Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2), Care of Children Amendment Bill, Adoption Amendment Bill

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this

—

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

I am happy to rise to make a contribution on behalf of the Labour Opposition, and to support the legislation arising from the Child and Family Protection Bill. Labour agrees with the intent of the legislation. We agree with the intent of providing more protection for children who are victims of domestic violence, and of ensuring that the Family Court can manage proceedings involving children appropriately.

I am one of the fortunate members of the Social Services Committee, which has over the past 3 years had the opportunity to listen to the various experiences that have been shared with us by members of our community working on the ground in this field. I myself and members of that committee have been involved in a process whereby we have looked at what is happening with our young people. We have had the opportunity to visit some of the homes, facilities, and community groups who are engaged in that activity. We cannot simply deny that we have a problem. We do have a problem, but I hope this Government will not simply hold out bills, such as the ones we are now passing, and say “There’s the answer. These are going to be the solution to our problems.” I have to say that although these bills are a step in the right direction, more needs to be done on the ground.

Members may recall that when this Government first arrived in office and took over power in this country, it shouted from the rooftops that it would put every bad kid in jail. In fact, there was a debate about the validity of boot camps, and whether they would achieve what we were wanting to achieve—that is, not only to protect children from domestic violence but to ensure that they had every opportunity to succeed in the future in this country.

Of late the Social Services Committee has had the opportunity to travel to Australia and look at the experience of the Australian Parliament, as well as at groups and various courts systems. I came away heartened that rehabilitation programmes work when the community is being engaged with on a regular basis. I came away heartened that one of the fundamental lessons that the Australian public and the Australian Government have learnt is that prison is a last resort. We should not be so gung-ho, so to speak, that every time some young person does something wrong we simply throw them in jail and throw away the key. That is not the way forward.

In terms of our experiences with community groups working on the ground throughout the length and breadth of this country, we have heard some awful stories. I have to say that I have now gained an understanding about why some young men and young women are on the streets prostituting themselves. It is because of the kind of abuse, sexual and physical, that they have often received at the hands of people who are supposedly loved ones—members of their families. We also have to remember that that is not the case for every household in this country. I think that often we become so focused on the bad that we forget there is also good in the wider community in Aotearoa New Zealand.

I also offer a word of caution, if the Government is willing to listen. There is a problem that when we become so fixated on fixing a serious problem, such as the problem of violence on our young people, we often then demean every other parent who is struggling to try to discipline, instruct, and counsel young people, who often get themselves into trouble. The fact remains that it is invariably human nature that in the teenage years, sooner or later, young men or young girls will get themselves into trouble. It happens; it is a fact of life. I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the House would agree. I have got myself into trouble, but probably not into the kind of trouble that members opposite may have got themselves into. The point I am making is that young people push the boundaries, young people challenge, young people want to learn, and from time to time one or two of them will get themselves into trouble. Parents who are struggling at that end need to be supported, not to have the finger pointed at them and to be told: “You do this and you’ll go to jail.”, “You do this and you’ll get yourself fined in court.”, and “You do that and the courts will come down hard on you.”

I am saying that this legislation is not the sole answer. We have to ensure that every young person and every young parent gets the education they need. We have some really important programmes out in Manukau where young women, or young men, who find themselves to be young parents are able to receive the support they need not only to cope with parenthood at such a young age but also to continue with the educational opportunities that are available to them.

When we visited the Salvation Army last week it was very heartening, and very sad on another level because the staff had an air of concern about the work they are engaged with. Their concern is that they are now having to deal more and more with a whole range of social problems that have emanated because of high unemployment and the high cost of living. They suggested that when families are faced with those kinds of struggles, we will often see problems occurring in the home.

I was saddened to hear from a colleague of mine who works for Child, Youth and Family. My colleague said that every time the Warriors team loses on the field, there are problems in some homes. I was aghast to hear that when the Warriors lose, Child, Youth and Family and the police have to try to deal with the strain in some homes.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I rise to reassure the member who has just resumed his seat, Su’a William Sio, that the Government does not take anything for granted whatsoever. The Government recognises that although it can legislate for many things, it cannot change the course of behaviour until people see that need. Unfortunately there are families in this country who seem to spend their lives teaching their young sons that the way to treat their partners is to beat the hell of out of them, and teaching their daughters that their role in life is to accept a beating every now and then. It is not right. This Government—in fact, this Parliament, because, as I understand it, Parliament is supporting this legislation—is sending a message very clearly to the community that that is not the way that we see the various roles within our society. It is no longer the way that we wish to go.

