Thank you, Mr Chair.
I just rise to address some of the issues that have been put up by the Opposition and
a few inaccuracies.
I will try and do this carefully.
I don't want this to be an antagonistic debate.
I want this to be one that's grounded on the legislation, but I must admit that I'm a bit
confused from the last speech.
We've heard the member Jo Hayes speaking about strengthening the bill and talking about Supplementary
Order Paper (SOP) 41 that will make changes to clause 14, which is the clause in the bill
that provides up to 10 days' leave, and they are suggesting we actually get rid of the 10 days' leave.
That's at the very heart of the bill, so I really struggle to see how removing the heart
of the bill could be understood as strengthening it.
I really, really respect the conversation about us needing to care for our children
and recognising the impact of family violence on our children.
It is profound and it carries on beyond generations.
That is why in this bill—in SOP 39—the leave is available to victims of family violence
and people caring for children who are affected by family violence.
At the absolute core of this legislation is that understanding that this is about how
we strengthen our whānau.
That leave is available to usually mums, but it could be another parent who is coming out
of a violent situation where the children have been traumatised and they're expected
to carry on as if nothing has changed.
The kids are dealing with trauma and freaking out, and they're expected to leave them at
home and go to work.
This leave is to enable them to stay with their kids when they're freaking out and they
just need them there.
That is at the heart of what this is about.
I also just want to address too the point that we need to do some education around what
is domestic violence and to expand people's understanding of it.
The bill links to the Domestic Violence Act.
So it does do that.
And while we are not supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put up by the
National Party—and I do feel a bit of frustration about it, because maybe we could have actually
had a discussion about the education.
But bringing it and putting it up today without coming to us and actually engaging in that
discussion about what is the best method for implementation and going through and education
people—you know, actually, maybe we could have had that conversation, but putting it
up today, it does look a little bit disingenuous to say that they're committed to that.
And I would also say that, actually, we've got it.
We know that implementation is incredibly important in realising the potential of this
legislation, and we're not just going to pass this legislation and not engage with employers
as well as our communities.
We have got that under control.
I also want to touch on some of the issues that have also been raised that this is placing—I
will touch again—the burden on business, that the Crown needs to take responsibility.
Well, I do want to say that, actually, that is what we've been doing for a really long time.
Almost all of our response and the research that the previous Government did was about
where Government spending is and society spending around family violence is.
Almost all of it is after the police have been called.
It's about police and prisons and our healthcare system—1.5 percent of Government spending
is on prevention and not much more on early intervention.
Actually, if we're going to turn around these horrific rates of violence in our society,
it's going to take all of us.
We can't just leave this with the Government.
We need to be joining hands to actually support changing this culture of violence, and that
is part of what this bill does.
And there will be very real benefits to businesses from doing that, and I would talk to the research
from Suzanne Snively in New Zealand that showed that it's over $3,500 per victim per year
cost to businesses now.
So this idea that businesses won't be able to deal with the cost of what in the Australian
experience shows is women taking an average of, I think, 43 hours a year—
Hon Tracey Martin: A year.
JAN LOGIE: A year—that businesses couldn't deal with that cost when it's costing them
about $3,500 at the moment is just not getting with it.
And the saying, as well, that actually this is unfair on business—we had businesses
submitting to us supporting this, saying that it's made a real difference to them.
We had evidence from businesses in Australia as well that have been saying this has been
really positive for those businesses that have engaged and put these policies in place.
Those policies cover 1.6 million workers in Australia.
I think they've got some experience of this.
And I would also say that I know Suzanne Snively has written passionately in support of this legislation.
And she's done the research modelling on it.
She was a previous governor or board member of the Reserve Bank, partner in KPMG—she's
a very, very experienced business leader and very aware of the challenges for all of our
businesses in New Zealand, and she believes that this legislation will help improve the
wider culture in business to improve productivity by helping employers get with the programme
that if they support their staff, they're going to have increased productivity.
So it has benefits for business on a wider level.
But at the very heart of it, what this is about is saving lives and that when a victim
comes to their employer and says that they are experiencing domestic violence or they
need some help, I believe that the right thing to do is to ensure that person gets the help
that they need.
And that is what this piece of legislation, at its heart, will do.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét