Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is an honour to rise in support of the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill at its third and final reading. This bill is about safety, dignity, and justice. It is about recognising that victims of family violence should not be retraumatised by the very institution charged with protecting them. For too long, too many people—most often women—have walked into the Family Court and found it to be a place of fear, rather than refuge. This bill takes an important step to change that.

I want to begin by acknowledging Dr Emily Henderson. For years, Emily has documented how victims of family and sexual violence are treated in our courts. She has shown that harm does not come just from hostile cross-examination or direct abuse but also from subtleties of intimidation. She tells of a survivor who, when giving evidence, was seated just metres from her abuser. He didn’t need to speak; he just simply leaned back in his chair, stretched out his legs, and smirked. That small gesture, deliberate and calculated, was enough to silence her. She stumbled and she hesitated, and she could not tell the story that she needed to tell.

That account and many others like it underline Dr Henderson’s argument, an argument that she has made consistently over many years: the way that evidence is given is just as important as the evidence itself. Without protections, the truth can be distorted, and this bill is built on that very insight.

I also acknowledge the survivors and the advocates who gave evidence before the Justice Committee. Their testimonies were important and they were powerful. One woman described hiding in a courtroom bathroom, too terrified to enter the courtroom, knowing her abuser was there. Another spoke of the chilling tactics of control—the gestures, the stares, and the deliberate silences that were designed to intimidate and silence her, even while she was under oath—and these are not isolated cases; they are the reality for countless survivors, and they underline why this legislation is not just technical but is profoundly human.

The purpose of this bill at its heart is that the bill does something very simple but, nevertheless, powerful. It says that if you are giving evidence in the Family Court of family violence, the presumption is that you can do so in alternative ways: by giving evidence from behind a screen, from using a remote link, or from another safe place outside the courtroom. That means that victims no longer need to apply for those protections and they no longer need to justify why they deserve those safety protections. The burden shifts from the victim to the court, where it belongs.

The select committee made some changes to ensure that this bill was workable and robust, and I would like to go through a couple of those. First of all, we made clear definitions. We inserted the definition of “Family Court proceeding” and “family violence evidence” to make it clear that the protections apply to those people who have directly experienced the violence, preventing perpetrators from potentially misusing these measures.

With regard to practical delivery, the bill as introduced included the pre-recorded video evidence, similar to that of a criminal court, and while that remains a valuable reform for the future, we recognise that the Family Court currently lacks the infrastructure to be able to deliver that without going through a process that would have led to unnecessary, significant, or compounding delays. It’s also worth noting that there remains judicial discretion. Judges have the ability on their own initiative to ensure that fairness in proceedings is maintained and that that safeguard is there to safeguard against misuse, and also the affidavit evidence remains central. We’ve clarified that this bill does not displace the current practice, where most evidence—or, certainly, evidence in chief—is given by affidavit.

These refinements that were made through the select committee process mean that the bill is able to work in practice. It will be effective, it’s fair, and it’s deliverable from the moment that it comes into force.

So why does this matter? The bill is not just about abstract legal rules; it’s about real people. It is about the woman who told us that she felt as though she was on trial when she was simply trying to protect her children in Family Court proceedings. It’s about the survivor who sat in a witness box and who was shaking, unable to find her voice because her abuser sat just metres away in an informal Family Court setting, staring at her. It is about the children who have watched their parents endure this type of experience and this type of trauma, and who, by definition, therefore, carry that impact into their own lives.

When survivors are retraumatised in court, the quality of that evidence is also compromised because silence is effected when people experience trauma. Trauma silences people. Fear distorts their ability to speak clearly. The bill will mean better evidence will be given in a safer environment under safer conditions, which ultimately leads to better decisions by the court, and that, surely, is within everybody’s best interests.

One of the most heartening aspects of this bill has been the spirit in which it was considered. The Justice Committee recommended the bill and all of its amendments unanimously, and I’d like to take the opportunity to thank colleagues from every party represented on the committee and every party in this House for their willingness to support this bill and to engage with the process. I acknowledge also the committee staff and officials.

This is a step on a journey and I want to also acknowledge that, and I want to be clear that this bill is not the end of the road. Some submitters argued that there should be stronger protections, such as eliminating any visual contact between victim and abuser, or reducing the 28-day notice period. Those are important reforms, and they do remain on the table.

While submitters rightly reminded us that there is still more work to do, this reform also builds on Labour’s previous record of action, and that should be noted. We introduced Te Aorerekura, the first national strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence, and we invested in those front-line services. We passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, which improved protections for victims in criminal courts. I believe that this bill extends those principles into the Family Court, where they are desperately required.

Today, this bill nears the end of its passage through this House, and I reflect on those survivors who shared their experiences. They didn’t do so lightly, but they did so in the hope that their pain and their experience through that system might lead to change, and so this bill delivers that change. This is progress, it is overdue, and it is the right thing to do. Having said that, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party and express our continued support for the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. We supported this bill at its first reading, we engaged proactively through the Justice Committee in the select committee process, we supported it at second reading and through the committee of the whole House process, and today we come to the culmination at the end, which is the third and final reading.

Like the member in the charge of the bill has just stated, we are really looking forward to having this bill in place. We are hopeful that New Zealand, moving forward, may never need to use this legislation, but it’s really important to have these provisions and abilities available for those people who go before the Family Court to ensure they have the protections that they need so that they can actively and proactively engage in the evidence process in the Family Court and in the proceedings that are before that court.

I want to acknowledge a couple of the points that the member in charge of the bill made. This bill is—as she has rightly described—about safety, it’s about dignity, and it is about justice. Throughout my contribution, I’ll particularly highlight that justice point of view and talk about how this will ensure we have the best possible practices in our Family Court proceedings.

An acknowledgment goes to Dr Emily Henderson, who originally had this bill in her name when she was a member of Parliament here last term, and to Tracey McLellan, who picked up that bill on her behalf in this term and has engaged with the Justice Committee, particularly around some of the recommended changes we’ve made so that we could progress the legislation to a place where we thought it was feasible and workable for moving it into the Family Court process.

After we heard from the 30-odd submitters—and, again, as the member in charge stated, many of them gave their real-world experience, their firsthand experiences, of what it had been like for them in the Family Court. For us, as members of the committee, it was really important to ensure that we weren’t dictating what we thought the legislation needed to include but that, actually, we were hearing from those who had experienced it firsthand so that we could get it exactly right. It was challenging at times, thinking about putting yourselves into the shoes of those people giving evidence in the Family Court, and having the perpetrator sitting 2, 3, or 4 metres away. The intimidation factor that that person must have felt was a really core part of why we wanted to ensure we got the legislation absolutely right.

I think that today also demonstrates the collegiality, sometimes, of Parliament. Yes, you may see on the 6 o’clock news, or wherever you get your news, the robustness that comes with this place, but I think what often doesn’t get shown or what doesn’t get cut-through is actually how everybody in this place wants to make New Zealand a better place. Sometimes we disagree about how we get there, but sometimes we actually come together for the good of New Zealand. I think this is a bill that actually truly reflects that, where we can actually put political difference aside and go, “There’s an issue here, and we all, together, all of us in this place, want to fix it and make it better.”, and I think that that is something that we have to show more of to the public so that they can actually see it. Yeah, it’s not about party politics, necessarily; it’s about ensuring we get it exactly right for the New Zealand population, and I think that that is really, really important.

I want to talk about a couple of things in the legislation, in particular. When this bill does become law—which will be happening in the next few days, I would imagine, with Royal assent and then, obviously, some implementation time frames to allow it to take place, which is 12 months, and which the committee agreed to, to ensure we can get our Family Court to a place where it can make sure that this is operational—victims of family violence will now have automatic entitlement to giving evidence using screens or audiovisual links from another location. Previously, that was at the discretion of the judge in charge of the trial, but now this gives them the automatic entitlement to that, which is a really positive step. It takes out any shadow of a doubt, which is a really good thing.

Victims have choice and flexibility in how they participate in Family Court proceedings, and, finally, it actually aligns it with proceedings in the criminal court, which I think closes a gap that we had seen through the committee around what was available in the criminal courts versus what was available in the Family Court. I think that bridges this gap. It creates equal treatment and the same protections for people.

There were five key improvements made through the committee process of the legislation. We focused on actual victims, so we clarified that protections apply specifically to people who have experienced family violence, and that prevents potential misuse by perpetrators, which was some advice that we received. There is the cost-effective implementation—and, again, the member in charge noted this in her contribution—around the removal of what we perceived to be the really expensive video-recording requirements that would have needed well over $20 million in core upgrades for Family Courts across the country. Enhanced judicial discretion: judges can now act on their own initiative to ensure proceedings remain fair, not just on application by other parties. We’ve protected existing processes and made it clear that this doesn’t replace affidavit evidence, which is already protected. The realistic implementation, as I’ve said, is a 12-month period allowing for proper judicial education, staff training, and—importantly—necessary facility upgrades. As I highlighted in my second reading speech, when my colleague Suze Redmayne was here, you can think about many of our potentially more rural Family Courts across the country, and this is ensuring that they’ve got the facilities so that this legislation can be workable in their proceedings, as well.

We had 30 people give submissions to the select committee, and I think eight gave oral submissions, if I remember correctly. What we learnt from those submissions was that there were concerns about the cost in the implementation, which we’ve now addressed. Legal practitioners highlighted the need for stronger judicial discretion, which we’ve responded to. Victim advocacy groups made a number of really worthwhile submissions which emphasised the importance of focusing on the actual victims—we’ve got to remember that that’s at the heart of this legislation. The Ministry of Justice provided practical advice on implementation, which we have incorporated. I think this shows how the select committee process improves legislation through genuine consultation.

Why do these changes actually matter? Well, when victims feel safe, they can give clearer, more complete evidence.

What else? Increased participation. Hopefully, now more victims will be willing to come to the Family Court and engage with the Family Court proceedings because they know they’ve got these protections available to them. If we think about child welfare, better evidence means better decisions about children’s safety and wellbeing. Access to justice: we’re removing barriers that prevent victims from participating in proceedings that affect their lives.

As the member in charge has rightly said, the burden shifts from the victim to the court, where it rightly belongs, but this also addresses some concerns about fairness. The bill maintains strong safeguards, judges retain full discretion to ensure fair proceedings—as is rightly the case—and the interest of justice test ensures that no one is disadvantaged. This complements the family violence operating model which is already been trialled in Christchurch, and it aligns Family Court proceedings with those already available in criminal proceedings.

Victim advocacy groups strongly support these changes. Legal practitioners recognise the need for better protections and they support the committee’s amendments. The judiciary—really importantly—has indicated support for practical improvements. If we look at some international best practice, while many jurisdictions already provide these protections in family proceedings, the evidence shows that alternative methods improve victim participation without compromising fairness, and that’s really great.

The real-world impact: well, every family violence victim who has withdrawn from proceedings because they were too frightened to face their abuser—we’ve got to think about those who have withdrawn from processes previously because they were too scared of what they may encounter at the Family Court. There are those children whose safety depends on evidence that they couldn’t give properly due to victim trauma, and every case where poor decisions have resulted from incomplete evidence because victims couldn’t participate effectively.

What does this mean? It means increased victim participation, it reduces case delays and adjournments, and better evidence leads to better decisions, reducing the need for repeating proceedings, but, most importantly, it’s time to align our Family Court with best practice and our values as a compassionate society. I believe that this shows how members’ bills can deliver real improvements when all parties work together constructively, and I believe we have engaged in that process very, very well. I commend the member in charge. I thank those who made submissions to the committee. This is a really strong improvement to Family Court proceedings across the country, and, therefore, I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I take this call on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill at its third reading. This is a moment to pause, to reflect, and to honour what this legislation means for families across the country and for victims of family violence. I mihi first to the work of this House and the Justice Committee—thank you for the mahi and persistence it has taken to shepherd this bill through the House—but, most importantly, to the advocates, whānau, lawyers, kaimahi, and survivors who submitted to the select committee and who carried their stories into the public arena to ensure this legislation was stronger and fit for purpose. Thank you—your courage has carried this kaupapa forward.

I want to quote someone who’s been through the Family Court system, Emma-Jayne Kururangi: “While giving evidence Emma-Jayne became emotional. Her crying filled the courtroom. No one spoke. She asked the judge for a break, and with survivor advocate Ruth Money by her side, made her way to a small room, not much bigger than a toilet cubicle, at the entrance to [the courtroom].” Emma said, “I had to stay seated until the jury had left the room because I couldn’t walk. I got up, I started crying. Ruth was holding me as we’re walking past the lawyers. … It’s the crying that you can’t control. It’s the pain from your wairua (soul). There is something so heavy and mamae [and painful] about it.”

Too often, our justice system has failed and it continues to fail survivors of family violence. The Family Court should be a place where people can come to find safety and protection, but the reality has been that survivors are frequently retraumatised when forced to give evidence in the same room as their abuser. We know what this looks like. We heard from survivors at select committee of survivors freezing when they see the person who has harmed them; children shrinking back, unable to speak when confronted by the person they fear most; and whānau deciding to walk away from proceedings altogether because the process itself is more harmful than healing.

That is why this bill is so important. It creates a presumption that the evidence in family violence cases can be given in alternative ways, which includes video link from another room or from behind a screen. These tools already exist, but they are rarely used. By embedding a presumption, we make them real options, not just theoretical ones. This is about removing barriers within the current system. This is about reducing the retraumatisation that has kept too many people silent.

As my colleague from Te Pāti Māori—Mariameno Kapa-Kingi—reminded us in her kōrero at the second reading of this legislation, the sobering reality is that 58 percent of wāhine Māori are impacted by family violence. That is a result of the legacy of colonisation, poverty, and systemic oppression, and yet wāhine Māori are also 100 percent of the solution. By strengthening their ability to participate safely in the system, this bill is part of recognising the leadership and resilience that already exists in our communities.

The Family Court is still relatively new as a specialist jurisdiction. It was established to provide a specialised court for family related matters, including family violence, and it was a core recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Courts. So it is great to see that we are coming back and ensuring that the intention of the Family Court is actually upheld in the practices every day.

We know that specialist courts are crucial because they respond to the specific context of harm. The Youth Court, the Family Court, the Rangatahi Court—all these models show us that justice can look different. Justice can be more humane, more responsive, and more effective. This bill is one more step towards having a Family Court that does not simply replicate the harm that survivors have already faced, but, instead, makes space for safety and dignity.

This bill is not an end point; it is a foundation and a starting point. We must ensure the resources are in place to make alternative evidence options actually available in practice, not just in legislation. That includes the live video link technology that is accessible to disabled people, and, one day, pre-recorded evidence that spares survivors the ordeal of recounting their experiences under direct confrontation.

Again, I want to shout out to the Disabled Persons Assembly, who reminded us that justice must be accessible to everyone. That means having New Zealand Sign Language interpreters, captioning, and communication assistance, and we must ensure equity and break down barriers to justice.

The passage of this bill says clearly that survivors’ voices matter, their safety matters, and their dignity matters. It is also a reminder that the work on transforming our justice system is ongoing. We must keep dismantling the barriers within our specialist courts system. We must keep dismantling attitudes that silence and blame victims and survivors. We must keep resourcing the community organisations who walk alongside survivors long before they ever set foot in a courtroom.

To the survivors who shared their stories, to the advocates who have fought for this change, and to Dr McLellan for her leadership, this bill is your mahi coming to life.

I want to speak directly to survivors: let’s normalise speaking up. We believe you, and this is not your shame to bear.

I also want to finish by talking about Emma-Jayne Kururangi again, who said that she went into this process 30 years after the abuse was inflicted upon her. For her, this was never about winning a court case; this was about restoring her mana. She said, “You shouldn’t have to be re-victimised by walking past someone else’s family, there should be a safe way to get to court. And yet, there’s no protection for you.” When we think about those words, we can see how many barriers there are to survivors and to victims going through the court system, and we want to make sure that we have a justice system that is fair and that makes sure that people aren’t put off from seeking justice because of the system that is in place.

On behalf of the Green Party, we commend this to the House and we are happy to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s actually my honour, on behalf of ACT, to rise and speak on the third reading of the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. I want to indicate again that this bill has the full support of ACT’s 11 MPs. We have supported it all the way through its passage in this House, and I want to again congratulate Dr McLellan on getting this drawn out of the ballot and bringing it forward to the House. As has already been talked about by others, she really was actively engaged with the Justice Committee, and I think it was actually a very good process, where we all worked together to get to something that this House looks likely to pass tonight and that will actually make a difference for victims of family violence.

