Evidence Amendment Bill

I do not think these clauses are particularly contentious, either. As has been well traversed, the Evidence Amendment Bill 2006 is supported. There are some criticisms that have been made by Opposition parties that some of the changes that could have been made to the way in which complainants who are not children could give evidence in criminal cases relating to family violence or sexual cases—those amendments that were proposed by Jan Logie have been defeated by the Government. The rest of the bill has the support of Opposition parties. I do not think there is really any need for me to relitigate that. The Labour Party will be supporting these clauses.

We have heard from a number of speakers about how long this piece of legislation has taken to come before the Committee, the importance of it, and that, hopefully, what it will do is encourage victims of sexual violence—and we are predominantly talking about women here—to come forward. I wonder why it is not coming to force until 1 July 2017. Initially, the commencement was stock standard with most pieces of legislation that pass through the House, which is that they come into force on the 28th day after the date on which they receive the Royal assent. For some reason, it has actually been pushed out to July 2017. I am making an assumption here, of course. The assumption is that the third reading of this bill will be before 1 June 2017, because if it was not, then there would be no point in changing it. But for some reason it has been pushed out, and, I would suggest, by at least 8 or 9 months. I am expecting that the third reading of this bill will come before the House in the next month or two.

If it is such an important bill, if we recognise its importance, if we understand that this is actually going to provide a mechanism for those who have been victims of sexual abuse to actually have permission sought to have evidence heard about their sexual history—all these things that we have wanted, all of these things that Jan Logie has spoken very passionately about, and in fact a number of members have spoken very passionately about—why are we delaying it another 6 to 8 months? Is it because, perhaps, the judiciary needs time to get its head around it? Or is it, in fact, that the legal fraternity may need a series of briefings before the legislation is enacted? I am not too sure—because it has been around the traps for a long time, it has been debated and commented on by the Law Commission and the New Zealand Law Society, and a number of eminent bodies that actually submitted on this.

💬 Hon David Parker: The Minister might know.

The Minister might know. But it is not as if this piece of legislation is a surprise to the legal fraternity in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I would argue that it is quite the opposite. I would argue that they have had—[Interruption] There comes the answer now. I would argue that perhaps this has been around long enough for the legal fraternity to actually have a very good handle on it at this point in time. But for some reason—and I am not saying there is not a very good reason; there may well be an excellent reason—it has been deferred by around about 6 to 8 months. But I think that the Minister perhaps does know, so on behalf of those who are looking for an early enactment date, the Minister may be able to enlighten us as to why it is July 2017 and not, perhaps, 1 November 2016. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.