The CHAIRPERSON
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this
It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I will get the negative stuff over first and say from the outset that we in Labour were a little disappointed that this bill went only part of the way to picking up Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill. Our preference would have been to see National take over that bill and progress it through the House. That has not been the case, but I stand and speak in support of this bill. I know that it goes a long way to addressing many of the concerns around domestic violence.
Part 1, which amends the Domestic Violence Act, will ensure that there is more protection for women—although not in every instance, it is predominantly women and families in the case of domestic violence—at the crucial time when there is considerable heat in the situation and it is essential that the offending party is off the premises and away from the family. I note that in terms of new section 49, “Offence to contravene protection order”, and new section 49A, “Offence to fail to comply with direction”, in clause 5, the changes are sensible. They are common-sense changes. Certainly, as I said before, they go a considerable way towards enhancing protection for women and families in domestic violence situations.
We all know that domestic violence is an absolute blot on this country’s landscape. The previous Labour Government put considerable resource, time, and energy into this issue. It worked with non-governmental organisations to tackle the causes of domestic violence, to provide education around domestic violence, and to raise awareness to ensure that people in this situation get the support and the protection that they so much deserve.
I am taking only a short call on this bill currently, but I am very pleased to be speaking on it. This bill will get the support of all members of the Committee, I assume, and I think that is commendable. At the very heart of the matter is protection for families who are subjected to violence and actions that no human being—and, in particular, no child—should be subject to. I am very pleased to speak in support of the bill. Thank you.
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this
I thank the member Lynne Pillay for her comments on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. She is aware that since this bill was introduced to the House, a second bill that deals with some of the other issues that she refers to—plus another matter, which will enable us to ratify an international instrument in respect of one particular matter—has been tabled. Some issues remain with regard to the current legislation, to which the member refers, and that is why the second bill, the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, remains on the Order Paper. I assure her that I am doing my best to work my way through the remaining issues.
Broadly speaking, this bill is a piece of work that I started on about 2½ years ago with some staff with whom I was working at the time while in Opposition. I am pleased that the bill has made the progress that it has to date, and I hope that towards the end of the evening, before we adjourn the House, we may make some more progress on it.
Part 1 amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995 by inserting new Part 6A, which provides for the police safety order initiative. In brief, the provisions provide the police with the power to issue a police safety order when called to a domestic dispute if they are unable to arrest the alleged violent person. Part 1 also amends the offence provisions. Firstly, it removes the tiered penalty structure for the offence of contravening a protection order, while retaining the current maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment of up to 2 years. That was actually quite an important signal to send in the Part 1 provisions. Secondly, it separates out the offence of failing to attend a programme as directed, and retains the current penalty of up to 6 months’ imprisonment or of a fine not exceeding $5,000. That continues to give emphasis to the importance of participating in the programmes emphasised in this legislation. Section 50(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, which requires an arresting officer to consider certain criteria before arresting a person who he or she suspects has breached a protection order, is also repealed. Repealing those criteria aligns the principal Act with section 315 of the Crimes Act 1961, which permits arrest without a warrant where there is good cause to suspect that an offence has been committed.
The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of changes to Part 1 to provide more explicit provisions around the law enforcement and court processes associated with the police safety orders. I thank the committee for that work; I think it added to the bill and has made it a more whole piece of legislation. Supplementary Order Paper 72 in my name consists of several technical amendments to Part 1, and I hope the Committee of the whole House will see its way to supporting them.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I thought I might take this opportunity to go over briefly some of the more substantive changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee made, which the Minister of Justice referred to. But before I do, I highlight again what a considerable advance this legislation is. That is, of course, originally thanks to the drafting by the then Labour Government, but I also congratulate the Minister on taking on this legislation. I am sure at some point in the third reading we might go into it in a little more detail. Some of those additional pieces could perhaps be expanded on, although, as the Minister has mentioned, they have been put into the new legislation. There are still parts of Labour’s legislation we would like to see acted upon.
This legislation is a very new type of tool for police to add to their tool kit in preventing domestic violence. I want to highlight that this tool is intended to be a preventive measure, but with that come some difficulties. Of course, we are asking the police to intervene, in many cases, before a crime has occurred. The Police Association came forward and suggested in the select committee discussion that, for instance, some of the penalties for breaching a police order should be heftier than what had been proposed. We had to put back to them that we needed to weigh up the consideration of the fact that, in the first instance, a crime had not yet occurred, and that some of the association’s suggestions may be considered disproportionate. That was a balance that I think the select committee has struck in what it has produced.
