Mr Speaker,

New Zealand’s rates of domestic violence are too high:

• In 2008 police responded to 82,692 incidents involving some form of domestic violence
• 4 to 10% of New Zealand children experience physical abuse
• 24% of girls and 11% of boys experience sexual abuse
• In 2007 6,400 children were involved in applications for protection orders – most of these children had witnessed violence and some had been  subjected to violence directly.

There has been an increase in the international movement of children for adoption purposes, and current powers are inadequate to deal with this phenomenon.  New Zealand particularly needs laws that better allow the prosecution of offences relating to inter-country adoptions.

For these reasons, as my friend and colleague, Lianne Dalziel, has pointed out, the Labour Government introduced the Domestic Violence Reform Bill in 2008.  And as Lianne Dalziel also pointed out, this legislation re-enacts much of that Bill, so we have decided to support this legislation.

There are three particular provisions in the Bill that I want to highlight.

The first set of provisions amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995.  Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 16 of the Domestic Violence Act, making clear that a protection order applies for the benefit of a child of an applicant until the age of 17, unless the order is discharged sooner. The Bill also clarifies that a protection order that has not lapsed or been discharged continues for the benefit of any child of a deceased applicant until the age of 17.  The Domestic Violence Act is currently silent on the date when such an order will finish.

The Bill inserts in the Domestic Violence Act a provision to put it beyond doubt that the Family Court may make interim orders relating to a child’s care or vary existing orders even though no application has been filed.  The Bill also makes it entirely clear that any lawyer appointed to act for a child under the Care of Children Act 2004 may be present at a hearing of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

The second set of provisions - clauses 17 to 28 - amend the Care of Children Act.  The Bill provides that where a protection order has been made against a party to an application for a parenting order, the Court may make an order allowing that party day-to-day care (or contact with) a child only if the Court is satisfied that the child will be safe.  If the Court is not satisfied that the child will be safe, it may make an order for supervised contact between the child and the party.

The Bill also strengthens the protection for children from unlawful removal from New Zealand.

The final set of amendments - clauses 29 to 35 – amend the Adoption Act 1955.  The amendments would ensure that New Zealand can ratify the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.  New Zealand is currently not fully compliant with the Optional Protocol.  The Bill will amend the Adoption Act to create a new offence of improperly inducing consent for the adoption of a child.  This offence will be punishable by a maximum term of seven years imprisonment.  This makes it an extraditable offence, so as to ensure that New Zealand can ratify the Optional Protocol.

Mr Speaker, I have said that Labour will support the Bill.  But we do not do so uncritically.  Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill remains on the Order Paper.  Labour carried out extensive consultation and research before introducing it, and it would have been preferable if National had done the right thing, put aside politics, and ensured that the original legislation was speedily progressed through Parliament.  Instead, like many aspects of National’s programme so far, the reintroduced legislation rehashes much of what we proposed, and rebrands it as their own.

But it does so imperfectly.  The Child and Family Protection Bill omits five important changes included in Labour’s original domestic violence legislation, and Labour members will be looking closely at select committee at these omissions:

1. Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill changed the definition of ‘child’ in the Domestic Violence Act to someone under the age of 18, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Currently a ‘child’ is anyone under 17, so if Parliament passes the current Act, it will be non-compliant with New Zealand’s international obligations.  This is especially ironic in light of the pains that the Bill takes to allow for ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

2. This Bill does not provide the Court with the power to direct attendance to an addiction treatment programme – Labour’s Bill did this, and if National were serious about dealing with the causes of crime, its Bill would have as well.

3. Labour’s Bill introduced a provision requiring any judge who declines a “without notice” application for a protection order to provide written reasons for declining the application.  This was to make sure that the declined applicant could decide on an informed basis whether to proceed instead on notice – National’s Bill does not include a similar provision.  Why weaken a potential victims’ protection in this way, unless National is simply paying lip service to the interests of the actual or potential victims of crime?

4. Labour’s Bill made provision for applicants to be able to attend information sessions, which would provide advice on making effective use of protection orders and providing advice on any social assistance that may be available.  Again, this provision would have been of great benefit to those potentially at risk.  Why has it been omitted?  Because National doesn’t really care about those actually or potentially at risk.

5. Labour’s Bill also contained better provisions concerning applications for the discharge of protection orders and allowed the Court to order reports if necessary.  It is inexplicable that any Government claiming to care about the vulnerable would not have re-enacted these provisions.

Mr Speaker, Judith Collins issued a media release 1 Oct 2009 saying National’s two new bills will “will tackle evil of family violence”, but neither she nor Simon Power have explained how omitting the five provisions to which I have just referred will improve things.  Labour members will be listening carefully for such explanations.