I just want to start by acknowledging that we do have a family violence problem in New Zealand, and I think we shouldn’t forget that. It’s disturbing, it’s wrong, and I think that we all need to work as hard as we can to turn that around. But putting that aside, when victims and survivors of family violence come forward to the court system, we also then need to make it the best experience possible so that they can actually get the justice and, often, the protection they need, because, again, the Family Court often is putting in place protection orders, dealing with very difficult circumstances, and making sure that those survivors of family violence are actually looked after.

For a lot of us, it could be quite hard to imagine. I mean, we come to this place, which, obviously, is the highest court in the land. It’s a very strange building, we operate in a very strange way, and if you’ve set foot in our court system—and a long time ago, I was a lawyer—it is a very strange experience. It has lots of rules, it’s actually set out in an unusual way, it’s quite confrontational, and you need to have lawyers and representatives, and so it is quite confronting. Obviously, we have made steps—and Kahurangi Carter from the Greens outlined how the Family Court is a specialist jurisdiction and has actually made steps to be more informal and to try to be a better experience. But there’s probably still some way to go, because it still does have its formality and its rules, and it’s a strange physical place.

I actually just wanted to say that these small things are very, very important, and, in fact, I actually just wanted—with your indulgence, Mr Speaker—to read out one of the submissions we received in the Justice Committee. Others have already said that we received—I think we had seven oral submitters and we had 30 submitters, but this one I just want to read out because it’s a woman’s quite recent experience in the Family Court. I think it highlights, actually, the issue we’re trying to deal with here, and so I just want to read that out:

“I appeared at North Shore Family Court on Tuesday, 27 August 2024 regarding my ex partner contesting a temporary protection order to not be made permanent. For 20 years, I’ve suffered every abuse possible. I’ve been left with numerous medical issues including heart problems and being diagnosed with [complex post-traumatic stress disorder]. With my chronic insomnia anxiety, panic attacks amongst other issues I was really struggling leading up to the court hearing with having to face my abuser and my doctor wrote a letter asking for me to either have a screen in the court room or be in a separate room with a video link to which I was advised that this wasn’t possible. I asked this numerous times and I was told this couldn’t happen. That day re-traumatised me and definitely set back my recovery and healing. My ex partner intimidated me throughout the court hearing for hours which was seen by the judge and everyone else in the room. The stand was right next to me as the victim and when my ex partner was cross examined it was terrifying when he walked so close to me to get past and thankfully the judge said did I want to sit at the back of the room with my support person from … women’s refuge which I did. I [was] very grateful [for] her … My ex partners body language was [violent] and at one stage I was thinking I needed to run out of the court room towards security. My heart rate was spiking more from his lies than when I was being cross examined which was very stressful. Even though I have no kids, pets, [or] joint assets [to necessitate a] permanent order to be granted I was advised to take undertakings numerous times and not go through the hearing due to [needing to have this hearing on the day] … my gut told me I needed to go through this ordeal and I fought for my life that day in that court room and got justice.”

I think that that account by Ms Holmes, who made a submission to our select committee, starkly sets out what we are trying to do here, and, as others have said, we actually need to stop people being retraumatised when they need to go into these settings to get the justice that they deserve. You can hear from her words that, actually, she might not have been able to give the best evidence that day because of the effect of having to do it in that way, with her violent ex-partner just across the courtroom. Also, as Dr McLellan outlined in her opening speech, even just the act of how he moved across the courtroom and acted on that day was obviously very, very stressful. So I think that that account is why we got together as a Parliament and a group of parties and have worked on this diligently.

I also want to just acknowledge that I’m quite lucky in ACT because one of my colleagues is the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, Minister Chhour—she spoke in an earlier reading on this bill—and I also have the Minister for Courts, in Nicole McKee. In our caucus, we have had discussions about the issues that this bill would raise and how they could be dealt with, but they were constructive and we worked through aligning that this would be helpful and that we wanted to actually make it work. Again, I want to thank Dr McLellan for making some of the suggestions that the select committee discussed with her, and—as she said in her opening speech—to actually make this work practically, so we can actually get this done. Like, there’s no point in this place just putting up ideas and things, and people not being willing to compromise and work through practical solutions, because then we just sometimes don’t get things done. It was a really great process because the member in charge was able to weigh up the pros and cons, we got advice, and we are putting in place something that will actually get done and will make a difference. I think that’s really, really important.

As has been out outlined, for Ms Holmes, whose submission I read out—she would have been able to give evidence by a video link in another room as default. Again, I was lucky enough, with the other members of the Justice Committee, to go to the Christchurch justice precinct—I’m just calling that out because it’s quite a new one—and it has these rooms set up where someone can be actually in a separate room with their support person and give evidence by a video link, and so they’re physically not even with their abuser. That will now be a right. There’ll be a right to have a screen so that you’re actually shielded from having to look at that person as you give evidence, or, potentially, as they give evidence and you need to be in the courtroom to observe it.

This is a really important bill we are passing today. I hope it really will make a difference. Again, I think, in the Justice Committee, we’ll be looking to see in a little bit over a year’s time how this is being used. That’s something we can, obviously, ask Ministry of Justice officials when we have them in regularly on scrutiny, because we actually want to make sure that this does make a difference, that it does actually help the people it’s intended to, and that it actually does strengthen our justice system.

