Sexual Violence Legislation Bill

Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 28 to 33, and Part 3 of the Schedule, “Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

By way of final comments on this legislation, we’ve had a lengthy debate about it, and what we’ve outlined on this side of the House is that there’s an absolute agreement around the need for procedures that enable complainants in sexual violence cases to have their cases heard and to make the process easier for them, recognising the trauma involved in these very difficult cases. Our primary concern has been in relation to two areas, one being the pre-recording of videos, of evidence, and the concern that that makes it more difficult for defendants to effectively cross-examine and defend themselves.

We do have to remember that we don’t live in a perfect world and not every complainant is a victim, and that is the point of the trial process: to determine whether a sexual assault or violence has occurred. By necessity, it is a very difficult and traumatic experience because, whatever happens, the results are very high stakes for the defendant, who could find him or herself behind bars for many years as a result of the outcome, and therefore it should be scrutinised with the highest degree of process and done properly in the basis of a fair trial. So we’re very concerned to ensure that this legislation does not lead to the inability of defendants to effectively defend themselves.

So when we come to this Part 3 of the legislation—Mr Chair, in terms of the commencement, is it in this part or is it the next part?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s in—not in this part.

Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The commencement clause is not in this part.

OK. So my question to the Minister in relation to this part is: where is his confidence that the defendants in this situation, following the changes proposed in this legislation in terms of the proposed changes to both the videos, pre-recorded videos, and the inability to raise questions around a relationship with a partner or a previous relationship—how he can assure the people of New Zealand that everybody will continue to have access to a fair trial to defend themselves using all the information available in the actual case as it arises?

The question is that the Hon Kris Faafoi’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question is that Chris Penk’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 be agreed to.

The question is that Part 3, as amended, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 be agreed to.

The question is that the Schedule, as amended, stand part.