The Pacific Island Community in New Zealand: Domestic Violence and Access to Justice

• DOI: 10.1177/0887403403253721
• Published date: 01 September 2003
• Date: 01 September 2003
• Author: Susan J. Wurtzburg
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

10.1177/0887403403253721ARTICLECRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

The Pacific Island Community

in New Zealand: Domestic

Violence and Access to Justice

Susan J. Wurtzburg

University of Canterbury

A brief introduction is provided to the 1995 New Zealand Domestic Violence Act,

whichcameinto forceJuly1, 1996.This Act was designed to provide better protection

to the victims of family violence. The researchreported here examines whether it pro-

vides increased safety for Pacific Island women living in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The data include formal interviews with 76 people and participant-observation at a

battered women’s shelter and at an organization facilitating programs for violent

men. It was found that for many PacificIsland women, access to rights legislated by

the Domestic Violence Act were affected by gender, language, religion, and family

structure, among other factors.

Keywords: domestic violence; New Zealand; Polynesia

In the research reported here, I investigate the interplay of beliefs and

behaviorsconcerning ethnicity,gender,domestic violence, and conflict res-

olution.The research is focusedon Pacific Island people and howtheyadapt

Polynesian concepts and actions to a New Zealand context (Wurtzburg,

1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b).1In this article, I

examine a portion of this larger project—namely, how gender and ethnic

originaffectaccess to the DomesticViolenceActand how it is implemented

in Christchurch, New Zealand.

423

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to acknowledge all the women and men who

spent time with her and assisted with this research. Some of them also consented to be inter-

viewed and thereby shared intimate details of their lives.The contributions of everyone have

been disguised to maintain anonymity in the interests of protecting participants’privacy and

ensuring safety,both cultural and physical, for all. For this reason, the author cannot individ-

ually acknowledge everyone. However, she does most gratefully thank the people who

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Volume 14, Number 3, September 2003 423-446

DOI: 10.1177/0887403403253721

© 2003 Sage Publications

TheDomestic ViolenceAct was ratified by the NewZealand government

in 1995 and came into force July 1, 1996, replacing the previous Domestic

ProtectionAct. Both of these pieces of legislation deal with mistreatment of

one another by family members, and they are and have been the most rele-

vant law for victims of domestic abuse who are attempting either to extract

themselves (or their children) from violent household situations.

The 1995 Domestic Violence Act came about as the result of severaldif-

ferent developments, which occurred more or less contemporaneously in

nongovernmental community services and the government agencies,

including the legal system. Among lawyers and court employees, their per-

sonal experience combined with two well-received publications empha-

sized the need to reform the 1982 Domestic Protection Act (Davison, 1994;

Department of Justice, 1993). At the same time, there was growing aware-

ness among police and social service providers of the connection between

domestic violence and the homicides of women and children (New Zealand

Police Research and Development Group, 1997, p. 4). Simultaneously,

community agencies, such as battered women’s shelters (known in New

Zealand as women’s refuges), also agitated for legal changes because the

1982 Act was proving inadequate for their clients’ needs.

Growing public awareness of the need for legal reform eventually

resulted in the New Zealand Domestic Violence Act 1995. The clearly

stated objective of the newlaw is “to reduce and prevent violence in domes-

tic relationships by (a) recognizing that domestic violence, in all its forms,

is unacceptable behavior; and (b) ensuring that, where domestic violence

occurs, there is effective legal protection for its victims” (Section 5 [1]).

There are five means by which the Act works to achieve these goals, as

follows:

424 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

helped her in New Zealand, primarily in Christchurch, butalso in Wellington and Auckland.

There were also many who spent time with her in Rarotonga (Cook Islands), Viti Levuand

Kadavu (Fiji), Tahitiand Huahine (French Polynesia), Honolulu (Hawai’i), Tongatapu and

Vava’u (Kingdom of Tonga), and ‘Upolu (Samoa). The author would also like to acknowl-

edge the assistance of several community and government agencies in Samoa: Mapusaga o

‘Aiga, the Ministry of Women Affairs, the Attorney-General’s Office, and the police. In

Christchurch, the author is especially grateful to Christchurch Women’sRefuge, Stopping

Violence Services, and the Christchurch Police. Several representatives of the Department

for Courts also provided useful information, which is appreciated. The author also acknowl-

edges the support of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, Universityof Canter-

bury,and the Research Fellowship awarded her in 1997. She also thanks the Human Sciences

Division, Lincoln University, for office and computer support.