Again, as I said at the start, I’m really honoured to be able to stand here on behalf of ACT today to give our full support to this bill. I commend it to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this very, very important bill. I’m also rising on behalf of Jamie Arbuckle, who is, of course, our representative on the Justice Committee—so I haven’t had the privilege of going through and hearing the submissions that the Justice Committee have heard—and also on behalf of Casey Costello, because in her previous life, she has had extensive experience in this area of dealing with harm, generally, but also with harm in the family violence area.

I want to start by congratulating Dr Tracey McLellan for, first of all, drawing up the bill and for the work that’s gone into that but also for shepherding it through the process. I congratulate you for that.

I also want to congratulate the Justice Committee for the work that’s been done, and I hear of the cross-party collaboration that’s been done. That is the best of us—that is the way we should be doing a whole lot more than we actually do. We should be able to take an issue and listen to people, because it’s so important to be able to listen to the people who come and tell stories. In this case, they’re telling incredibly personal stories and incredibly challenging stories that—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Tell your Minister to stop adding giant amendments at the committee stage.

💬 Cameron Brewer: Just keep going, Andy—keep going.

I’m just listening to them. They’re not listening to what I’m trying to say to them, which is that this could be the best of us, in actually working together collaboratively. That is the best of Parliament. It is being able to listen to the people who make submissions and who come and tell us their stories. They come and tell us what it is that they need to be addressed, the challenges that they face—in this case, the hardship and the harm that they’ve faced—and to be able to respond to that. That is their Parliament listening carefully and doing the job that we should be doing, and also a select committee that works to make improvements to the bill. It’s a good concept to start with, to make that bill better by going through the select committee process. If we could do that in every select committee process and take a bill that comes to us—whether it’s a Government bill or whether it’s a member’s bill—and improve it through the select committee process—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Yeah, it’s got to go to select committee—that’s the point. It’s got to go to select committee, not avoid the select committee.

Rachel Brooking, you should come to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. We do a great job in that area. Tracey McLellan, of course, is on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It’s a very good select committee.

But I want to go back now to the bill itself. It’s a great process to get here. This bill is about us, as a Parliament, standing beside the victims of family violence. We often say, certainly on this side of the House, but I think around the Parliament as a whole, that we want to look after the victims of any form of violence and of any form of crime, and that is certainly what we are about as a Government.

Our statistics on family violence are nothing short of appalling. I read that one in three people—certainly, they’re mostly women, but it’s one in three people—have experienced physical or sexual violence against them. That is utterly appalling, and we, as a society, have to do something about that, many things about that, and there are many things that we could do about that.

What this is about, though, is the court situation, and, obviously, if you’ve got to the court situation, that violence has been at the very, very high end. It’s been at the extreme end, and, as in the stories we’ve already heard, it may have been going on for many, many years. To have to go into a courtroom and—as we’ve already heard—to stand there and listen to the person who has been the perpetrator of that violence against you is to be revictimized, and that is what this bill is all about. It is to try and say we don’t accept that people who have suffered from family violence for, potentially, years who go through the courts to try and seek some remedy for that family violence and try and seek justice for that family violence should, in that process, be revictimised. That is not right, and that is what this bill is about.

It’s trying to make sure that there is an opportunity to be able to give your evidence and tell your stories to the court to get justice for yourself and to not to have to be revictimised by standing in the same courtroom as the victimiser—as the person who has victimised you—for, potentially, many years. So to allow to for that that to be done by video or to be done from another room, or whatever it might be—to have an opportunity to be able to do that in a way that is safe and that does not revictimise you, is, I think, the right thing to do. That is the Parliament of this land standing beside and behind and in support of the victims, and I think that is a great thing.

Again, I commend the select committee for the work that you’ve done, I commend Dr Tracey McLellan for bringing this bill here, and I also commend all of the brave people who have made submissions and have told those submissions and told their stories to the select committee. I think that they have done a great service to our country, and I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou e te Whare. I te tuatahi e mihi atu ana ki ngā whānau e auare ana i raro i te kino nei, ka nui te mihi ki a rātou.

[Thank you, and greetings to us all in the House. First, I’d like to acknowledge the families that are crying out under this ill-treatment, I greatly acknowledge them.]

I just wanted to acknowledge the survivors and, indeed, acknowledge women who did not survive and are lost to us. I want to acknowledge them, as well, and all of their whānau.

If I can, Dr Tracey McLellan, mihi atu ana ki a koe [I acknowledge you] for pursuing the work of Emily Henderson. She comes from a certain type of family where, of course, as you all know, many of her—well, her parents, for one. Her mother was my supervisor in the days when I was first with Rape Crisis, and so they know about that work. She knows that work and she’s grown up in that domain, and so e mihi atu ana ki a koe, ka mau koe ki tēnei take [I acknowledge you, you will carry this issue].

This bill is a very important bill and a very important step forward, and Te Pāti Māori e tautoko mārika ana i te take nei—Te Pāti Māori supports this wholeheartedly. It is always alarming how changes such as these ones discussed today are necessary, despite how simple or even common sense - like they may seem. I just to acknowledge again the work of the Justice Committee and their turning their minds to it in the right and proper way.

My view, and our view, is that the role here is to bring the voices of family and whānau into this House and ensure that they are understood in every possible way, particularly with this take [issue]. It is such a critical issue, and I do agree with the comments that we have such high statistics in this regard. It’s shameful—it’s shameful—and I agree that we must do more about it. I’ve worked in the sector myself. I’ve worked in the field long enough to know how harmful and how horrible it all is, and we know the numbers already for wāhine Māori—I wanted to say that—and the figure was referred to earlier by Kahurangi Carter: 58 percent of wāhine Māori are affected. But the irony or, again, the added horribleness of it is that with that number, it’s the same cohort that are unlikely to seek support and, unfortunately, they remain in that track for ever, sometimes. So this is a step forward.