The first change that I want to touch on briefly is in respect of some words that were either changed or removed. I think that that was in order to aid the police in making a decision as to whether a police order is required. The select committee tried to have a very practical discussion with officials about the kinds of practical situations police officers may find themselves in, so that we could ensure that we were not adding any words unnecessarily that may prevent police officers issuing orders where it might be extremely useful. One word was “immediate”. We recommended the removal of the condition that an order be issued only if necessary to safeguard the immediate safety of the person. That was on the basis that at any one point in time when a police officer arrives at a house, there may be a period where the dispute may seem slightly more settled, but that may not be the case a few hours after the fact. We wanted to give maximum flexibility to the police in that regard. The other word was “serious”. Proposed new section 124B(2) of the Domestic Violence Act sets out the matters to which the constable must have regard when considering whether to issue an order. One matter was whether there was a serious likelihood that domestic violence might be used. We felt that the word “serious” was quite imprecise, so we recommended removing it.
I will touch on two other issues. The committee rightly picked up on the fact that, when a police officer is called out originally, the criterion was that a constable could award an order if there was a view that that person had not committed crime significant enough for an arrest. We considered that there might be another offence that may have occurred in that environment or in that home to cause the person’s arrest, which might be completely unrelated to domestic violence, but that there might be reason enough to suspect that a safety order might be useful. We wanted to ensure that, even if an arrest had occurred, a safety order could be used as well.
Another issue I will touch on briefly relates to who could award an order. We determined that it would be worthwhile to clarify that a constable who is not a qualified constable must receive authorisation from a qualified constable. That was specifically to take into account the fact that in a rural environment someone may not have reached the required bar in order to issue an order, but may be the only person available on the scene at that time to do so. We wanted to give not only maximum flexibility but also oversight to those situations. We considered that it would be appropriate that that may occur via telephone.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
It is a privilege to speak in this debate in support of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. As the bill went through the select committee process, it enjoyed the goodwill of members on all sides of the Justice and Electoral Committee table. We had a number of very positive submissions from the public in respect of this bill, and only one or two were against it. Those submissions seemed to be from a partisan view of the proceedings of the Family Court, rather than against the bill itself. We made a number of changes around process to take account of, for instance—as the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, mentioned—the difficulties for those in rural areas of accessing legal counsel. The days available to obtain a formal protection order whilst the police safety order endured was lengthened slightly. There were some concerns around just how that would fit at certain times of the year—for instance, over the Easter period or over the Christmas period—and I think that those are valid concerns. We will have to see how that runs. There were also concerns in respect of an enhancement made to the bill to allow police who preferred prosecution out of certain circumstances to be able to bring a safety order there as well.
One other aspect of the debate within the select committee process that was very interesting was the submissions made by groups in support of women as victims of family violence. One group suggested that the protection orders should not be able to be put in place by a court on sentencing, because it took away the power of the victim to have some self-determination in respect of her—it is usually “her”—own circumstances. It was interesting to note that the exact opposite suggestion was submitted for exactly the same reasons. Other groups in support of women came before the committee and suggested that courts should be able to make these orders without any consultation with the victim, or despite their not wanting them, because women who are oppressed in these relationships are frequently unable to make those decisions and choices of their own volition. In the end, we allowed the courts to impose a protection order at sentencing, because we felt it was in the best interests of the people involved in the centre of these disputes.
I finish by thanking those who were involved in the select committee process. I am thankful for the spirit in which we engaged together, for the good result we ended up with, and for the enhancement of confidence in the parliamentary process, given the result we had in preparing this bill for the House. I commend it to the House.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
I will begin by acknowledging the member who has just resumed his seat. Not only was that a considered contribution to this very important debate but also I understand that he was very well regarded as chair of the committee, not just in the way he dealt with other members of the committee but also in the way he dealt with submitters, and I acknowledge him for that. I am not likely to do that often, given his current political affiliation, but when it is warranted I certainly will.
Hon Darren HughesThat is right. When he moves on from that position, we never know what might happen.
I acknowledge the Hon Annette King, who put a huge amount of work into preparing the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, and also all the officials who worked so hard, not just with Annette King when she was Minister, but also with community organisations up and down the country, to make sure that that bill had really strong input from people who knew the outcome they wanted. There is no debate about the outcome that is required, but these issues are not always as straightforward as they seem. The bill that Annette King introduced to the House was the result of widespread community consultation, and that is the point that I want the Minister to reflect on before he takes the next call.
