Domestic Violence Amendment Bill, Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2), Bail Amendment Bill (No 2)

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. This was some of the first legislation to be introduced by the National-led Government, and it is particularly important to me.

In less than a year this Government has made important legislative inroads into dealing with the impact of family violence on New Zealand families. New Zealand has a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect women, children, and men from violence in the home, yet we continue to have high rates of family violence. For example, the police currently record approximately 86,000 family violence events in a year, of which approximately half involve offences. Family violence also has a negative intergenerational effect. Children socialised within a violent environment are not as well equipped to adapt to and adopt positive lifestyles, and may go on to become the subject of violence within their adult relationships.

This legislation aims to strengthen the responsiveness of criminal justice agencies to victims of domestic violence through amendments to the Domestic Violence Act 1995, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Bail Act 2000. The most significant amendment is made by the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill to the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and is the introduction of police safety orders. Issuing a police safety order addresses the immediate safety of victims by removing the alleged violent person from the home for a period of up to 5 days. The police will issue the orders in situations where there is an insufficient basis to arrest, but where they believe there is a likelihood of domestic violence occurring and an order is necessary for the safety of the victim. The orders will provide a period of safety in which victims can consider their future options, including the possibility of a court protection order.

An important feature of the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) is the proposal to amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to enable the criminal courts to issue a protection order on behalf of the victim in cases where an offender is sentenced for a domestic violence offence. Both of these provisions will be enacted from 1 July 2010 to allow police and the courts time to develop operational processes and undertake training. This will ensure a smooth transition from the legislation to day-to-day policing practice and court management of domestic violence matters. The other provisions come into force on enactment.

The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill amends the offence provisions in the Domestic Violence Act by removing the two-tiered penalty structure for breaches of protection orders, leaving only the maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years. The legislation also provides a penalty of up to 6 months’ imprisonment for the specific offence of failing to attend a court-ordered programme. Further, the legislation repeals the statutory criteria that police have to take into account when considering whether to arrest without warrant a person who they suspect has contravened a protection order. This means that the approach taken by police will be the same as for any other offence when an arrest without warrant is being considered. The Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) amends provisions in the Bail Act 2000 to allow the police to impose any conditions considered reasonably necessary to protect any particular person residing with the victim, such as children, new partners, or elderly parents.

Overall, I believe this legislation will provide useful tools in expediting the response of the criminal justice sector to domestic violence. The police safety orders will provide immediate protection for the victim, while making it very clear to the person who has allegedly committed the violence that his or her behaviour will not be tolerated. Similarly, I expect that the number of protection orders that are made each year will increase as offenders sentenced for domestic violence offences are also issued with protection orders. This Government’s commitment to dealing with family violence is further supported by the introduction of the Child and Family Protection Bill, which picks up on proposals that centre on child welfare and the issue of reconciling the Domestic Violence Act and the Care of Children Act.

At this point I acknowledge Labour’s efforts in this area prior to the last election. I acknowledge in particular the work that was done by the Hon Annette King. For whatever reason, the legislation was not able to be advanced prior to the general election, but these bills are an important continuance of cross bench support of these sorts of measures. I also acknowledge the contributions made during each reading and the Committee stage by Lynne Pillay, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and Jacinda Ardern, who have taken these issues and asked questions that are significant in the context of this work.

We know that for a significant number of victims of violence the most dangerous place they can be is in their own home. As I said in my first reading speech, we cannot legislate away behaviour when it is driven by broader social attitudes that will shift only over time. However, the way in which agencies respond to family violence can save lives and reduce the number of victims. This legislation is predicated on the belief that there is still more that can be done to protect victims of family violence and help prevent them from becoming just another statistic, and I urge the House to watch this space. I am particularly proud to have worked on this legislation during the course of the early days of this Government, and I commend it to the House.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this

Along with Simon Power, I say it is actually a pleasure to stand and speak in the third reading of this legislation. Putting aside the issue of process and what occurred when Labour was in Government, which pre-empted this debate, I think there has been a complete meeting of minds and hearts over a matter that is very dear to all of us: the protection of women and families in their own homes. We know that if we do not have safety, a community that is aware, and safeguards for people who are in an unsafe position, then we end up with some very, very dysfunctional situations. We end up with a society and with communities that, even if they are not directly affected by the senseless, horrible acts of violence, are affected emotionally by them. People are drawn in emotionally by the empathy that they feel for victims. I think that has been a key driver in terms of this legislation.

