Sexual Violence Legislation Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Can I acknowledge the House for the way that it undertook the committee stage of this bill. From my understanding, this bill has unanimous support in the House now, following changes and assurances that were made at various stages of the progress of this legislation, and I want to thank the House for that. I’m mindful of continuing concerns that parties may have, indeed, around the bill. Even over the bill’s development and passage through the House, we’ve seen clear confirmation that we need to do better by the victims of sexual violence, researching showing low rates of sexual violence being reported and how often those who do report don’t make it to court or conviction, and studies also highlighting the way that complainants feel vulnerable in the process; they feel disbelieved and worn down by the system.

The problems with sexual violence trials have been described as reform resistant, and it is true that our approach to change needs to be both holistic and legislative to be effective. Special education and training for those who work and operate our courtrooms, more fulsome and wraparound support for complainants, and improvements to court facilities are all under way. Broader work to reduce sexual violence continues to be a priority for the Government, and the national strategy and action plan for the elimination of family and sexual violence was launched last week—and we know that so much of the work to combat gender-based violence happens and needs to be supported on the ground, and I’d like to acknowledge the co-leader of the Green Party and my ministerial colleague Marama Davidson and others for their work to get that strategy launched. But, as a Parliament, we must set the framework and send the signals for better practice in our courts, and the changes in this bill have been long called for, and it is timely that we act now. I do want to acknowledge my predecessors, the Hon Andrew Little and Jan Logie, for driving this work under the previous Government, and I thank the Law Commission for the report that kick-started this bill.

In the committee debate that I mentioned earlier, some MPs sought a commitment to review this legislation, and I want to assure the House that the Budget in 2019 included some funding for an independent evaluation of this bill and its changes. That will happen, and the review will consider the impacts on both complainants and defendants, and it will be undertaken once the reforms have bedded in. Again, I thought the debate in the committee stage was mature, and I think there are concerns from, certainly, the legal fraternity about some of the aspects and components of this legislation. Again, reflecting the committee stage debate, I think they are fair concerns to have, but we believe we have built the balance and the safeguards in there for fair trial rights, but the review itself will be able to deal with those issues and assess the progress of those components of this bill.

However, for the remainder of my time in this third reading, I want to talk about two provisions for which there was obviously some debate—first of all, around pre-recorded evidence, because the bill entitles complainants to give their evidence in alternative ways; for example, via the likes of audiovisual link from outside of the courtroom or by a pre-recorded video. The bill makes it clear that pre-recorded cross-examination is one of the options unless the judge decides to disallow it. This type of cross-examination was first used in Western Australia back in 1992 as an initiative to help child witnesses give quality evidence and move on with their lives earlier. It has happened in New Zealand, though rarely since 2011, when the Court of Appeal determined it should be used only in exceptional circumstances. Since that time, all other Australian states have now introduced pre-recorded cross-examination, as has the United Kingdom, either in successful trials or as fully fledged practices for certain witnesses. Scotland has also recently legislated for children to pre-record their cross-examination, with powers to extend the process to vulnerable adult witnesses. I do want to emphasise that these jurisdictions share our fundamental criminal justice rights and our firm commitment to the rule of law.

Concerns about these rights and principles were also raised in these places when pre-recording was introduced, but the evaluations carried out in those jurisdictions do not provide evidence that those concerns played out in practice. The key is that the pre-recorded cross-examination is not mandated; it is an option to be used in appropriate cases and not to be used where it would jeopardise the fairness of a trial. And where it becomes apparent that pre-recorded cross-examination may present more of a risk than a benefit, it will also be open to the prosecutor to change that mode of evidence. The concerns raised about pre-recorded cross-examination are understandable. That is why the legislation prescribes its use as an option rather than a presumption. In those cases where pre-recorded cross-examination would jeopardise trial fairness or where the benefits are outweighed by the risk of making things worse for the witnesses, a different mode of evidence will be used. In the cases where it does neither of these things, it should be an option.

