Paper would amend the Child and Family Protection Bill to provide that protection orders would continue to protect a child of an applicant’s family after they reach the age of 18, whether or not they reside with the applicant. I think it is important to note that in this context we are talking about young people who have been exposed to a considerable degree of acrimony and violence, and who may still be exposed to that in the future.
The Supplementary Order Paper is very consistent with the general aims of this legislation, because it would continue to extend some protection to young people until they decide for themselves that a protection order is no longer required. After all, maintaining an existing order is surely more efficient. We hear from this Government on many occasions that it wants greater efficiency in the field of justice and law and order. Well, it is much more efficient, quite plainly, to extend an existing order rather than to require young people to go to the expense and the trouble—with paperwork, judicial time, and lawyer time involved—of having to apply for a new order simply because they reach an arbitrary age that has been arrived at in the text of a bill.
I hope the Minister will feel able to take a call on these two issues. Obviously, we are not asking that he do that instantly if he wants to take some time to take some advice from his officials, but we have put these Supplementary Order Papers forward in good faith, further to what I think it is fair to say is the weight of evidence that the Justice and Electoral Committee heard from submitters. These measures are designed to try to improve the overall efficacy of the bill, and to ensure that we legislate as a Parliament, consistent with both our international obligations and other existing legislation in force in this field. If we are to depart from those practices, then we should know why. There should be a proper justification advanced for that.
On the second question, without proper justification we ought not to miss an opportunity to continue to provide the sort of protection that this legislation is designed to provide. If we are going to be efficient about the way we do it, we should extend orders in their in-force state until such time as the people who are protected by them actually tell the court that they no longer need that protection. If we are to do things differently from what either of the Supplementary Order Papers proposes, then I think there ought to be a case made, because I do not want the Opposition to have to rethink its support for the substantive legislation.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
It was a privilege to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered this bill, the Child and Family Protection Bill. The bill does a number of things that enhance the protection of young people who have previously witnessed, or who have been in a situation of, family violence. Of course, we have a disgraceful record in respect of family violence in this country.
In response to some matters raised by the previous speaker, Charles Chauvel, I say it is confirmed that Supplementary Order Paper 178 filed under the name of Lynne Pillay contains in effect an opt-out clause rather than an opt-in clause, or an opt-in situation as it applies within the bill as it is before the Committee at the moment. The majority of the select committee at the time felt that as people at the age of 16 can leave home, live where they like, and be independent under New Zealand law—and many do tend to leave home at that time—and as they can make decisions for themselves at that time as to whether they stay at home or move away from home, and decisions on the relationships they want to have, the relationships they want to keep, the relationships they want to change, and the nature of those relationships, it was fitting for the continuation of a protection order to be an opt-in situation if a person moved away from home. In other words, 17-year-olds would have to make a decision as to whether they wanted to continue within the protection of a protection order. It is a relatively simple matter for them to do that, and if they need assistance to do it by way of legal aid, then that is something they are able to get.
In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of Jacinda Ardern, which seeks to extend a protection order to 18 years from 17 years, I have to say that, really, there is a philosophical difference between the two parties, Labour and National. Under the previous term of Government, Labour, in a number of pieces of legislation, sought to extend the age of a young person—or a child, in some cases—to 18 years. The incoming National Government disagreed with that, so in its child protection legislation—the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act amendment legislation, for instance—it kept it at 17. So there are some inconsistencies, but, again, the point is made that in this country young people can leave home at 16 and make their own decisions as to where they are—by law they can choose where they live. As most of our legislation—for instance, our criminal law legislation—means that young people get into the adult jurisdiction when they turn 17, it was decided in this case that we would stick with 17.
We recognise that that is contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, but at the same time, despite a number of the treaties and the conventions that we have signed internationally, New Zealand continues to act in deference to its autonomy and sovereignty as a nation. It continues to act outside those conventions and has done so under both Governments.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
First of all, I say that it is a real pleasure to be supporting the Child and Family Protection Bill. I particularly commend to the current Government and to the incoming Government after the election that we end each week on a bill that has more bipartisan agreement, or cross-party agreement, rather than on ones that end as going up—
Grant RobertsonNo, I am not promoting singing together; I am not in any of those parties. But I do think that it is a good note on which to end the week. I commend Chester Borrows, the member who has just resumed his seat, and thank him for his chairing of the consideration of this legislation. But at the same time as that genuine acknowledgment, can I express my frustration with him for insisting on trotting out the party line. I think it is about time he moved on from that, and recognised that some parts of this legislation are deficient, that they are improved by the Supplementary Order Papers that are being promoted by two of my colleagues, Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern, and that we should be above politics—probably in a lot of areas but none more so than in the area of this Parliament being united against family violence.