I acknowledge again, with regard to situations of domestic violence, that I dream of the time—and I am sure others join me in this—when there is no need for this sort of legislation and for actions such as the issuing of police safety orders and protection orders, because we have a safe society where everyone is valued, and where it is accepted without argument that violence is unacceptable. I do not think it will be in any of our times in this House. We are not there yet. What is really important about this legislation is that there needs to be, in a time of violence, in a time of anxiety, fear, and anger—all of those things—a way to defuse the situation when the police arrive at the scene, and a way to remove the offender from the scene. All too often, in the past, we have seen that it is usually the case that the women and children need to find somewhere else to go. They need to move. They need to uproot themselves and take themselves away from their homes to a safe environment.

I think this bill takes a far more sensible, commonsense approach. This is about us saying that people have the right to be safe in their homes, and if there is a person there who is stopping that from happening and subjecting them to violence, then that situation has to be fixed, and fixed the way that is the least disruptive and the least heart-rending to the victim. That is why the police safety orders are very sensible.

The members of the Justice and Electoral Committee all know that we spent quite some time on looking at whether the police safety orders should be for 3 days, 5 days, or more than that, and at whether public holidays should be counted, or weekends—all of those things. I am really proud that the committee considered those things very carefully, and I acknowledge all the really careful advice that we had from officials. I think we can all put our hands on our hearts and know that a period of up to 5 days—and I stress “up to”—is the most sensible approach. What does that do? It certainly does not allow time for victims to be healed and move on, in any real sense of the expression, but it does allow them to be able to gather their thoughts from the horror of it all and, in many instances, to organise themselves to take moves to get the support that they need. That support could be a myriad of different things. It could be working with agencies who care for victims and who offer them a lot of advice. Obviously, in a violent situation a victim who is looking at the interests of children is in a really vulnerable situation. It is very hard to actually think about what one should do in a very sensible, methodical way. That is simply very, very difficult.

The period of 5 days provides a little time for victims to gather their thoughts and then to go through the due process. That may be going for a protection order, but I would hope it would always entail having support from the agencies who work very hard to support victims in that situation. I think that the work they do is imperative for that to occur. It is about saying to victims that they are in a safe place for 5 days, and they have the ability to ensure that they are always in a safe place. It may mean going through processes that their heads are not completely geared up to going through, but if they do so they can be assured of a safe situation, not just for 5 days but into the future. Victims need to be told that, by the way, agencies are also there to help them and assist them in rehabilitating themselves, in getting to feel well in terms of their self-esteem, and in ensuring their children are safe, etc. I look upon the period of 5 days as the buying of time, and not just time but safe time. It is a time of safety, a time of being free not only from violence but from threats and from fear. It is a time for victims to gather their family support and the support of agencies to make very important decisions about where they go to from there.

I think it is very timely that this measure is happening at the moment. I am really proud that we have seen a lot of campaigns in our communities. I acknowledge our community in Waitakere, Violence Free Waitakere, the council, the mayor, and every organisation that is absolutely committed to saying to people, to our communities, to our families, and to people that violence in the home is not OK. Violence is not OK anyway, but if there is any place where people should think they have the complete, unfettered right to be safe and secure, where else is it if not in their own home? I am really pleased that we are at this point now. I know that it will not be very long before this legislation is passed, and that is very, very good. I have acknowledged the staff who have worked on it. I have acknowledged, in earlier speeches, the role that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, played, and I am not going to go into that again, because I think he is feeling quite overwhelmed by the accolades that he is receiving.

I think there have been times when our society, and when people in our history, have not taken the issue of violence properly. I remember that when I was a child, violence was not discussed openly. Often people thought there was a problem family or that things were happening. I feel really proud that we are now at a point, whether it is within legislation or within our communities, where we have lifted expectations to the extent where sometimes, if victims in that situation are not able to say “It is not OK.”, then a lot of other people are able to say “This is not OK. You are not safe, and you deserve better than this. You deserve to have safety and security.” This legislation goes some way towards ensuring that. I look forward, as the Minister said, to further legislation being enacted in this area. It would have been good to do it in one package, but that did not happen. Looking towards the future, if there is urgency again, which seems to be a bit of a common procedure—