These bills seek to support the rights of young children to live in environments that are violence-free. This legislation seeks to reinforce the rights of young children to be represented before courts in decisions that are made about them and their futures and the ways that they will continue to live. It is good that counsel for the child is able to continue representing young people, whether it is in proceedings pursuant to the Care of Children Amendment Bill or to the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2). We will do what we can to ensure their safety.

This Government has passed numerous pieces of legislation, frequently with the support of the other side of the House, in order to further protect children. I am proud to be part of a Government that takes that lead, and I look forward to seeing the implementation of this legislation. Even more so, I look forward to seeing a change in this society, where our country no longer has ugly statistics in respect of child abuse and neglect, and we can take a rightful place as a caring community on the planet. Thank you.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this

I am also pleased to take a call in the dying stages of this very important legislation arising out of the Child and Family Protection Bill: the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2), the Care of Children Amendment Bill, and the Adoption Amendment Bill. The three bills we are discussing in the third reading relate to very important parts of very important matters that worry every member of this House and certainly worry society.

The changes being made to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 are timely and important, and will extend a greater level of protection to those who have been caught in family violence generally. We have heard probably for the last 7 or 8 years some quite serious concerns being raised throughout New Zealand about domestic violence. The current Government has continued the work of the previous Government, which set up the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families, and that is still continuing. The work of Government departments and ministries, and the Families Commission, etc., is important work. The courts have become much more involved in dealing with cases of family violence, and the changes being made here will at least progress addressing the problems in the system. So Labour supports those changes. This side of the House supports any action that will make the lives of our vulnerable, particularly our children and women, safer, and this legislation goes some way to doing that. The concern I have is that we have not gone far enough or fast enough in this country—and I say that generally—to address family violence in a comprehensive way. This problem requires comprehensive, long-term intervention. Some of that can be addressed by legislation, and this legislation does that, but other pieces of the jigsaw still need to be addressed. There is a bill on the Order Paper that also addresses other aspects of violence and the lives of children, which has not come forward yet—the Domestic Violence Reform Bill.

The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) has had a long period in this House. The original Child and Family Protection Bill was introduced quite early in 2009, and I would have thought that this was an urgent matter that we ought to be discussing and passing much more urgently. That has not happened either. So there are two points I want to make about the legislation. We are supporting it because it makes important changes that are required in addressing domestic violence, but it is not comprehensive enough. It cannot be seen as part of the comprehensive programme. Neither can it be done fast enough.

The changes being made to the Care of Children Act are also important. The changes allow the courts to address situations that arise under the Care of Children Act. More power is given to make decisions and change decisions, because there are risks when a child is involved. The changes to the Care of Children Act do that as well.

The third Act being amended is the Adoption Act. Here again is a very, very small change to the Adoption Act. It is amazing: the Act we work with in New Zealand at the moment is the Adoption Act 1955. That says something: it is time to have a look at that Act far more comprehensively, rather than what we are doing here, looking at one or two pieces of it. It is a very old Act. It is an Act that is used quite regularly in New Zealand.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

It is funny, but I actually agree with the member Rajen Prasad, and I will talk about that. In the first and second readings of the Child and Family Protection Bill I took the opportunity to speak on the domestic violence and care of children issues in the bill, and it is very worthy legislation that tidies up a lot of things and makes advances in relation to domestic violence and the care of children in this country. But Rajen Prasad focused on the issue of adoption.

I have talked previously in this House about the issues of child trafficking, a massive issue involving many millions of children in this world of ours. We think of it being an issue in the Third World—and that is true—but, worryingly, if we read about this, we see that it is also an issue in wealthier nations. So we are not being complacent about that, and we address that issue and meet our international obligations through this bill.

I agree with Rajen Prasad that a future Government—this one has been exceptionally busy in the justice field—will need to overhaul and modernise the adoption legislation. I think basic demographics give us a picture of what has happened in this area. If we go back to the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s—the 1950s and 1960s, certainly—there was a baby boom. There were thousands of adoptions a year in this country, and then for a variety of no doubt complex reasons—contraception of course, and also a word we do not talk about much in this House, abortion, and a variety of other factors—today, in 2011, there are something like 100 adoptions a year in this country.