The protections, including the ability to pre-record evidence or testify remotely, have, typically, remained absent from Family Court proceedings. This is another matter that deters wāhine Māori, or, in fact, any survivor of abuse from safely submitting evidence against their perpetrators. Victims should be entitled to consistent and safe support, regardless of the avenue they choose to seek help. This bill comes some way towards remedying such clear challenges. By granting witnesses the automatic right to submit evidence through alternative means, including remotely and outside the courtroom, we will significantly reduce the trauma and intimidation they may experience by avoiding an in-person confrontation with their abuser.

It just takes me back out in the field. A woman wanted to go back to her house, and she just said, “Just take me back to the house. He might even be there, but take me back to the house because I want to grab my photos and my dog.” You know, it’s those things that might seem like not a lot to us that were some of the most important things that she wanted to make sure that she had—and I can see that my time is up. But she wanted to get them and he was there, and things changed very quickly.

Overall, I say to the Whare that we support the work that Tracey has done, and that of the Justice Committee, Emily’s work, and more in this vein so that more women can be made safe and be made to feel safe. We support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I just want to begin by acknowledging the member Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, who spoke before me. I believe we had this same combination at the last reading, and I have really appreciated how the member uses real-life experience and examples of supporting people in terms of family and sexual violence and puts a human face to some of the decisions that we make. So I just wanted to mihi to you, Mariameno, for all of the work that you’ve done throughout your life for survivors.

Obviously, we are supporting the bill and there seems to be support around the House for a really great bill, and I want to thank Dr Tracey McLellan for all of her work in bringing this to the House. We support this. If we look at attitudes that people have towards our justice system in New Zealand, we know that there’s a general feeling that victims/survivors struggle to trust the system, particularly on sensitive matters like family and sexual violence, and there can often be a feeling that the courts are difficult to understand and navigate. The court process in and of itself is—[Another member is coughing] Sorry, I’m just making sure my colleague is OK.

We need to make sure that the court system is able to be navigated. It can seem like a beast to victims/survivors who have that in front of them, and sometimes the process itself can be retraumatising in the way that they have to prove what has happened to them, prove that they have been harmed—basically, the onus is on them to prove that they have been harmed—and find out what pathways exist after that has been proved. The court itself can be intimidating, and any little measures that we can take to make our courts more accommodating of people from different backgrounds and in different circumstances—particularly, sensitive matters—is going to be a good thing, in general.

Even though this bill is, essentially, about something that is already in existence in terms of the different tools that victims can use when they’re giving evidence, this is still a good thing because it adds a presumption in the Evidence Act that these alternative ways of giving evidence should be first and foremost, rather than just an option. Just because something exists, it doesn’t mean that people know that it exists in the first place, which kind of speaks to the complexities of our court systems, as well.

This was outlined in the Turuki! Turuki! report, which was formed by Chester Borrows from National, who looked into what New Zealand needs to do to have a safe and effective justice system. One of the recommendations that they made was that we should have court navigators to help people to understand and navigate the court and know what actually exists in terms of, say, for example, alternative ways of giving evidence that might be safer and less retraumatising for victims. This is one really discrete way of making that system—our justice system—less traumatising for people that want to pursue justice in that way. That’s one of the reasons why we’re supporting this bill.

The other reason is, of course, because family violence and sexual violence is far too prevalent in our country. It’s New Zealand’s shameful secret that isn’t actually a secret; in fact, we stack up really terribly next to other countries when it comes to the rates of domestic and sexual violence experienced by people in this country and, in particular, by women in this country. We’re glad that this makes a change and an improvement to our Family Court, and we know that our Family Court is one of many specialist courts in our country which have really high efficacy rates in terms of people’s satisfaction with those courts and also in terms of reducing reoffending, which, I’m sure, all around the House, we’d all agree that that’s a good thing.

I’ve spent a little bit of time in some of our other specialist courts: our Youth Court and our Special Circumstances Court, which is for people experiencing homelessness. I know that because they take such a catered, discrete, and distinct approach towards the subject matter that they deal with, they are far more successful, and this is an example of doing that through the Family Court.

We support this bill. We thank the member for bringing it to our attention and bringing it to the House, and we look forward to many more changes that we can make to make our Family Court less traumatising and more productive towards achieving justice and safety for whānau everywhere. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to give my kōrero in this third reading of the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. It’s a bill, as we have noted, in the name of our colleague across the House: Dr Tracey McLellan, who, as I’ve mentioned in my second reading speech, was staunchly determined that this bill would pass and was then quite attentive to whatever changes needed to be made which would keep the original kaupapa of the bill—that is, to allow victims to be able to be given alternative ways of giving evidence in Family Court proceedings where it still allows them to feel protected, despite the circumstances, and, I believe, to maintain and enhance their mana.

Five weeks ago, we had the second reading of this bill here in the House. Up there, in the gallery, was sitting my beautiful niece Rima Luti, and I made a point of talking about how bills like this bring out certain subject matters which are quite confrontational. On the Justice Committee, we deal with these types of matters a lot, and—if you don’t mind, Mr Speaker—before I delve into everything, today is my niece’s birthday. So if you don’t mind, Dr McLellan, I’m just going to say happy birthday to Rima Luti, who will be listening from Sydney, Australia. God bless you, habibti.