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

It is great to be part of a Government that is taking a lead on the issue of family violence, and also to be part of a Parliament where parties across the House take the issue seriously. As a result of this legislation, significant hurdles will be put into the cycle of violence. As a person who has worked a lot with families who are suffering from violence within the home, I know that it is a sad truth that within violent homes we teach our boys how to be violent to their women, and we teach our women in many cases that their role in life is to put up with violence and to endure it as best they can—that that is their lot. So it is good to see a roadblock come up in the legislation dealing with violence. It will be a significant hurdle to the cycle of violence being perpetuated through the generations, and that is a good thing. This legislation is about breaking that cycle of violence.

It is also about empowering the vulnerable. The vulnerable in our community, particularly women and children, need protection. Over time they often get into a situation where they are unable to protect themselves, make themselves safe, or create and maintain a safe environment for those they love.

There have been a number of lessons that I think we have picked up on, and there are a number of challenges for those out in the community in respect of this legislation, too. One of my concerns, and one of the concerns of the Justice and Electoral Committee, is the lack of availability of lawyers operating within the legal aid area, especially in rural and provincial towns. Five days is not a heck of a long time to be able, firstly, to come to terms with the situation that has arisen, to gain some advice or some support from those we would normally rely on to provide that to get us through, and then to identify, locate, and get an appointment with a solicitor—and at the back of people’s minds, frequently, is the cost; people wonder how they will pay for it. So there needs to be a significant stepping up of community groups that people turn to for support, help, advice, and information on family violence. The legal fraternity also needs to step up and to make themselves available in a timely way so that they can help people who turn to them in times of need.

I talked briefly about education; I will talk a little bit more about that. The It’s Not OK campaign is confronting us on our televisions on a nightly basis, and that is a good thing. But similar campaigns in the past have got a bit wobbly and fallen over. After families have been through the cycle of violence on a couple of occasions and have taken steps to address it—maybe they have reported the matter to the police, and maybe charges have emanated from that—the cost to the family becomes quite significant in terms of loss of income, loss of support, and loss of parental support. So getting people to report a third and fourth incident becomes quite difficult, when the lessons are not learnt by the perpetrators on the first and second occasions. There needs to be some more education amongst our community, so that 6, 12, or 18 months down the track, violence is still not seen as OK, and to make sure that this particular campaign does not go the way that, for instance, the “It’s Not Just a Domestic” campaign went in the early 1990s. That campaign saw a fairly steep rise in the reporting of domestic violence, but it then tailed off as the same families decided that it was too big a disruption.

Another point in respect of education that was made during the select committee process was the need for training of police officers who attend the scene of domestic violence crimes. One of the big pluses of the police strategy on domestic violence in the last few years has been to have attending police treat the scene of domestic violence as a crime scene: they photograph the scene, seize exhibits, freeze the scene, and do a proper investigation, in order to substantiate charges that may come from the incident. But it was noted before the select committee that there was a little gap in some of that learning in respect of deciding at the scene who the primary offender is and who the primary victim is. Often the person who is most composed and most calm is actually the perpetrator of the violence, because the violence has not been done to them. For an attending police officer, the most reasonable person to speak to at the scene of the crime is the offender, not the victim. The whole disempowerment scenario and regimen that goes along with domestic violence kicks in, and can, in some circumstances, pull the wool over the eyes of the not-so-experienced attending police officer. So there is a real need for extra training for attending staff so that they understand the dynamics of a situation that they move into and can take action against the correct party. That need was flagged.

One of the final points I will make is about the ability of the District Court when sentencing people who have been arrested for family violence incidents to issue a final protection order, which after the initial imposition in the District Court would fall back to the Family Court for, for instance, appeal or later amendment. When we look at this, we have to wonder why it has taken us so long. Historically, in the late 1980s, we became very rights-focused in this country. We had quite a long way to go in respect of rights, so we saw some very big changes. But through the early to late 1990s and into the 2000s we moved too far away from the responsibility aspect. Now we have come to a time when the community is seeing a need for us to be a little bit more interventionist. The implications of standing back and being too mindful of rights, and not being cognisant enough of the responsibilities that go with living in this free and democratic society have hit home in Parliament, if I can use that phrase. It is very timely that that has happened.