The other change which seems to have caused the most concern is the restrictions on evidence about the complainant’s sexual history with the defendant. Currently, this evidence can be admitted on the usual standard. Under the bill, evidence about the details of that sexual history could still be admitted but only if it is so directly relevant that excluding it would be contrary to the interests of justice. The judge will usually make that decision before the trial, which gives the complainant some warning about questioning that can be particularly difficult and what to expect. Again, despite similar laws existing in most comparable jurisdictions, some remain concerned about those same fundamental criminal justice rights. It has been argued that the new restrictions will mean that juries will be deprived of hearing crucial evidence, but, as the bill permits clearly, if the evidence is crucial, it will be admitted. We’ve always trusted judges to determine the value of proposed evidence to the usual standard and to this higher standard, which already applies to evidence of other parts of the complainant’s sex life. In any particular case, there might be some really important context and history, and, in those cases, the evidence will be admissible, but if the evidence can be presented without considering if it is actually relevant, we risk reinforcing those outdated ideas of continuing consent that we supposedly moved on from when we outlawed marital rape in 1985.

I also acknowledge that these changes represent a significant shift and the legal profession has some concerns about the preservation of defendants’ rights. Trial fairness is non-negotiable, and it gives out justice system its legitimacy. It is not in anyone’s interests to jeopardise the fairness and robustness of verdicts, but I do not think that justice is a zero sum. Improving complainants’ experiences procedurally does not automatically entail restricting defendants’ fundamental rights. The interests of justice and the right to a fair trial are paramount and explicit consideration in parts of the bill that we have heard most concern about. The flip side must be: if a procedure is not contrary to the interests of justice and the circumstances of the case, and if it does not risk the fairness of a trial, how can we deny complainants the better treatment that these changes will provide? Complainants have an integral role in bringing perpetrators to justice, thereby reducing future harm, a societal benefit. They do so despite the harm that they have experienced. We have a positive duty to support them on that unavoidably difficult journey, and this bill is one part of how we fulfil our duty to that. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The National Party will support this legislation and we do so, fundamentally, because there are many things that this bill does and the majority of those things we agree with in the cause of trying to make it a bit easier for complainants of sexual attack to get justice. We are all very conscious of the reality of continued high levels of sexual violence in this country. Family violence and sexual violence is on the rise and, sadly, continues to get worse, and we do want to make it easier for complainants to access justice and to achieve justice.

We’re all familiar with the very low rates of conviction in this space. Now, this is not something that can be solved easily, of course, because the very nature of the crime is on many occasions hard to prove. And it is a highly, incredibly high-stakes set of circumstances that are brought before the courts whereby somebody’s life has been substantially ruined or attacked or threatened through an act. Of course, a defendant, if that defendant didn’t do that act and has been falsely accused—which in life happens; we all have to acknowledge that happens—then their life will be destroyed and ruined, their reputation ruined, and sent to prison for a very long period of time. That is why we have trials—to try and identify the correct outcome and to achieve justice—and we all acknowledge that there is no very easy way to do that, because some very difficult conversations have to be had, questions have to be answered, and it is a very, very difficult process for everybody involved. So elements of this bill wherein the Parliament is attempting to remove some of the more difficult aspects for complainants in order to make it easier for them to achieve justice we agree with.

We have outlined on a number of occasions our concern about a couple of elements—a concern widely shared across particularly the defence counsel but across the legal profession. We are disappointed that the Government didn’t agree with our Supplementary Order Papers during the committee stage on two matters, which I’ll traverse briefly. One is around evidence relating to the sexual experience with the defendant. This bill brings in the higher threshold which, in effect, means that if a complainant has had a prior sexual relationship with the defendant that can be referred to as a mere fact but nothing much beyond that can be referred to. The legal concern that is raised by particularly the defendant community is that details about the complainant’s previous experience with the defendant will be directly relevant to the issue of reasonable belief in consent potentially, in some circumstances. So there is a real concern about the consequences of that.