I will add that it was one of the few pieces of legislation that went to the cross-party family violence prevention group, which had every single party in Parliament, tragically with the exception of National, represented on it. That cross-party group looked at various options in terms of enhancing safety in the home, and supported the progress of the bill. It certainly is not often that we have people like Heather Roy, Tariana Turia, Sue Bradford, and Judy Turner in the room together, all working on one cause with a great deal of passion and commitment. I regret that National left the group and did not come back, because it was an opportunity that was lost.
The original bill came forward with a lot of support from both outside and within this Parliament. Part of the bill that I am referring to, the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, has been picked up by the Minister Simon Power and I acknowledge his commitment. I have no doubt about his personal commitment to enhancing safety in the home, and I acknowledge that, as well. But I find it quite puzzling that despite him introducing a second bill, there are still quite important issues from the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill that have been omitted. Frankly, if we have an opportunity as a Parliament to make our homes safer for everyone, and particularly for women and children, why would we throw away that chance? That is the question I want the Minister to answer. There was a bill already before Parliament that had majority support in this House, without doubt. There may have been some small parts of it that could have been debated, but I doubt even that.
The Minister went to all the trouble of introducing his own bill, which took part of that original bill, and sent it to select committee, and then went to another lot of bother to introduce a second bill. Still he missed out four quite important parts of the original domestic violence reform legislation. Why would anyone want to reduce safety by taking away some of the key elements? That is what I would like the Minister to answer, because it seriously is a puzzle to me.
My colleague Jacinda Ardern outlined some of the concerns that were raised both by members of the select committee and by submitters to it. I want to proceed with asking the Minister directly for his views on the four points that have been omitted in both pieces of legislation, and that were in the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill. The first omission is changing the definition of a child, from under 17 years of age to under 18 years of age, in the Domestic Violence Act. Obviously, that would give us compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that is a good thing. It does not improve anyone’s safety, but it is always good to sign up to United Nations conventions when we can and when it makes sense for our nation. It also would align the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act. It is very puzzling that a Minister who is generally regarded as having quite a lot of rigour, showing attention to detail, and common sense would waive the opportunity to make a very straightforward move aligning the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act; it puzzles me.
The second omission was the decision that has specifically been made to not require reasons to be given in writing when a without notice application for a protection order is declined by a judge. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no explanation from the Government as to why it specifically made the decision not to proceed with including that provision in the legislation. Again, this is something that was worked through by experts in the field, by people who are survivors of domestic violence, and by people who support them to move from being a victim to being a survivor. It was worked through with the police and the Ministry of Justice—the people who know what they are talking about. This was the advice that was given to us; we took it from the best sources. But the Minister said: “No, I’m not going to do that.” Once again, it is a big puzzle and I would like the Minister to take what will be one of the last chances to explain that second puzzle to me.
The third omission from the original legislation was the decision not to introduce information sessions. That is contrary to all the evidence around the fact that protection is best given in a situation where an individual knows how he or she can access support, and that person also understands the nature of the threat that he or she may be faced with in the future. That message does not seem to be understood by the Government, even though people in our country die at the hands of partners who often have quite recently professed to love them. They have been frightened and they did not understand what may happen to them. Information sessions are a critical part of enhancing an individual’s safety. We literally have people in our nation killed, and we may have an opportunity to enhance the safety of someone who could be in that situation tonight. I know the Minister is committed to that aim. I cannot understand why he took that information session provision out of the original legislation, because once again it was on best advice that that was included. I hope that this is not a political party issue. I am sure that every single member in this House wants to enhance the safety of individuals, particularly within their own homes. Once again, I ask the Minister whether he could please explain to the Committee why he did not take the advice that Labour was given when in Government to include those information sessions as part of the legislation.
The fourth point is the Government’s specific decision not to introduce funded addiction treatment services and, again, that is despite overwhelming evidence about the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. I cannot fathom why that specific recommendation has been taken out. It is a huge contributor to enhancing safety, not only in the home but also in our broader community. In my view, it is not too late for the Minister to say that he has changed his mind and introduce some amendments. Labour would support those particular provisions being put back in the legislation. The Minister is able to provide Supplementary Order Papers at a moment’s notice. He has the advantage of having some extraordinarily competent officials on hand. They may well have those amendments drafted, just in case the Minister decides that the best evidence is worth taking and that doing every single thing we can to enhance safety in the home is worth pursuing.