It is a relatively new experience for me, being new to Government and not having been in the House all that long, to see my fingerprints at least a little bit—and we know that success has many fathers—on legislation that has come through our select committee process and is being passed through the House.

What a privilege it is to know, as the previous speaker Lynne Pillay said, that we have done the business, and that we are leaving the place just a little bit better than it was when we found it. It is a privilege to be a member of Parliament—a privilege that fewer than a thousand people within our country’s history have experienced. It is something that I am sure all members of the House take very seriously. It is quite a proud moment to be able to see that this legislation will make life a little bit better for quite a number of people in this country. I commend the bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

I do not think it is really necessary to reiterate the importance of the legislation, the third readings of which we are now discussing tonight. We have heard consistently throughout contributions from both sides of the House that domestic and family violence contribute to 80,000 recorded events per year, and, of course, there is the role that violence plays in homicides and—as the Minister of Justice rightly pointed out—in intergenerational family violence. Labour saw it, Labour recognised it, and Labour crafted the original version of the legislation. The National Government had the good sense to further that legislation in some form or another.

There are perhaps two significant changes that the Government chose to make to the legislation. The first change extends the period that a police safety order covers—from Labour’s initial proposal of 72 hours to a period of 5 days. I have to say that having heard the submissions from various community organisations and from those in the law enforcement community, I feel content that we have struck the right balance in the legislation with the extension to 5 days.

The second significant change is what was omitted from the legislation. The Government had an opportunity to create comprehensive legislation but it reneged. Minister Power talked to us about the Government’s Child and Family Protection Bill, but it is in no way as comprehensive as the previous omnibus Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which was introduced by the Hon Annette King. I will spend some time going over the changes omitted and the opportunities lost, in the same way that my colleagues have done.

The Minister briefly addressed the House on that particular question. He told us the amendments that were removed by the Government were still under active consideration. I question what there was to consider. From my perspective the evidence was clear, the submissions and feedback from community groups were clear, so I cannot see where the debate lay on those clauses.

For the benefit of my colleagues across the House, I will go over four of the most significant changes. The first was the Government’s lack of recognition of the fact that we continue to neglect our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in the definition of children in our legislation. The Government has already used the opportunity in its Child and Family Protection Bill to fulfil another international obligation but has ignored our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child when it comes to the definition of children. We had the opportunity to further protect children through the amendments made to the Bail Act that allow us to put conditions that would enable children in violent domestic and family relationships to be protected. I do not understand what the harm in doing that would have been. Perhaps there is a political point the Minister would like to share with us about the wider ramifications for our youth justice system, which I would also debate him on.

The second aspect of the legislation introduced by Labour that was removed was access to funded addiction treatment programmes. Again, I do not understand why the Minister chose to not address that in this legislation. It was a perfect opportunity. Perhaps we would not have to put the House under urgency to consider it in another piece of legislation. It could have been moved into this one. It would have been a very efficient way to deal with it.

We already know, via the evidence, that if we look in isolation at tools for the police, we miss an opportunity to address the contributors to domestic violence. The evidence suggests that alcohol and drugs are huge contributors to domestic violence, in the same way that they are contributors to youth crime. Again, that is something that this House must continue to work on.

The third aspect is application without notice for a protection order, which I think fitted fundamentally within the objectives of the legislation. As much as the Minister may choose, instead of listening to these points, to give tips to his colleague Simon Bridges on how to bat back the points made by the Opposition, he may wish to consider why it would not have been more efficient to put that provision in this legislation. If we had already established the evidence, if we had already consulted the community, if all those major, significant organisations had said that this was the way to go, why did we not proceed?

The fourth aspect was about information sessions for protected persons. We already had looked at, in a sense, an iteration of this in the existing legislation. If we explain to offenders about protection orders and alcohol, and the ramifications of those, and the requirements for them to attend stopping violence programmes, why do we not give information sessions for protected persons? There is no reason why that should have been delayed for active consideration by this Government, when there already was an aspect of it in the legislation. I would be interested to hear Simon Bridges tell us why explaining to a victim the nature of the threats he or she faces and where he or she can get support is a bad idea. I look forward to hearing the members from the National side of the House explain to me why those aspects did not deserve to be in this bill.

We must acknowledge in this House that the arm of the State, the tools for law enforcement, are just a small part of the wider solution and preventive measures that we must put in place to tackle domestic violence—they are a small part. We must look more broadly, if we are to really tackle the contributors to domestic violence and the support networks required for the victims of domestic violence. We must look beyond tools for law enforcement and tools for use simply within our justice process.