Secondly, there is the issue around the pre-recording of trials. The New Zealand Law Society and many other legal organisations have worried about the consequences for fair trial rights in order to ensure that pre-recorded cross-examination means that the defendants have to declare their strategy much earlier in the process and the jury might not have access to all the relevant material. Now, that may be something that a judge can recall the complainant back for, for a second time, and if that happens of course it undermines the purpose of it, which means that the complainant is re-traumatised twice. So it may be that the outcome is not necessarily what is intended.

The Minister very calmly says everything will be fine: it’s been done in Australia and the UK and the worst fears have not been realised. Well, time will tell, and I am grateful that he as Minister has assured the House today that this legislation will be reviewed as a matter of course and in three, four, five years’ time we can take stock and see what is happening because we do obviously have a very strong desire to ensure that complainants of sexual attacks have access to justice and that their integrity and their dignity is respected through the process and, secondly, that defendants also, particularly young Māori men of the group that the Waitangi Tribunal has heard concerns around—that those men particularly—have access to a fair defence and the ability to clear their name if, indeed, they are innocent, and that is the nature of this whole process.

So, look, we on balance support this legislation because of its intent, because of the assurances made by the Government in terms of the slight movement they’ve made on a couple of these issues and also the intent to review this in time. But we do remain concerned that in every respect we are conscious of the need to ensure that all New Zealand, where they are accused of significant crimes that have very significant outcomes for them and their lives, have the ability to defend themselves properly. So, on that basis, we support this legislation.

This bill is about balancing the ledger for victims of sexual violence in the courtroom and the criminal justice system. We know for a fact that there are a number of sexual violence incidents in New Zealand that go unreported every year. We know that there are even more that go on that are not prosecuted, and, after that, there are even more that do not go through to conviction. That, in whole, makes our justice system very difficult for someone standing in the courtroom when a rape or other sexual violence offence has occurred.

What this bill does is attempt to make our system fairer and make it friendlier to victims who have to go through that harrowing experience. By strengthening restrictions on evidence about a victim’s sex life, it’ll enable victims of crime to go into that courtroom and have greater ability to have confidence that they will not be re-victimised by the very system that should be bringing justice to them. Labour is passing the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill to make our courts a better place for victims of sexual violence. The intent of this bill is that it will make the experience of attending a court and giving evidence less traumatising for sexual violence. It improves the rights for victims, it makes the justice system better for women, and I’m proud to see this bill here at third reading. I commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call in support of the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill, the genesis of which, I understand, arises from a real scourge in our society. We have really high—unacceptably high—rates of sexual offending and violence that occur here, and, for a multitude of reasons, too often they go unreported and therefore unprosecuted. From what I understand, I think about 25 percent of New Zealand women have experienced a sexual assault in their lifetime, and I think, unbelievably, only 6 percent of those assaults are actually reported to police. To me, that is a real point of shame for us all. I think, from all the evidence and the submissions I’ve read, that that’s largely to do with the current existing court process, in that too often it results in victims being re-traumatised. We’ve long held the view that the criminal justice system really needs to, I suppose, up its game and become increasingly victim-centric and focused on the victim. I do think that our track record speaks for itself.

We’re supporting this bill tonight because not only will the provisions in it bring some dignity to a victim’s ability to be able to give evidence against an alleged perpetrator but also, over time, it’s going to give them more confidence to come forward and seek justice and, I suppose, some closure as well. I think that we as politicians here really need to do everything we can to encourage victims to come forward and engage with that court process, and therefore it’s our obligation to make it an attractive proposition, not a terrifying one.

Not long after this bill was introduced to the House, I had an anonymous call from a woman who wanted to tell me that her female partner had been raped by a male work colleague and they wanted to know when this bill was going to come into law so therefore they could then even think or even consider pursuing court action, because, as it was then and there, they weren’t going to even consider it. I never heard back from that woman, but I do want to say, if they are listening, I hope that the passage of this bill today gives them the courage and indeed the confidence to pursue justice.