Despite those omissions, the parts of the Hon Annette King’s legislation that the Minister has taken on board are very good. I hope they achieve the aims that we all share, to ensure that fewer children, fewer women, and fewer men are harmed by those who should give them the security and the love that they deserve within their own homes.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this
I start by acknowledging what the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, said, particularly in relation to Chester Borrows. He has done an exceptionally fine job of chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee through its consideration of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I agree with what Chester Borrows said: all the members of the select committee—whether they were from Labour, the Greens, or National—entered into a spirit of cooperation that was very good to see. It was this Parliament and the select committee process working at its finest.
I also agreed when Ruth Dyson said that every member of this Committee wants to do his or her bit to enhance the safety of victims and potential victims of domestic violence. In fact, we want to do what we can to ensure people do not become victims. The Minister of Justice acknowledged that there is more work to do, which he and his ministry are working on. This bill is a response to a serious issue, and, in respect of the Minister, I think we are seeing a fine response.
Before talking very briefly about the response, I say that I am sure no one doubts the severity of the problem. I agreed with Lynne Pillay when she said that domestic violence is a blot on our society. We think of the very high-profile cases, the children like Nia Glassie and the wives and spouses who are badly beaten. But, of course, it is also clear that domestic violence can be rather more banal than those headline cases. With 80,000 domestic violence call-outs for police every year, no one can be in any doubt that this issue needs a response from this Parliament. As I said, it has been a privilege to be part of the team under Minister Simon Power that worked on this.
What does the bill do? Well, it does many things. It deals with the penalty provisions for failure to attend a programme, and so on. There are a number of specific provisions, but perhaps the key part is that it allows for on-the-spot protection orders for up to 5 days in situations where police may not have sufficient evidence to charge then and there—although they may get it eventually—but it is quite clear that the situation is bad, is serious, and needs to be dealt with. In other words, this bill allows for immediate safety to come first. It empowers the police and gives them the tools to ensure that immediate safety comes first. I do not think anyone in this Chamber could disagree with that. I look forward to taking a call in the third reading debate of this bill.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this
It is a pleasure to stand again and speak on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I was a bit remiss in my first speech, so I will now also add my compliments to Chester Borrows for his excellent chairing of the Justice and Electoral Committee.
I will also take this opportunity to acknowledge the submitters. They include the people who work at the coalface in the many organisations who came and gave submissions. They did so because they are very, very committed to providing protection for victims of domestic violence. I not only acknowledge the submissions that they gave but also the work that they do on a day-to-day basis. I know that it makes a real difference to the lives of, predominantly, women and children in New Zealand, and I am very proud to acknowledge that in this House.
I also acknowledge the victims of domestic violence who made submissions. I believe, and I am sure that all members will agree with me, that that is a very brave action to take for people who have already been through very, very difficult situations, situations more painful than anyone in this Chamber can contemplate. For them to be able to come to the select committee and share their stories in a very meaningful way assisted us in our deliberations, and that was a very, very brave thing for them to do.
Again, I acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson and the points that she made in terms of the bill’s shortcomings, or in terms of what is missing from this bill. I acknowledge that another bill is following this one, but if we look at the domestic violence statistics, every hour is an hour too long. Every day is, by far, too long. That is why I am pleased that we are debating this bill under urgency. Let us get this bill through; let us get this bill into effect as soon as possible.
I will also talk about a couple of issues in Part 2, particularly those relating to the amendment to the Sentencing Act. We spent quite some time considering the effects of the protection order, and I am really pleased with one of the amendments that we made to new section 123D, to be inserted in the Sentencing Act by clause 9. The section states: “On making a protection order, the Judge or Registrar must explain to the offender—”. The initial draft of the bill talked about the effect and the consequences in a couple of lines, but select committee members discussed quite extensively how important it is in this situation that offenders understand what is required of them with regard to the protection order. It is not just the order that is important but also the direction to attend a programme that will assist offenders—well, we certainly hope so—to address their violence and the consequences if they fail to do so.
Where there is an order that offenders are required to attend a programme and they fail to do so, there will be consequences arising from that. I believe that that is a very sensible amendment. That direction is about protection and safety in the immediate instance, and also about looking forward and ensuring that offenders take responsibility for their actions.