With Rima and with my nieces and nephews, I do talk about these subject matters. They’re in their teenage years now—most of them—and, in my mind, what I feel I want to do is prepare my nieces and nephews for the fact that there are people out there that enact acts of violence, whether it’s mentally or physically, that really can, essentially, ruin a person’s life, particularly if they don’t have the right support networks around them.

In terms of giving evidence, and that’s what the basis of this bill is about, I’d like to ask members of the House to imagine, if they could, a woman who is in a relationship where she has married a person, thinking that they would be together for all their lives, but that person ends up being a very violent person. Imagine, as confronting as it is, that one day this woman was engaged in a physical incident with the husband, where he held her by the hair and dragged her across the floor before kicking her. That’s very confronting.

Imagine, then, some months down the track, this woman is compelled to sit opposite this man that did this stuff to her—I’m saying “man” and “woman” in this situation, but sometimes it could be others—and give evidence and then be cross-examined, with that person, who has inflicted so much pain, both physical, and mental and emotional, sitting right in front of her. I’d like the House to imagine how this victim could be expected to give evidence that is coherent and clear and logical in such difficult circumstances.

When I sat down on the number of times when we discussed this this bill through our select committee and reflected on what we’re trying to achieve here, it really is that. When we look at the principal Act, which is the Evidence Act 2006, overall, the aim of this Act is outlined in section 6 of the Evidence Act, which says that “The purpose of this Act is to help secure the just determination of proceedings by—”, and there are paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), etc. Paragraph (c) says, “promoting fairness to parties and witnesses;”, and this is where, for me, it links quite clearly. It’s clear to me that the work that Dr McLellan has done with this links to what the overall purpose of the Evidence Act is in paragraph (c) of section 6: “promoting fairness to parties and witnesses;”.

The way that this bill hopes to promote fairness is to allow that within the Family Court, alternative ways to give evidence are a given, and not just something that, as it stands for now, can be applied for and the judge can decide yes or no. It’s actually a default and it’s actually a given so that we can achieve what the overall aim of the Evidence Act is—the principal Act, which this bill is amending—which is to promote fairness to parties and witnesses. I believe strongly that this change, which, as mentioned, is small but quite impactful, goes a long way in making sure that witnesses in those situations—for example, that dire example I gave at the beginning of my kōrero—can feel that fairness for their side of the story is promoted by the avenues we give to them.

As it stands, as has been mentioned, currently in Family Court procedures, evidence is, typically, provided by affidavit, and for those that are listening that are not familiar with these terms, that’s, essentially, a written statement made before the hearing, with cross-examination happening in person during the hearing. Now, if we look at criminal cases, alternative methods—as I just mentioned—are a given. Witnesses are allowed to give evidence in alternative ways. When we’re talking about things like a video link from behind a screen, it’s something that many of us in this House who are familiar with legal proceedings—having studied and worked in law, we’ve seen these situations transpire where evidence is given from behind a screen. It’s still very confronting and still very intimidating, but, I would believe, much less so than being right in front of and in the face of the person whom the witness is saying has perpetrated these crimes.

The irony in the philosophical thinking when it comes to this bill is that we’re talking about the Family Court, and, unfortunately, it’s almost like an oxymoron, because it’s the Family Court that deals with matters where the family is not really behaving as a family. So that’s just a side note that came to mind when I was thinking deeply about the effects of this bill going forward.

I’m really grateful that my own member’s bill—which was focused on victims, as well—was drawn from the ballot about a month and a bit before this bill that we’re going to pass today, no doubt, and that one is about protecting victims of crime from receiving correspondence or being contacted by the perpetrators of their crime that are behind prison walls. Now, that was a situation similar to the bill before us today, where quite a number of changes were recommended so that we could make the bill more workable, because the Department of Corrections couldn’t be expected to see what every single person out in the public was doing in terms of contacting the victims of their crimes. Here, similarly—well, not in that regard, but it is in the sense that we made a few changes to the bill as first introduced, as I said, to make it workable so that we can make sure it does go ahead so that victims in Family Court proceedings can be further protected.

As we’ve said, and we’ve said it a number of times, in this Government we’ve got a really victim-centric approach, and I believe that deep down, across the House, we all do, but it’s interesting how sometimes our version or our understanding of how far the protections go for victims can differ. But in this situation today, I’d like to commend the member Dr Tracey McLellan. I’d like to thank my colleagues on the Justice Committee. We started this bill when we had our former chair the Hon James Meager and Cameron Brewer on the committee, but we’ve ended it with a different set of members, but they are all very good, decent people who care about putting victims’ rights first. I look forward to this being implemented tangibly. For now, I commend this bill to the House.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Members, when we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. We were up to call No. 8.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to make this a short call because I want this to become the law. It needs to happen now and it needed to happen quite some time ago, a law like this. It makes it an automatic entitlement for people who have had to ask a judge for an entitlement, and I was disturbed to hear the story from the other side of the room about a woman who had struggled to get that to happen in practicality.

I was at the domestic violence court on Friday, and it is an incredible court. It’s absolutely beautiful, what’s going on in terms of the response that people are really valiantly making in this area, and I want to commend the judges and the clerks involved in those courts. It is often a case of too little resource—actually, that is something this Government should be looking at. It is a case of that, and we need to spend a lot more energy on this subject. We have half of our homicides happening as a result of domestic violence, and there was recently a study where the person in charge has also started to look at suicide in the death count, because suicide is often linked to domestic violence. So we probably don’t know the real numbers of people who are impacted by this terrible phenomenon in our society, and it is an absolute shame.