In my time as a journalist, I’ve covered a number of murder trials, particularly of women, and often we heard canvassed evidence of sexual violence and offending against the victim that occurred prior to that murder. And, as I stand here tonight, I can’t help but wonder, had this piece of legislation been in place by then, would those women potentially still be alive. So I am confident that this bill is going to reduce the re-traumatisation of victims that so many of us have talked about and that they will be more prepared to go to court and give evidence.

Now, I didn’t sit in on the select committee, but some of the submissions I’ve read stuck out to me. There’s one in particular from the Canterbury District Health Board, down in my home patch, which presented detailed submissions raising awareness about the number of sexual assault victims that they see admitted to hospital. They reported “regular encounters”, with only a minority of patients who were prepared to engage in the court process. They also commented that the reasons that those victims weren’t prepared to engage in the court process was largely for fear that they wouldn’t be believed and also because of the potential repercussions from the perpetrator. From my very own electorate, the Lincoln University Students’ Association submitted in favour of the bill, drawing attention to a study which reported 36 percent of 2,700 tertiary students who were surveyed said they had experienced some form of sexual assault in their time at university. They are damning.

We are here in support of this bill this evening. The National Party have slight reservations. We will always hold the right to a fair trial as a fundamental tenet of a democratic society. And, while we do broadly support the principle of allowing for this cross-examination by video recording of a victim or a witness ahead of a trial, there is some slight concern that this should only be kept for those rare and exceptional circumstances rather than a matter of course. And it is encouraging to hear from the Minister that that will be watched closely. So, all in all, we do stand here in support of this bill this evening, and may I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I first heard the statistic that one in three women was subject to sexual violence in my late teens at a women’s rights conference. Then the speaker asked us to look around the room, which was full of women. The silence was profound. Women’s eyes actively connected with each other, and others actively looked anywhere but each other’s eyes. I was horrified.

But I think I’m more horrified now because the stats haven’t changed. While the Me Too movement was a significant watershed moment for us, what we’ve learnt is that calling it out isn’t always enough. This is a bill that responds to two pieces of advice and recommendation from the New Zealand Law Society to make some really fundamental process changes, because what we know is that, when experiences can be told in safe, trusted places, shame dies. I commend this bill to the House.

I call Jan Logie.

This is a split call.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Split call—thank you. Five minutes.

I want to start with some recent quotes from sexual violence victims and their whānau, describing our current court processes and why I will be so pleased to see this bill passed today: “Consent was never an issue because I was a child. But she asked, ‘Why did you never stamp your foot or make some noise?’ Or, you know, ‘You could have stopped it.’” “I completely broke down and I had to be carried out of court. It preys on all your deepest insecurities.” And, from a parent, “With my daughter, they were suggesting things to her, saying she hadn’t even been there. It seemed like the case came down to being able to successfully confuse the children enough to get a paedophile off a charge. That part was absolutely traumatising for all of us. How can a justice system be just if this is the way it treats children? It becomes not about justice. It becomes a game.”

So, today, for all those hundreds of thousands of survivors of sexual violence and their whānau who have wondered if they will ever be believed, who have struggled with the violence of the system’s response to their truth-telling, who have despaired at the lack of Government action, who have felt judged and dirtied and betrayed by our collective response, I hope this bill passing today tells you that you have finally been heard in this place.

It’s my great honour to be a Green Party voice in support of this third reading. This bill has been at least 15 years in the making. From the public outrage in response to the treatment of Louise Nicholas, and then we had in 2007 the two-year Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence, an in-depth academic review of the problems and solutions, many more discrete academic papers, surveys of court participants, sexual violence survivors, a petition of over 100,000 New Zealanders, attrition data, two Law Commission reports, even a trial of some of the controversial aspects of this bill in our specialist courts, two positive New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets, a select committee inquiry, a Chief Victims Advisor’s report, decades of overseas experience—all supporting the changes in this bill. I have honestly never seen such a strong evidence base for a piece of legislation. All of these reports told us we are actively now re-traumatising victims in the court process and that the processes that are being used do not encourage good evidence, and cases are not being tested on the law, and that we can do better without undermining anybody’s right to a fair trial. There have been so many opportunities since 2007 for this law change, but none of that evidence or the voices of survivors were enough to convince a Government to do anything but tinker, deny, or delay. So today is big, and I want to thank the hundreds of advocates and survivors who have persisted all these years.