I think, as Rajen Prasad has said, we need to modernise the law. We need to have a good look at that because I think there will be many more prospective parents than just 100 in this country who want to adopt. Just as in this bill we are looking at our international obligations and we are placing a bulwark, a protective measure, against illegitimate adoptions and exploitative adoptions, so too we may need to look at freeing up adoptions and doing more, so that good prospective parents can adopt in this country, and potentially can adopt from overseas. I would not claim to know a lot about the laws in that area, but these are some of the controversial, complex issues that a future Parliament will have to address.

The issue of adoption often gets reduced to simply an issue of gay adoption. I accept that is one issue that will probably need to be broached and looked at with some seriousness, but what I am trying to say in this contribution is that the issues are much more than that and modernisation of all of the legislation will be required.

With those few thoughts, it is good to see this legislation will pass today. It is worthy legislation that really does advance things in a number of respects in relation to domestic violence, the care of children, and the adoption laws in this country.

LOUISA WALL (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. It is my pleasure to speak on the child and family protection legislation in its third reading. I note that the Child and Family Protection Bill was divided into three bills at the end of the Committee of the whole House stage: the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2), the Care of Children Amendment Bill, and the Adoption Amendment Bill.

I have not had the pleasure of speaking on this legislation before today, and I will talk particularly about domestic violence and the impact of domestic violence on our communities. I was in a position, in my previous employment as principal adviser in the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, to sit on the Waitakere Taskforce on Family Violence. It was a pleasure to sit on that task force with people such as Penny Hulse, who is now the Deputy Mayor of Auckland City. The meetings were facilitated by the New Zealand Police. They involved non-governmental organisations, and people who were involved in the care of not only the children but also the families involved in family violence. We met on a regular basis, and one thing that struck me in the process was that, unfortunately, the focus on children did seem to be missing when we looked at family violence engagement in New Zealand.

The police are very good at ensuring that protection at the immediate point is dealt with. I have had the pleasure already of going out with the police. On the day I went out there were three incidents, and one was an incident between a husband and wife, with a 5-year-old and a 2-year-old in the house at the time. The thing that has struck me is the impact of family violence on our families, but particularly on our children.

We have a process called the Family Violence Interagency Response System, or FVIARS, whereby the police, Women’s Refuge, Child, Youth and Family, and non-governmental organisations come together. They come together to work towards solutions that will ensure that our families are safe, and that our families have the support they need. But often in the meetings I think that the particular needs and specific needs of the children are not adequately addressed.

There are issues about what other agencies can be involved. I think that it is important, particularly for children of school age, that in the schools they belong to, the principals, teachers, and people who are working with those children are informed when the children have come from a family violence incident. I know from visiting a Randwick Park school on Monday and talking to the principal that she was very clear that children do behave differently if they have been involved in a family violence incident. The people working with those children know that something is wrong, but they might not know what is wrong. I think that a much more strategic approach is needed to ensure that the people who will be looking after our children—and I consider that, in the context of schools, teachers are looking after our children—are aware of when children come from families that have family violence issues.

From my experience of the Family Violence Interagency Response System process I think it seems to be really focused on helping either the victim or the offender; children are not so much considered in that process. To me there does not seem to be a focus on the family and on how we can make families functional. We have contracts where one group will look after the offender and another group will look after the victim, but I think there is very little engagement in ensuring that families are supported. The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) is incredibly important because it places the focus on the children, but on a different aspect of that focus.

I came into the House and was asked to speak on the bill, because Labour is supporting this bill. The history of the bill is interesting. The history is that the bill stemmed from a Ministry of Justice review of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and other related legislation. The House will know that Annette King introduced the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which took into consideration the submissions from 103 submitters, who represented private individuals, academics, the legal profession, and non-governmental agencies. They represented domestic violence specialists, social assistance, and public interest groups. So we have had this, I guess, compilation legislation put together.