I am pleased the Government has put forward this legislation and progressed it through the House. I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged and demonstrated his awareness of the importance of this issue, but I think we have a lost opportunity here. I am very willing and open to congratulate the Government in the future if those four aspects are progressed in this House. But I am disappointed that they were not progressed.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this

I do not intend to take up very much time of the House. I will just reiterate the support of the Green Party for this proposed legislation, as we had conveyed in the first and second readings. We think this legislation is a good example of the success of the Justice and Electoral Committee in operation. It worked well and harmoniously. In fact, it is good to see the House united on an issue as important as this one, and I take the opportunity to join in the congratulations to the chair, Chester Borrows, not just on the way in which he handled this legislation but on the way in which he handles all issues before the committee.

The Green Party has shared the concern articulated by the Opposition pertaining to some of the omissions in the legislation, particularly the four that were cited. There is no point in reiterating what they are; I think we have internalised them very acutely by now. Whether it is an opportunity lost, or simply an opportunity deferred, will prove to be a matter for the future. I would offer the personal view that I am quite confident that the Minister of Justice will, in his very capable way, address those omissions in the future. We will certainly be looking forward to seeing that in legislation.

Let me conclude with a more philosophical point, if I may, in response essentially to comments made by one of our colleagues from ACT during the debate on earlier bills—I think the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill—where, I think that Mr Garrett, looking through a glass darkly, concluded that the Green Party somehow sympathises with criminals. It is just worth noting in passing, by way of clarification, that of course we are not sympathising with criminality per se, at all. The difference between the Green Party and ACT in that respect is that we do not have a policy that stresses punitive justice. We have a policy of restorative justice. Where we confront these issues at the margin, we may well have differences of view.

There is quite a broad commonality running through all parties in this House when it comes to handling law and order and crime. But our philosophy is that it is equally important to understand the social causes of crime, as in fact the Minister Mr Power himself mentioned in the first reading and again in the third reading. We can tinker at the margin as much as we like, and I would not want to denigrate this legislation in that category. The Green Party is, indeed, as sympathetic towards victims as any other party in this House, but equally so it is very important to understand the social causes of what brings individual humans to criminal acts, and to seek to redress those social problems. If we put as much energy and creativity into that endeavour as we do into seeking to increase the prison population, then I think we will do better.

As Sue Kedgley said in the first reading, if we have a society that is saturated with violence on television, computers, and videos, and we almost encourage our children to grow up imbibing that culture, then we will be simply reinventing the wheel of violence, generation after generation. We will be seeking to give succour to victims, as, indeed, we will be obliged to do morally, we will be looking to expand more and more prisons, at vast financial and social cost, and we will be simply engaging in an eternal cycle of punitive vengeance.

There is a difference, a philosophical difference, between ACT and the Green Party, but I suggest there is more in common than Mr Garrett may have misperceived. With that mild comment in reply, I simply reiterate that the Green Party is very, very happy indeed to support the legislation, congratulates both the Minister and the chairman in this respect, and looks forward to future legislation.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

Like Kennedy Graham, my colleague from the Green Party who is also on the Justice and Electoral Committee, I do not intend to use all my speaking time; I will probably not even use most of it. That is in no way to give an indication of anything other than the seriousness with which I approach this issue, and the significance of this legislation, which will soon be law. This is a very happy occasion in many ways. It is serious, yes, but it is happy. Although there are some issues and some points that Opposition parties seek to bring out in the debate, nevertheless it is a time when the whole House becomes united against domestic violence. As I apprehend it, we will all be voting for this legislation to become law.

I agree with some of the things that Kennedy Graham spoke of. There are issues in our society concerning violence. It can be cultural, and it can be a product of what is being watched on television—our media and our culture. I suppose this is not in contradiction to that, but I agree with what the Minister Simon Power said; there are also issues of intergenerational violence, of violence spanning families over generations, which make up the undoubted problem of domestic violence that we have in this country. No one would argue that it is anything other than a problem, even if, following on from Kennedy Graham, following on from the Minister, we can also acknowledge how undoubtedly complex the causes of it are.