This bill enables complainants to say how they would like to give evidence. It requires complainants’ and propensity witnesses’ evidence to be recorded so it can be used if there’s a mistrial, requires the sexual history of the defendant to meet the same threshold as the sexual history of other people. The threshold is relevance, and it requires judges to intervene if they believe questioning is inappropriate, misleading, or needlessly repetitive. It supports judicial directions on rape myths and allows victim impact statements to be given in alternative ways and to clear the court.

Nothing in this bill is world leading, but I think we can take the resistance to it as a truth of its significance. This bill is not the end of the journey, but I truly hope it is the end of the denial and an embedding of the transformation to a rigorous and safe justice system that tests the evidence and not the person. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise as the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence to support this bill and to awhi my colleague Jan Logie, who just spoke on behalf of the Green Party. I want to thank the Hon Kris Faafoi for bringing this bill back into the House, ensuring that victims, survivors, and whānau can see that the protections this bill offers are indeed a priority of this Government.

Going back to what this bill is about, it is to reduce the trauma that sexual violence complainants experience when they attend court and give evidence. That is the whole premise of what this piece of legislation is attempting to do. And I want to thank again Jan Logie for her incredible leadership in this mahi, bringing the bill to this, the depth and the strength that it is today.

Our communities, our victim/survivors, and advocates, the many, many organisations who continue to work with us as a Government to strengthen such protections must be thanked by everyone in this House, and I acknowledge that our colleagues across the House are absolutely doing that. These protections are a responsibility for us as lawmakers and law changers. I am so relieved to see this finally here at the third leg, the final leg, of the sexual violence legislation.

As others have said, we have significant under-reporting of sexual violence. We know that putting your hand up to even report at all to anybody, let alone going through any sort of formal justice process, is one of the least tempting options, one of the least—one of the most cruel options that we can offer to anybody as it stands today, and that has to change. This legislation acknowledges that we are accountable, our systems across Government, to make sure that we cause no further harm, and that creating further trauma and causing further harm is part of the prevention work to create even more harm for generations when sexual violence happens to anyone, their whānau, and their community.

We have heard from the many advocates and organisations that this bill has taken too long to progress. So, again, I thank the Hon Kris Faafoi for bringing it into the House. Some of the many examples of what we heard from advocates and organisations included Te Ohaaki a Hine—National Network for Ending Sexual Violence Together (TOAH-NNEST). Services were concerned and said that we know the common reaction of those accused of sexual assault is to attack the character of the victim by ridiculing and making them public. They go on to say that, “[We believe] the government has a moral duty to listen to research that indicates this change is vital [also] for the well-being of child victims.” We just heard Jan Logie put on to the floor the very quotes and examples of exactly that particular instance of trauma that is unacceptable; that is an absolute hideous shame for all of us in Aotearoa.

So I know this bill will have tangible meaning for people’s real lives. This is why I acknowledge and thank Minister Faafoi for being one of the many family violence - sexual violence ministerial colleagues to have brought and launched Te Aorerekura, National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence. This legislation is part of the absolute minimum of steps that we must take to actually ensure that we are serious, that we are taking serious the journey to wellbeing and long-term restoration of sexual violence complainants and survivors, and that we are enabling more tools and support to help people with a pathway that does lead to actual justice and to actual accountability.

