What the M.P.s were saying Action on domestic violence

Press, 28 August 1978, Page 2

What the M.P.s were saying Action on domestic violence

By (

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

Mrs Mary Batchelor (Lab., Avon) may say that the presentation of her Domestic Violence Bill has stirred the Government into action on the subject, or perhaps it is merely another case of several minds with a single thought. When Miss Colleen Dewe (Nat., Lyttelton) spoke in warm support of Mrs Batchelor’s action in introducing her “battered wives” measure, she spoke of the number of helpful suggestions the Government had received since its Committee on Violent Offending had been considering the question. Miss Dewe described the submissions as substantial and constructive, and said she hoped that they would be taken into account when legislation was introduced. She also made a clear statement on Government intentions.

“The Government proposes to bring down a complete rewriting of the Domestic Proceedings Act and the Matrimonial Proceedings Act later this year for recess study, and these bills will be referred to a select committee. The Domestic Proceedings Act, 1968, encompasses the area of nonmolestation orders covered by Mrs Batchelor’s bill—- — perhaps one of the strongest reasons that the bill should not go to a select committee is because of the confusion that would be created in people’s minds between this bill and the Government’s own rewritten legislation.” She asked that Mrs Batchelor should arrange with her party’s Whips to be appointed as a temporary member of the select committee involved, and added: “I am sure she would be a very valuable member of that committee, as she has a very good knowledge of the problems.” Miss Dewe noted that Mrs

Batchelor’s bill did not cover violence between former de facto partners. Railways spending During Estimates discussion, Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru) drew attention to the fact that previous estimates for the maintenance and provision of rolling stock for the Railways tended to be underspent Last year S69M had been provided for this purpose, he said, but only S64M had been spent. For this year the provision was S6BM, not as high as that for last year. “During the last year, only SUBM was spent on trains, stations and locomotive depots, although SI23M had been appropriated,” Sir Basil said. “The Minister describes the year’s workings as very satisfactory. The people of New Zealand, whether they travel by rail, send their goods by rail, or work for the Railways, would not share that view.”

The Railways workshops were overworked, understaffed, ill-equipped and demoralised. The staff were “waiting for election day,” said Sir Basil.

A protest against the “rushing through” of legislation was made by Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Wigram) on Wednesday evening, when the Social Security Amendment (No. 2) Bill came up for its second reading. “This is rushed legislation of the worst kind, reminiscent of the Town and Country Planning Bill introduced last year, which the Government forced through the House notwithstanding the 200 important organisations which wanted to give evidence,” Mr Connelly said. “The Government is abusing the Parliamentary system. This legislation was introduced last Friday (August 18), and now, two Parliamentary working days later, it is lifted from eleventh to third place on the Order Paper and forced

into debate before it has been given adequate attention.”

Mr Connelly . eminded the House that on its introduction the Government refused a request to refer the bill to a select committee. “Is the Government not proud of existing legislation?” Mr Connelly asked. “I believe it is not, because the Government knows it has failed to honour its full pledge made in 1975 in the social welfare field."

Mr Connelly continued ' with assertions that some pensioners were worse off today than they would have been under the previous ' Labour Government’s system. ■ Export figures Mr R. L. G. Talbot (Nat., South Canterbury) asked Opposition members to stop ' “knocking” New Zealand, and particularly the South Island, during election year. “The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Tizard) and other Labour members have persisted in denigrating New Zealand manufacturers when there have been dramatic developments in trade,” Mr Talbot said. “New Zealand is now exporting to more than 100 countries.” Between 1975 and 1977, receipts for goods exported to Australia had increased from $236M to $434M; to the Commonwealth from SBS4M to $1344M, and to the E.E.C. from S6O7M to SIO4IM. Mismanagement Mr N. J. Kirk (Lab., Sydenham) said that although trade negotiations were continuing, little was happening. The prime example, he said, was the mismanagement of N.A.F.T.A., which had seriously affected job opportunities for New Zealanders. “In 1975, the Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said that New Zealand’s worst trading performance was with Australia,” Mr Kirk said. “In the

Sydenham electorate two major manufacturing concerns have had to reduce staff between 25 and 33 psr cent because of the mismanagement of the N.A.F.T.A. negotiations.

“A shoe factory is on a four-day week, and the Lane, Walker Rudkin factory has had to reduce its staff a third. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that job opportunities lost by workers in Christchurch and Auckland, and by the women who used to work in provincial factories, are restored?” Mr Kirk asked.