As I said before, it is good to see that we will focus on the needs of our children and on the needs of families, but I still think we should be reviewing the Family Violence Interagency Response System process, with a specific emphasis on the needs of children. Some of the questions that I think need to be asked are whether the children have a general practitioner, whether the children are enrolled with Well Child providers, and whether the children are attending early childhood education centres. Because a number of the children come from families where, unfortunately, family violence is a normal set of behaviours, a whole lot of social issues contribute to the circumstances. Those social circumstances relate to the fact that parents may not be working, and that they may be living in conditions where their housing is not as adequate as it could be. They may be living in conditions where poverty pays a large role, where families end up being stressed, and where someone in the family partakes of alcohol and then becomes violent. So some of the peripheral and environmental issues related to ensuring that our children and families are protected, I think, also have to take into consideration, for example, the density of liquor outlets and whether there is a correlation between family violence and some of our communities where there is a density of liquor outlets. That situation normalises alcohol, not only for families but for the children who come from a community where a liquor outlet is attached to their particular dairy.

I do think there needs to be more of an emphasis on children if we are to look at child and family protection within the context of family violence. I do think we should be looking at ensuring that the children who come from those sorts of situations have the best start in life, and have the best opportunities, particularly in their early years, to start on a pathway that will ensure that they can enjoy our public and free education system.

One of the issues we have is that in the Family Violence Interagency Response System meetings, the only time when children are discussed is if Child, Youth and Family needs to intervene. These are our most vulnerable children, so I find it really interesting when the Government has a green paper and National members talk about how vulnerable children are. We know who they are: they are the cohort of children that this bill is trying to protect. But it is broader than that, because not only is it the children who need the courts to intervene to keep them safe but it is the children who get caught up in family violence in the first place. They are in a position not of their own control.

You know, I think it is very interesting, when looking at the intent of this legislation and at children who live in situations where family violence has a major impact on their lives, to consider whether those children are getting all the public-good services they need. We have the Tāmariki Ora Well Child Schedule in New Zealand, which guarantees every New Zealand child, from when they are born to the age of 5, eight visits on the schedule. The ultimate visit is called a B4 School check, and I think it is really interesting to look at these children and ask questions about whether they have a general practitioner, whether they are enrolled with Well Child, whether they have had their B4 School check, and whether they have had the early childhood education subsidy, if they are entitled to it. At the layer below Child, Youth and Family intervention we have a Strengthening Families model, which is supposed to ensure that children—and a lot of children who live within the context of family violence—have the best start in life, and have access to public-good resources that will ensure that they can grow up and fulfil their potential.

It has been a pleasure to speak at this late stage. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this

It is my pleasure to speak on this important legislation, the Adoption Amendment Bill. The aim of this bill is to amend the Domestic Violence Act, the Care of Children Act, and the Adoption Act.

This bill is intended to deal with the serious issue of domestic violence, thereby protecting children and families from violence and abuse. This bill is to address the risk of children being wrongfully removed from New Zealand. The Government believes it is essential that the issue of domestic violence be confronted with some urgency. Offenders should be made accountable for their behaviour. In particular, it is important to protect our children, the future of this country. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this

It is a pleasure to speak to this legislation, and it is nice to see consensus in the House. I somehow always have an affinity towards those members who have a focus on domestic violence and on the future and the potential of our children in New Zealand. I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this legislation. I wish that there could be a bipartisan approach to the care of our children and to domestic violence, because I believe that all parties in the House have measures that they are desperate to see introduced that, collectively, would make a difference. It is sad that having consensus between political parties on the way forward is an opportunity that was not taken up by John Key when it was offered by former Minister Annette King.

I congratulate the Government on what it has done about domestic violence so far in New Zealand, but I have to say that a piecemeal approach to solving problems of child and family abuse is not working. I have a background in setting up the first Women’s Refuge in Rotorua as a midwife, seeing the number of young women coming into maternity who had been physically abused. One never knew about the emotional abuse; one could only see that from their withdrawal, and their inability to give birth confidently. I know that the Minister opposite is trying to do something about these problems of abuse. We believe that there is urgency to this, and that is why I personally like the approach that Annette King has shown leadership on, saying that we know what needs to be done, we now just need to get on and do it. This legislation is part of the answer, but only part of the jigsaw of domestic violence.

I wanted to mention and get on the record the lost opportunity to include some things that, sadly, are not in the legislation proposed today, which has been broken up into three bills. There was the need to define the age of a child for the purposes of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and for those who are covered by parenting orders. Currently, a child is defined as anyone under 17. Under Annette King’s bill, we would change that age to 18. I would have liked to see that amended.

We also said that when a judge declines a without notice application for a protection order through the courts process, the judge should given written reasons for why they are declining. Then the applicant will know what they have done wrong in the process and they will be able to decide whether to proceed or withdraw from proceeding on notice. This bill does not include that provision, and I think taking the opportunity to include it would have meant a more comprehensive approach.

The other issue that was raised when we drafted our Domestic Violence Reform Bill came from the National Council of Women, who are predominantly very sensible, pragmatic women involved in family violence prevention support services, or who are actual practitioners in the law themselves. A lot of women choose to go to a woman lawyer if they are undergoing domestic violence. They said that one of the most important aspects was for an applicant to attend information sessions so that they understood what a protection order was about, so that they would comply, and also so that they would then know where to go for any further social assistance. The requirement to attend information sessions is not in the legislation before us. That is opportunity lost three times.

Also—and I think this is the biggest—in our approach we felt that the court should have the power to direct attendance at an addiction treatment service. That is not in the bill. I think one of the underlying factors that we all now accept, in timeliness, that has changed so much from 1995 is that alcohol and addiction are becoming one of the precursors and the drivers of domestic violence. The courts having the power to direct one to attend an addiction assessment and treatment programme was another opportunity we put into the provisions of our bill. I think it is an opportunity lost.

I hope that at some stage, when there is a comprehensive review of the legislation rather than a piecemeal approach, one after the other, we will see the omission—not commission, but omission—of those small but significant steps that make a huge change to how we look at the role of police and enforcement in protection orders, the role of the courts in domestic violence matters, and how the Family Court could have widened powers. It is not done by just one bill. Sadly, in these three bills that amend these Acts, all the aspects I spoke of today are omitted.

That is a pity, when all of us in New Zealand know that the facts are clearly on the table. Even the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor has said that we have the evidence, and now we must get on and do something about it. Four to 10 percent of New Zealanders experience physical abuse, and we do not know the percentage of those experiencing emotional abuse. So we support this bill and hope we are not back in the House within the next year with another little bright idea and another amendment bill. In the future, when Labour gets back into Government, we will bring forward our bill, which languishes way down the Order Paper. Thank you.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I will speak briefly to say that the Green Party is very, very happy to support this legislation and to join in what seems to be a consensus in this House. We support the comments made by previous speakers. But I say in particular that although this legislation will do much to provide support for families, and to streamline some of the procedures to assist families, we must do more to address the underlying causes of violence and family violence in New Zealand.

The previous speaker, Steve Chadwick, mentioned addiction and alcohol. We heard compelling evidence in the Justice and Electoral Committee that alcohol is one of the major fuels of violence in New Zealand. We hope this House will adopt a very, very comprehensive and far-reaching approach to try to reduce the harm of violence, and to extend addiction treatment and alcohol treatment around New Zealand.

The other issue that nobody has mentioned—and I think it does deserve a mention—is the amount of violence on television, in films, and in computer games. We know that the violence on television, in computer games, and in films is contributing to a culture of violence in New Zealand. Extensive research has found that children who are exposed to a lot of violence on television end up thinking that violence is a legitimate way of solving problems. They think that violence is more normal, and they become more aggressive and more violent themselves when they grow up. This is particularly the case with boys.

I managed to get some funding to look at the amount of violence on New Zealand television, and one of the most concerning findings of that study was that the cartoons children watch tend to have the most episodes of violence in New Zealand television. In fact, some of the cartoons, particularly on the Nickelodeon channel, were little more than animated thuggery. If we are to be serious about addressing violence and the causes of violence, one of the things we need to look at is trying to reduce the amount of violence on television, particularly in cartoons and the programmes that children watch. We need to look at the amount of violence in computer games and on television.

Above all, the other thing we need to look at is poverty. We know that impoverished families tend to be more violent, and we know we must do more to reduce the underlying poverty and inequality in our society. We know that the more unequal a society is, the more likely it will have more violence and more social breakdown.

The Green Party has proposed a series of policies that would do a lot to address poverty in New Zealand, and that would deliver $60 a week to some of our most impoverished families. As we observe the terrible happenings on the other side of the world, in what we thought was one of the safest places in the world—namely, London and England—as we observe the violence that is erupting there, many are saying yes, it is alienated youth, it is poverty, and it is inequality that are some of the underlying causes of that astonishing outbreak of violence. We would do well to address the underlying causes of poverty in New Zealand, and issues such as alcohol abuse and the amount of violence on television, otherwise these bills, although they will be steps along the way, will not really do much to reduce the underlying causes of violence in New Zealand. Thank you.