I wanted to also make it very clear that we need to see more of this direction with legislation in this House as lawmakers. As policy makers, we need to see more across all of our systems, not just in justice, for sexual violence survivors and complainants. That is part of the transformational and intergenerational work that this legislation before us in the House presents. And we have a challenge that I will end on: that we cannot tinker around the edges. I know that, as parliamentarians, we all care about the wellbeing of victim/survivors and complainants, and that we know that preventing further trauma in our systems will also prevent further intergenerational harm after the first instance, after the incident of harm, that has happened. So I am proud of the work that Te Aorerekura will do to bring that to realisation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support this, the third reading of the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. The reason why we support this bill is because it puts, in our mind, the rights of the victims at the centre of our justice system. But, in saying that, we did have a number of concerns that we wanted addressed in order to ensure that we could have a good balance and a fair system for all. When you look at the legislative statement, the purpose of the bill was to reduce the re-traumatisation that sexual violence victims experience in court. That is admirable as a way to move forward to allow many more victims of sexual violence the confidence to speak out and speak up. We agree that the bill was seeking to improve sexual violence victims’ experience in court while preserving the fairness of a trial.

We must admit that we did have concerns about that second aspect of that last statement I just made: the fairness of the trial. While we still want to keep the victims at the centre of the justice system, we need to make sure that the justice system is kept fit for purpose. So we supported this bill along its first reading, second reading, and committee of the whole House stage with some reservations, which we’ve made quite clear, and we’d like to take this time to acknowledge the efforts of the select committee in actually hearing from submitters and being able to put forward some good ideas to address the issues that have been raised. We wanted to make sure that there was the right to a fair trial. Some of the concerns that had been raised were including the inability for the defence to participate in the cross-examination, the ability of the defence to—well, the inability, actually, of the defence to keep their defence until trial and having to put it forward on the table. We thought that this would not allow a full and fair trial.

The reason why we thought it was important to bring this up is because there has been an increase in the number of vexatious litigants that bring cases to the court, which ultimately ends up having an impact on the real victims of this type of crime. There was concern that the impact would stop a fair trial from occurring, and I’m really pleased that Minister Faafoi saw this and, with his team, came up with Supplementary Order Paper 105, which has been voted in, which addresses many of those issues. Some will say it doesn’t go far enough, but when we need to balance the rights of our victims to be the centre of our justice system, there is only so much that you can do, and we must rely on the justice system itself to be able to point to where fairness needs to be instigated. We did agree with the National Party member Chris Penk’s Supplementary Order Paper 11. It did not go through, but we do believe that, when it comes to sexual violence cases, the relationship between the two parties is relevant to a case. But, nevertheless, that didn’t go through.

To conclude, we’ve heard tonight that there are a large number of victims that do not come forward, that they’re scared to come forward, and that they are worried that the alleged offender may be the one that ends up cross-examining them. It’s really important that those that are seeking justice actually are able to get it and, furthermore, encourage others to stand up, speak out, and take a case. But, with the increasing number of innocent people that are brought through the system, it’s crucially important that our judicial members are able to find that balance and to instigate it in a way that both the victim and the defendant have that fair trial. It’s really important that the judiciary are able to use their powers in such a way that both parties are heard adequately through this.

So, in that respect, we commend the House for coming together to be able to put together a bill that does put the victims at the centre of our justice system but still balances that right for a defendant to have a fair and just trial. On that note, ACT support this bill.

💬 Dr Emily Henderson: Madam Speaker.

Emily Henderson—Dr Emily Henderson, apologies.

Kiwi lawyers who say that the innovations introduced in this bill will in some way threaten the trial are wrong, because these are barely innovations at all. These measures that we are introducing here, which I am so incredibly proud to stand here to support tonight, have been in use in the UK, in Australia, and even little old Whangārei—in one case for 30 years and another for over 10, and in Whangārei’s case since 2015. There is nothing to be scared of here. All we see is progress for the most vulnerable victims and witnesses we bring through our courtroom. I am so grateful to the work of the Minister, Kris Faafoi, Minister Davidson, the great Jan Logie, and those many, many academics and women who have brought their stories to us for over 30 years. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. No one deserves to be the victim of sexual violence. So, in the House tonight, I want to make mention of those people who have had really tough times. Anything that this bill does to stop the re-traumatisation of those victims has to be good. It’s my pleasure to commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak to this bill as the legislative process wends its way towards a conclusion. I’d like to thank all those who have engaged in the process of considering the bill. I was involved at select committee stage and have spoken at various other stages in this House and do want to sincerely thank those who have engaged, those who have advocated one way or the other, all coming from a very genuine position of experience, whether, unfortunately, in the case of those who have come to the select committee or otherwise engaged, from a perspective of having suffered in the way of sexual violence, but also to acknowledge with gratitude those who have shared their professional experience and can advise the way that they believe that this will play out in courtrooms in New Zealand.