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this
I thank the member Lynne Pillay for her contribution to the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. A few johnny-come-latelys, though, are contributing to this discussion in the Committee stage. I myself have been an affiliate member of the Chester Borrows fan club for some time. Now everybody else seems to be rushing to the party during the Committee of the whole House to pledge their allegiance to Mr Borrows. I tell members of the Committee that I have been a fan of Mr Borrows for longer than most members, and I would appreciate it if there was more historic depth to their analysis of his contribution on this particular issue.
Part 2 of the bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002. It provides that when an offender is convicted of a domestic violence - related offence, the court may make a final protection order against the offender if it is satisfied that the making of the order is necessary for the protection of the victim and the victim does not object. When making the protection order, the court must explain to the offender the effect of the order and of any direction to attend a programme. Any protection order issued by the criminal courts is referred to the Family Court.
The Justice and Electoral Committee made two amendments to Part 2. Ms Pillay made reference, I believe, to one of those. The first is to delete new section 123B(1)(c), inserted by clause 9. That amendment clarifies that the criminal courts may make a protection order regardless of whether the victim has applied for one in the Family Court. That is a critical step and one that the committee should be applauded for taking. The second amendment is to new section 123D, also inserted by clause 9, and it requires the court to explain to an offender the effect of a protection order and the consequences of failure to comply with it. The court must also explain to the offender the effect of the court’s direction to attend a stopping violence programme and the consequences of failure to attend any such programme.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
I am pleased to speak on Part 2 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. Part 2 focuses on the amendments made to the Sentencing Act, and the Minister in the chair, Simon Power, has already rightly pointed out the most significant changes that were made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. When considering this part I want to expand a little bit on the process that the select committee went through in determining those changes.
I think at the heart of this bill is the overall objective to streamline the process that a victim, in particular, may go through when using our justice system to obtain a protection order. There was one thing that I think came through quite clearly during the submission process.
Before the break I was talking about one of the primary objectives of this bill, which is to improve access by victims to such things as protection orders. When the Justice and Electoral Committee was considering one of the clauses in Part 2, it occurred to us that we could improve that objective if we allowed a court to order a protection order when it was considering a case, even if it was not the court to which a particular application had been made. In the end, we considered that a sentencing court should not be precluded from making a protection order if it considered that the protection order was necessary for the protection of the victim of the offence. We made that change after careful consideration and after hearing submissions made by, for instance, Family Court judges. It was a well considered and appropriate change to make.
There are only two other aspects of Part 2 that I wish to draw attention to. One is new section 123D, which requires that after the issuing of a protection order, a judge or registrar must explain to the offender the effect of that order. That change was based on submissions made by the Family Court, which pointed out the rate of non-compliance with some of these orders. It was the view of the select committee that we should do everything we can to ensure that orders for individuals to attend programmes to stop violence, for instance, should be enhanced in any way available to us. I think there is still more we can do in that particular area. It struck me during our consideration of the bill that, although we were using all the tools available through legislation, the surrounding areas—the support programmes and community networks aimed both at victims and at turning round the behaviour of offenders—perhaps needed the greater attention of the House.
The final point I will briefly talk to relates to consent for protection orders. The select committee had some discussion about the issue of consent in issuing a protection order. We had considered that very same issue in relation to the awarding of police safety orders. The committee decided, rightly so, that these were quite different tools. A police safety order is a short-term order that is intended to diffuse very heated situations and prevent violence from occurring. Women’s Refuge, after seeing how those orders work in Australia, agreed that applying them without consent appeared to be of value to victims, who would acknowledge that after the fact. Of course, the reason then that we thought police safety orders should be able to be applied without consent was that it gave victims time and space to consider whether they wished to apply for a full protection order. A protection order has many larger, longer-term ramifications than a police safety order. In order for protection orders to work in the long term, I believe they require the buy-in of victims, which is why we have, in the end, rightly differentiated between those two forms of protection for victims or potential victims of domestic violence.
Those are the main aspects of the amendments to the Sentencing Act that I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to. I look forward to discussing further in the Committee stage the amendments to the Bail Act, and to the third reading.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, take a brief call. I encourage him to do so because he still has not addressed the questions I raised earlier in the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, and those same questions apply to Part 2, which we are now debating. I heard the earlier contribution from the Minister and I thought that it was considered in the main. Some parts of it were quite amusing, especially the Chester Borrows fan club section of his contribution, but I have serious questions. The Minister is well regarded for taking issues from whatever political party as seriously as they are presented to him. So I say to him, quite directly, that I am still puzzled about the Government’s reasons for omitting four quite important sections from the Hon Annette King’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill.