With all that as the background, domestic violence is a complicated causal issue. Domestic violence is an undoubtedly large problem in our society, with 80,000 or so police call-outs a year. But, as I say, this is a happy time, because we are united against domestic violence. It is a happy time because this legislation is in favour of victims. It puts victims where they should be in the process, at centre stage, with their concerns at heart, rather than marginalising them, as has historically been the case in New Zealand and in the Westminster tradition.

With those few thoughts, I will say that a majority of the select committee’s time was spent in relation to the police safety orders. We originally called them “police orders”, but I think “police safety orders” more accurately reflects what they are, what they do, and what their purpose is. As I said during the Committee stage, the police safety orders address the immediate safety issues that may arise for the families and whānau. It may be that the police, at that time, do not have sufficient evidence to arrest, but nevertheless they are presented with a situation where there is a likelihood of violence. They can defuse the situation with a police safety order. They can effectively solve the situation for a period of up to 5 days. During that time they can look at the options they are presented with, which may include prosecution of the alleged offender.

In conclusion, I think this is a happy moment for this Parliament. We have come together on a piece of law, notwithstanding some of the comments from some members in the House. This is another step forward for victims in New Zealand.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this

It is a genuine privilege for me to contribute in the third reading of the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2), into which the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill has been divided. I look forward to their conclusion and rapid progress into law. I begin by commending my friend and colleague the Hon Annette King, who started this process by introducing the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, upon which Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill was based. I further commend—and it will be for the final time this evening—Chester Borrows for his excellent chairing of the Justice and Electoral Committee. He not only has been very respectful of the other members of the select committee, but also was very welcoming to and respectful of the submitters, and on this issue I think that is critically important. That is important on every issue, but on this issue it is particularly important.

I acknowledge every member of the select committee and also the officials. They have done a very good job of looking at the submissions, making some changes to the legislation, and bringing it back to the House. They also gave us a very good report of the select committee proceedings. I also acknowledge the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power. The Minister is well regarded for his personal commitment and the respect with which he deals with other members of the House. He has a considered approach to issues, and he has demonstrated that again tonight. I thank him and acknowledge his response.

I am not sure what “active consideration” means under National, but I assure the Minister that I will be reminding him of his phrase on a regular basis. I am puzzled that these issues needed further active consideration, actually, given the rigour with which they were considered previously, but obviously the Minister was alerted to some concerns. I give him an absolute assurance that when he introduces those four issues to the House Labour will be supporting their progress, and I give him an equally confident assurance that I will be regularly reminding him of his consideration until his consideration is ended.

Some time ago I gave a maiden speech in this House; it was actually on 24 March 1994. That was quite some time ago. It was probably not long after the time that Simon Bridges was born.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this

I am pleased to take a call on the third readings of this legislation. This legislation enables police to issue on-the-spot protective orders for a period of up to 5 days. This will ensure the safety of victims and protect them from offenders depending on the situation as it is assessed on the spot. The legislation will also repeal criteria for arrest without warrant for breach of protection orders and will also amend the structure and penalties for offences of breach of protection orders. This Government is working hard to bring down the level of violence in our society. This legislation is a significant step in making our society safe.

Domestic violence is committed not just against women. It is also committed against men, children, senior citizens, and disabled people. During the select committee process we heard many submissions from the representatives of elderly and disabled victims. These people suffered not only from physical trauma, but also from mental trauma. There were submissions from disabled people who had undergone physical and mental trauma on a regular basis. There were also submissions from the representatives of ethnic communities. They mentioned that there was a lack of awareness of the law and there were cultural sensitivities. Therefore, there has been an increase in family violence in ethnic communities too. Whatever legislation we may pass, it will be ineffective unless everyone contributes to it. It will be ineffective until people take responsibility for their actions, and until they start reporting any misconduct or family violence in their neighbourhoods or in their families.

Violence is not just the actual act of physical assault against a person, which is unacceptable; psychological and emotional violence is equally unacceptable. We need to stand up and raise our voices against any violence. We need to make our fellow New Zealanders aware of the legislation. In this country of 4.4 million people, New Zealanders have close to 80,000 domestic violence incidents every year, which is a shocking statistic.

I will conclude by appealing to all New Zealanders to stand and raise their voices against domestic violence. We should all be proactive, and be models for all New Zealanders. I say to members, let us stand against this behaviour. I commend this legislation to the House.