So the third reading is technically almost the final stage of the passage of a bill. Royal assent only remains at that point, but I think in many ways this is unlikely to be the final word on the matter. To put a positive construction on it, I think, as colleagues of the Green Party have noted, there is ongoing work to be done, and I think that every member in the House would support the idea that we can do better and should do better. We must do better as a country in relation to sexual violence, and in courtroom processes that is, of course, very important. But on a more negative note, potentially, I would be very surprised if there isn’t ongoing discussion required as to the way that these trials are conducted. Of course, no one wishes to have a system that could not be considered safe in terms of convictions that stand; so I very much hope that the fears that have been expressed are not borne out, albeit that I think that in some cases those are well-founded.

We’ve expressed those reservations in the form of a couple of Supplementary Order Papers and our minority view within the select committee. But, ultimately, as you’ve heard from my colleague, our justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith, and others, ultimately we have decided none the less to support the bill, acknowledging, of course, its positive intent and the fact that it does contain many measures that are admirable and will indeed serve to improve the lot of complainants and victims without reducing fair trial rights.

Of course, serious consequences of sexual violence include not only the physical and emotional damage to human beings subjected to such abhorrent action, but of course a loss of confidence in the court system to the extent where it has been said and where it can be claimed that people feel unable or unwilling to come forward for fear of being re-traumatised. Of course, that is a great indictment on our legal system, but actually also on our country. But obviously, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater and reduce fair trial rights in a way that would be problematic and might actually even be counterproductive in the sense of requiring appeals or trials to be lengthened, actually, by pre-trial cross-examination needing to take place or be replicated in the trial proper. So we’ve made those arguments. We’ve explored that, and I think that we’ve done that in good faith on this side of the House and across the House, too. I think that all members have been made aware of the particular aspects of the legislation that I’m now highlighting.

So I’ll just end my contribution with a couple of predictions, if I may and then look to consider what the future may hold. In terms of predictions, I very much hope that it’s not the case that the dire warnings from some on the criminal bar will not be realised—I rather hope that they won’t be realised in terms of a loss of quality of representation. I know that a number of barristers feel very strongly that this law will not enable them to do their job well, and that’s deeply unfortunate. They’ve also argued that there is a very strong possibility of a declaration of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, notwithstanding that BORA vets, so-called, have been conducted as part of the legislative process, and I do acknowledge that. The other fear that’s been expressed, and I think in quite compelling terms, is the risk that Māori and others disproportionately affected by the exercise of discretion in our justice system may be impacted by the way that these processes play out. I very much hope that’s not the case, but we should all be alive to that possibility and prepared to review that in due course.

So, with those ringing as somewhat of a warning, I do none the less express the hope that, with the high level of engagement from all different aspects of the debate going forward, we can continue to discuss and hopefully reach a better justice system for all those concerned going forward.

It’s a real pleasure to take the last call on this bill; a bill that has taken so very, very long to get here. I want to acknowledge everyone who has worked so very hard. I’ve only spoken on this bill, and not worked on it. But I want to acknowledge my Minister Kris Faafoi and the Minister the Hon Andrew Little, as well, who previously brought this bill to the House. I’d like to acknowledge, as well, Ginny Andersen, who has chaired a difficult and complex piece of legislation through this House.

I want to, finally, just say to this House, and at this time, anything that we do here matters to the victim/survivors of violence. While this is just the beginning of a change—and a positive change—it is something that we as a House can do, and every time that we stand up and say, “This is not OK” and that “You are not to blame.”, that is making their lives better. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I declare the House in Committee.