I also express some frustration that a new bill was introduced and referred to a select committee, and is now taking the time of Parliament, when we actually have a better bill on the Order Paper, and that is the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, introduced in 2008 by my colleague the Hon Annette King when she was the Minister of Justice. That bill is broader than this legislation, and it is stronger than this legislation. It is more robust and more credible internationally than this legislation, but, more important, it would do more, particularly, to protect our children who are in homes where they might be subject to violence. How could anyone not want to do the most possible to protect children? But here we have the Government saying that Labour introduced that bill, so National will do something different and it does not care if its legislation is weaker. I think that is a poor position, and I challenge the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, to defend doing something less than is possible, to defend weakening an existing piece of legislation that is before a select committee. I personally do not think that that is credible.
I will talk a bit about the background to that 2008 legislation introduced by the Hon Annette King, because it had a very unusual background, which is one that I do not recall having discussed in this House before. I was Minister for Social Development and Employment at the time, and I had convened a cross-all-parties group—one person from each party was invited to join that group—to look at how we could make families safer in New Zealand. It occurred to me, as Minister for Social Development and Employment, that this was an area where party politics was probably irrelevant, and where every party would want to contribute. We had a very diverse group of representatives. We started off just for a couple of meetings having the now Hon Judith Collins—she did not stay for very many meetings, just two on behalf of National, and it was much to my sadness that National was not represented after that. We had the Hon Heather Roy from the ACT Party—everyone knows Heather Roy’s views; no one will die wondering what she thinks about—and sitting next to her was Sue Bradford from the Green Party. Can members imagine two women with more diverse views than the Hon Heather Roy and Sue Bradford? I cannot, actually. They are pretty much poles apart, but on this issue they both put every amount of effort, attention, and passion into contributing, and found that they, and all the rest of our group, had much more in common than we had to divide us. I think that that was a very good thing.
The Hon Tariana Turia was the representative from the Māori Party, and when she was not able to attend the Hon Pita Sharples was its representative. Judy Turner from United Future was its representative, and Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First. So every party in Parliament, except National, said that this issue was so important that it would give its time and effort to contributing to policy development. From that committee came the basis of the domestic violence legislation. The Hon Annette King gave our group a commitment to not progress through even a Cabinet committee, let alone Cabinet itself, any proposals until those proposals had been looked at by that multiparty group. We had justice officials coming in, we had social development officials coming in, and we had members of the community and voluntary sector who were involved in delivering many of our family violence prevention programmes. We had a whole range of experts giving us information, and then we gave the Hon Annette King our views on what should be in that domestic violence legislation. The draft came to our multiparty group before it went to a Cabinet committee, which is pretty rare but I think it is a very good model. But because of National’s petulance, childish behaviour, immaturity, inability to see above its own party’s so-called superiority—
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman—with the arrogance that the Hon Jonathan Coleman has turned into an art form, that is the bill that, developed by the multiparty group, is now languishing on the bottom of the Order Paper. We have not put in all of the missing bits of that legislation as Supplementary Order Papers to this legislation, but perhaps we could have, just to reinforce the point. But I urge the Hon Nathan Guy to look at the two Supplementary Order Papers that we have put forward, and to take them seriously. Their aim is to improve the bill—not to the standard of the domestic violence legislation that is on the Order Paper but at least to make some small improvements.
The other areas that have been omitted, but that are in the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, include, as Chester Borrows pointed out, the age in the definition of “child”. We have had some pretty tragic situations where people who should have been classed as children have been classed as adults. I do not see any reason, at all, why we would want that sort of thing to occur to a young person. The difference between the response to a person who is not of adult mental capability and someone who is should be at the heart of a police and justice response, but it cannot be while we have that age differentiation.