I will refresh the Minister’s memory from the earlier debate. The application of this bill to the Sentencing Act will be very well known to him; he will be familiar with the Sentencing Act, I am sure, and he will understand how the four points I raise apply to Part 2. These are provisions that the Hon Annette King included in the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. That legislation was well consulted around the country and had overwhelming support from the experts and key players in this area.
Four provisions of that bill have been omitted from this bill. The first omission is that this bill does not change the definition of a child from a person who is under 17 years of age to a person who is under 18 years of age. The definition in the Domestic Violence Act, as noted in new section 123A of the Sentencing Act, inserted by clause 9, still applies. The opportunity to align this legislation with the Care of Children Act should have been irresistible. The proposed provision made sense and had wide-ranging support, but the Minister decided to leave it out. That makes no sense, at all. The second omission —again, a specific decision made by the Minister—is that this bill does not require a judge to give reasons in writing when he or she declines a without-notice application for a protection order. That was not an oversight; it was a deliberate, specific decision that was signed off by the Minister. From my perspective, it is extremely puzzling. The Minister has made no attempt to explain why the decision was made to omit that.
The third omission is that this bill does not introduce information sessions. In my earlier contribution, I explained the importance of that aspect in the protection of women, in particular, who do not necessarily understand the relationship they are in and the different tack it can take. It is very hard for people who have not been in a violent relationship to understand how a person can still live with somebody who is violent with him or her. An information session is critical for people in their understanding of their relationships and in being able to determine key risk factors for the future. The fourth omission is that this bill does not introduce funded addiction treatment services, despite overwhelming evidence about the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse.
I know that we are in urgency and that the Government is under a huge amount of pressure from the extensive legislative timetable it has ahead of it, but I consider that the Committee would benefit hugely if the Minister were to spend 5 minutes of his time explaining what he has against those four provisions of the Domestic Violence Reform Bill—and it is still on the Order Paper—that have been omitted not just from this bill but also from the related bill that the Minister introduced.
Those provisions should be in this bill; those amendments should be consistent with the provisions of the reform bill. The Minister did not need to pass over the Hon Annette King’s bill. He could have short-cut all the systems and just put his name on it. He must have a good reason not to give those protections to women and children who, right now, right at this very minute as we debate this bill, are living in dangerous situations. Why has the Minister not taken that chance?
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to omit the schedule and substitute a new schedule be agreed to.
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The commencement clauses contained in clauses 1 and 2 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill relating to revised offence provisions, the new provision on arrest without a warrant, and the amendments to the Bail Act will come into force immediately following this bill’s assent. Proposed new Part 6A of the Domestic Violence Act, which concerns the police safety orders and is to be inserted by clause 7 of the bill, and the amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 that are made by Part 2 of the bill and enable the criminal courts to make protection orders, will come into force on 1 July 2010. The additional time allowed before those proposals come into force will allow for the development of processes and for system changes and training to be completed.
In respect of the matters that have been raised by the Hon Ruth Dyson, I will take a moment to address those, because they are fair questions. The first reassurance that I want to give the member and the Committee of the whole House is that, in respect of the domestic protection orders, we were keen to move that part of the legislation that was previously on the Order Paper swiftly, which is why it was introduced and extracted from the remaining legislation. The second bill that was introduced to the House, which we are debating now, was introduced, in a way, to cover some of the issues that have been raised by the member in her first contribution to the debate on Part 1, but particularly because I was keen to see a particular international instrument taken care of as part of this bill. I reassure the member that the reason the original bill is still on the Order Paper today, and will remain on the Order Paper, is that those matters she has raised are still under active consideration.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
I will talk briefly to the title and commencement clauses, because there was some discussion at the Justice and Electoral Committee when the bill was referred to it as the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. The Minister originally set out that the legislation would come into force only on the date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. That was not satisfactory to the committee. The view was that the legislation should be time-bound, which eventually was the case, with provisions coming into force on 1 July 2010.
Of course, those provisions will still affect only a particular group of people, as set out in Part 3, which talks about the amendments to the Bail Act. We have already considered that children, for instance, are defined as being those aged up to the age of 17, as described by the Domestic Violence Act. Regardless of when this bill comes into force, because of its drafting there is a significant group of young people who some of us on this side of the Chamber consider will be neglected by this bill. I look forward to expanding on that issue in my speech during the third reading debate.