Our bill, the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, also has a provision that requires any judge who declines a without notice application for a protection order to provide written reasons for declining that application. So the applicant would then be able to decide whether to proceed on notice. That is a really important part of understanding judicial decisions, but it has been just omitted from this legislation. There is no logic, at all, for that provision to be omitted, but it has been.
Our bill also has provisions for applicants to be able to attend information sessions, so they could get advice on making effective use of protection orders and on any social assistance that may be available—so practical help to people who are in the situation where they are being affected by domestic violence.
The National Government’s bill does not have any provision for the court to deal with the power to direct attendance at addiction assessment and treatment programmes. Our bill gives the Family Court that power. Every member of the House understands the relationship between drugs and alcohol and dysfunctional family situations. We should be doing everything we can to engage people who are either drug or alcohol addicts with the right path into support.
Our legislation empowers the Family Court to appoint a lawyer to represent the interests of a child in a broader range of circumstances than is currently the case. Our bill also offers better protection and provision around applications for discharge of protection orders, and allows the court to order reports if necessary. Those are the improvements that could be made to this legislation if the National Government had the inclination to put aside party politics and say we should have the best legislation possible. I really urge Government members, over the coming hours as we go through the Committee stage, to consider those potential improvements. We should be able to do the best possible job that we can as a Parliament to make our children’s lives safe.
Despite its failings, this legislation does do a number of important things. I do not want to diminish, in any way, the respect that I have for the introduction of this legislation, but I do have to make the comment that it could well have been better.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
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) Link to this
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.
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.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
I rise to speak to the Child and Family Protection Bill. I acknowledge the contribution of all my colleagues. I think we have put this legislation in an important context and have looked at some of the history. But, as you say, Mr Chair, we need to focus on the bill, and I intend to do that, and to look at some of the main provisions of the bill.
The bill has three parts, which amend respectively the Domestic Violence Act 1995, the Care of Children Act 2004, and the Adoption Act 1955. Before I look at some of those changes, I add my voice in saying that not much, if anything, can be more important than the protection of children. As politicians, that must surely be something that we have an absolute responsibility for: to make sure that those who do not have their own voice, or access to services in the way that adults do, are appropriately cared for. When I made my maiden speech in this House I undertook that I would always stand up and speak out against family and domestic violence, and that I would work to seek improvements in this area.
In my working life I have had quite a bit to do with both women and children who have been subjected to violence from other members of their families. I say the importance of this cannot be overstated. It is not only the terrible statistics we have in terms of children being killed or physically injured; it is the psychological damage it causes in children to see one of their parents—usually their mother—being subjected to violence, or indeed being subjected to that sort of violence and fear themselves, and the ongoing consequences of that on people’s lives. I am putting it in that context to say this is a very serious matter indeed, and if there are things we can do as a Parliament to strengthen this bill, we should. Two of my colleagues have put up Supplementary Order Papers to try to improve this bill, and I urge members opposite to look at them.
I also add my voice to those who say that Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill has been languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper. It is a bill that is already there and ready to go, which meant we could have had change in this area much more rapidly than we have had. I raised this issue with the Minister, Simon Power, when he came before our select committee on the estimates. I was told that the rest of the changes in that bill are too expensive to make. Well, I think this is a priority for Government expenditure; working in this area must be a priority.
Returning to the bill, I say that it intends to provide more protection for children who are victims of domestic violence, to ensure that Family Courts can appropriately manage concurrent proceedings involving children, and to reduce administrative barriers to court processes. As the Hon Ruth Dyson said, there are good suggestions in this bill and there are specific changes that will make a difference. There is no question about that. That is why Labour is supporting this bill—as we will support any attempt to prevent and mitigate the harm of domestic violence. But it is not ambitious enough. We could have done this much more quickly, as Sue Moroney has said. We should have used Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which is already in place.
Here are some of the statistics that sit around this issue. In 2008 police responded to 82,692 incidents involving some form of domestic violence, and most of those cases will have involved children. Our domestic violence rates do not compare well with other OECD countries and we have the worst rate in the developed world for child death by maltreatment. I put on record, in debating this bill, that it is an absolute scandal that funding for residential care in our refuges has been cut under this Government. It is an absolute scandal that at a time when rates of domestic violence are rising, and when, generally, refuges are the places where women will go with their children when seeking safety, we have less funding for residential refuge care. That is an absolute outrage.
The specific provisions I want to look at are the ones around the Care of Children Act 2004. Clauses 17 to 28 of the Child and Family Protection Bill amend the Care of Children Act 2004. They provide that where a protection order has been made against a party to an application for a parenting order, the court may make an order allowing the party only day-to-day care or contact with the child if the court is satisfied that the child will be safe. That is absolutely critically important. If the court is not satisfied that the child will be safe, it may make an order for supervised contact between the child and the party.
One of the things I think is particularly important—I referred to it earlier, and it is one of the things I strongly support in this bill—is that the procedures used in care of children hearings are extended to allegations of psychological abuse as well as physical abuse. We all know that in situations of family violence the psychological damage, as I said earlier, is hugely significant. This is about people who are meant to be a part of those who love and care for their children. Whether it is violence directed towards a child, or towards the child’s mother or other member of the family, the psychological damage and abuse that can occur in family violence situations is very severe, and it can be highly problematic for people in living the rest of their lives. So the fact that procedures used in care of children hearings are extended to allegations of psychological abuse is very important. I certainly applaud that change.
The bill also strengthens the protection for children from unlawful removal from New Zealand. Many of us will be aware that there are such situations, especially now that people are more mobile. Because people live in many different places and migrate between countries, this is much more of an issue than perhaps it was in the past. The amendments to the Care of Children Act in providing protection for unlawful removal from New Zealand and the amendments in Part 3 to the Adoption Act 1955, which also make some changes in relation to this issue of international movement of children, are worthy of note.
We think that the Government should be doing more in this area. As I said, cuts to the funding of refuges should be something that members opposite raise with their own ministerial colleagues. But also the remainder of the recommendations in Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill could still be prioritised by this Government, and should still be prioritised by this Government. Simon Power has said that he intends to progress the remaining provisions, but when will that happen? Simon Power is intending to do quite a few things, but, as Ms Moroney said, there are very few sitting days left before the election. It is a shame that this bill has come to us so late in the parliamentary term, and here we are in the Committee stage, as Ms Moroney said.
Again I reiterate Labour’s support for the bill and our support for the two Supplementary Order Papers. I urge members opposite to consider them seriously and to at least strengthen the bill as far as they can within the confines of the remaining sitting time by agreeing to those two Supplementary Order Papers in the names of Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern respectively. Thank you.
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this
I am pleased to take a call on the Committee stage of the Child and Family Protection Bill to add to the voices that have already expressed Labour’s support for this bill because of the area it addresses, and also to point out a number of other points.
When we take all of the clauses we are debating today as a whole, we have to ask ourselves whether they represent the Government’s next step in addressing domestic violence. We all know the nature of domestic violence. There is not a person in this Chamber who does not believe that we should be doing a whole lot more than we have done. Every bill on domestic violence that has come into this House has been supported by members on this side of the Chamber. I remember saying to the Minister of Justice directly that this was an area where we would cooperate with him. He assured us that there would be cooperation. He also said that these issues would be comprehensively addressed.
One also assumes that there was some urgency on this matter. But the clauses in Part 2, taken together, certainly do not constitute addressing domestic violence in a comprehensive way. Let us look at the time frame. The first step was in 2009, and the next step was taken 2 years later. Does that signal the urgency with which the Government sees this particular area? Of course it does not. The Government must wear as a criticism the fact that it has not managed the House or the issue—probably both—and that it needed to bring such an important issue to the House far more quickly, particularly when the work had been done at the select committee. I wonder how many children, how many cases, have passed since this bill was introduced in which the victims may not have benefited from the clauses. So this bill certainly does not constitute a comprehensive approach.
I will address a number of factors. Section 1B, which is inserted into the Domestic Violence Act by clause 6(2), talks, effectively, about the definition of “children”. We heard my colleagues talk about the two Labour Supplementary Order Papers, Supplementary Order Papers 178 and 179. What lies at the heart of those Supplementary Order Papers is the nature of childhood and the definition of “children”. I have not heard one argument that is actually sustainable as to why Jacinda Ardern’s Supplementary Order Paper cannot be accepted. I thought that Mr Borrows at one point actually argued against himself. He argued that because some children leave home at 16 years, the Government decided to have the age at 17 years. Well, there is no logic in that, because, as we know, the definition of “child” under UN conventions extends to 18 years. Here was an opportunity to fix that. There was certainly an opportunity in other bills—not this bill; it was not before the Social Services Committee—for the Government to signal that the age of 18 ought to be adopted. Here is another bill where it has not been, and there is an attempt here to fix that through our Supplementary Order Papers.
Jacinda Ardern’s amendment also internalises the fact that children reach maturation at different rates. If somebody reaches maturation at 14, 15, or 16 years that is well and good, but for others 18 years is at least the mandated age internationally. We must remember also that these children have been victims of violence and therefore God only knows to what extent that maturation has been retarded. So at the least we thought we might have had a better response from the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, and that the amendment might be looked at from an absolutely scientific point of view. There is nothing ideological about that; I am saying that there is an opportunity to address a particular problem. And, of course, the Minister has not taken that opportunity, but members on this side of Chamber are committed to addressing that.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
As prior speakers have said, the Labour Opposition supports the Child and Family Protection Bill, which will, on occasion, protect children who are being physically abused by their parents.
The contradiction I would like the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, to speak to is why this week the Government, when it is pretending it will do something to improve outcomes for abused children, is taking away the right of abused children to receive from the estate of their father who abused them some fair recompense following their his death. That is what the Government is doing this same week.
I ask the Minister to get to his feet and explain how it can be right to take away the effective right of an incest victim to make a claim against the estate of their deceased parent under the Family Protection Act by allowing the whole of the estate to be gifted, which is the effect of the changes to gift duty that the Government is pushing through the House this week. It seems to me to stand in stark contrast to this bill, which the Labour Opposition supports, and which does give protection to children, including children abused by their parents.
This bill makes some wise amendments to the Care of Children Act, and sets out procedures for dealing with applications for day-to-day care of, or contact with, children when there is an allegation that one of the parties has used violence against the child, which can include sexual violence—the alleged sexual molestation of a child. That is a laudable thing to do, as we know it sometimes happens in society. It is terrible when it does happen. It is terribly sad that sometimes when it happens, the parents become estranged from the child and blame the child. I am sure that anyone who has practised in this area of law will know this. Charles Chauvel will know this, I know this, and the former Race Relations Conciliator who was involved in the Families Commission will know this. On occasion the family, unjust though it is, blame the child. They become estranged from the child, and the child, who has been the defenceless victim of incest, is left estranged from the family and is, on occasion, cut out of the will.
Under New Zealand law the Family Protection Act, until now, allowed that child to make a claim against the estate, alleging that the testator—the person who has died—breached their moral duty to that child by cutting the child out of the will. The Family Protection Act has been on New Zealand’s book since 1955. This bill makes similar provisions for the protection of children, yet the Government this same week is taking away—
Mr Chairman, I am asking the Minister to explain how he can reconcile extending the protection of children in this bill with taking away the rights of those children under the Family Protection Act, because those assets could be gifted out of the estate in the week before someone dies, or—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
When we are in the Committee stage we are to consider what is reported back in the bill. I have cautioned the member twice to come back to that. I ask the member to continue in that vein.
This bill makes changes to the child and family protection legislation, which are aimed at doing justice to a child who suffers violence. I am asking the Minister how he can pretend that he is advancing the interests of children when just yesterday in this Chamber—in fact, the vote may have gone through today; I am not sure—
Mr Chairman, I am asking the Minister to justify why on the one hand that is right but on the other hand he can take away the rights of an incest victim to have a remedy against the estate of a deceased parent.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I have just said that the Minister has no responsibility for a bill that is not currently before us. I have asked the member—this is my third occasion—to concentrate on the report back from the select committee and on the clauses of this bill. That is what we are debating.
I think the Minister should get to his feet and explain the inconsistencies in respect of this Government’s attitude to child protection laws.
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
I really do implore the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, to take a call, because a number of points have been raised by my colleagues in a bona fide attempt to make the Child and Family Protection Bill better. That is what we are here to do, particularly in respect of bills where we agree that the measure should proceed.