I want to thank my friend and colleague Tracey McLellan, and my friend and colleague Emily Henderson. They are both wonderful women who have brought this bill to this House, and I commend it to this House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand here today to speak on a matter that actually goes to the very heart of our collective conscience. It’s about how we treat victims of family violence as they seek justice in our courts. I want to begin with a simple yet quite profound truth, and that is that no one wakes up in the morning and asks or chooses to be a victim—and I’ll take a moment to let that sink in: no one wakes up in the morning and wants or chooses to be a victim. Not a single person wishes to find themselves seeking protection from harm, and in a context that includes family, it simply should not occur. But we know it does, and the occurrence of family violence in our communities is far, far too common.

Victims of family violence, they don’t choose their circumstances. They do not volunteer for suffering, nor do they want the pressure that the justice system sometimes inadvertently places upon them. We do not want a system that adds to the trauma that has already been inflicted, and we need to offer a safe place to ensure that justice can and will happen without further undue pressure and stress.

I would just take a moment to congratulate the member Dr Tracey McLellan on her bill, and I would also commend the Justice Committee for their work in getting the bill to where it is today. I would imagine there would’ve been some very harrowing evidence given—I do—and I just commend them for doing what they have done with the bill.

Before anything else, we need to consider what it is we want to achieve, and to do that, we need to think about those very people who are at the centre of this legislation. It might be the parent who has endured years of coercion, the child who has witnessed violence in what should’ve been their safe haven, or it may have been the survivor who has finally summoned the courage to seek a better future. None of those individuals aspired to be called a victim, and yet when they come before our justice system, the least we can offer is a process that does not compound their suffering, a process that recognises that they have a right to be heard safely and fairly without fear of threat or repercussion, and a process that does not make them a further victim, a victim of the process itself.

At the very core, this bill acknowledges the very real harm that family violence does and can inflict, not just physically but emotionally and psychologically, and it seeks to mitigate that harm within the justice process itself. It makes justice more accessible, more compassionate, and more attuned to the needs of survivors, without sacrificing the rigour or fairness owed to all parties involved. It recommends ways to reduce the stress and trauma that victims experience when giving evidence, suggesting that Family Court protection should align with that available in criminal cases, fostering greater consistency and fairness within our legal system, and it entrusts our judiciary with the discretion to tailor proceedings to the specific needs of those individuals, recognising that justice is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour.

This bill brings forward several key changes—

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Are you allowed to read speeches now?

💬 Tom Rutherford: Well, your members did.

Yeah, your members did.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We don’t have the conversation across the House, please, guys.

This bill brings forward several key changes designed to enhance victim safety, dignity, and participation. Alternative ways of giving evidence: the bill encourages and facilitates the use of pre-recorded testimony or testimony given outside what can be an intimidating environment within the courtroom, and it could mean providing evidence via audiovisual links from a different location or from behind privacy screens. The aim is to reduce the trauma of direct confrontation, making the experience safer and less distressing for those involved.

Notification and transparency: any party wishing to use alternative evidence procedures must notify all relevant parties in the court of their preferred method. This ensures that the process remains transparent and that all parties have time to prepare, reducing the potential for surprise or procedural disadvantage.

Judicial flexibility: while the bill encourages alternative evidence methods, it does not make them mandatory in every case, and judges still retain the ability to require conventional in-person testimony where justice and the specifics of the case demand it. This flexibility is crucial, acknowledging the complexity and nuance that each and every case presents.

Transitional clarity: the bill will apply only to new procedures initiated after its enactment to ensure clear guidelines and protection for ongoing cases and to avoid retroactive confusion.

What, then, does this bill represent at its core? The good news is that throughout this process, this bill has encountered robust debate and careful scrutiny by the select committee. Legitimate concerns have been raised and addressed throughout the process, and some of those included concerns about the operational costs of implementing alternative evidence methods, about procedural fairness, and about the risk of unintended consequences.

The select committee has responded thoughtfully and has made several key amendments focusing on victims. The bill now clarifies that its provisions specifically apply to persons who have experienced or who are experiencing family violence, rather than any witness in a family harm case. This ensures that the protections are targeted and that misuse by those accused of harm is prevented.

Practical implementation: while the original bill contemplated using video-recorded evidence, this provision was removed to address significant technical and financial challenges, such as the need for courtroom upgrades, estimated to cost more than $20 million. Instead, the bill maintains the use of screens and existing audiovisual link technologies, achieving the intent of the bill while remaining fiscally responsible.

Judicial discretion is maintained: judges are now explicitly empowered to require testimony to be given in the ordinary way, or to select another alternative method on their own initiative. This safeguard—a vital safeguard—ensures that the right to a fair hearing and procedural balance are protected.

Interaction with existing procedures: the bill ensures that its provisions do not displace the longstanding use of affidavit evidence in Family Court proceedings. Further technical amendments are being made to maintain harmony with the wider Evidence Act framework.

Implementation time frame: the commencement date has been extended, allowing for 12 months after Royal assent before the bill comes into force. This transition period will enable the necessary judicial education, staff training, and modest facility upgrades needed for a smooth implementation.

It’s been great to see that although there were initial reservations from some stakeholders, the bill now enjoys broad support from victim advocacy groups, legal practitioners, members of the judiciary, and those in this House. It’s also great to see that it aligns with other initiatives such as the family violence operating model currently being trialled in Christchurch, which seeks to proactively inform participants of their options for giving evidence and to enhance overall safety in Family Court proceedings.

As we consider this bill, let me return to where I started today, and that is with the victims, who did not choose to be in their position and who did not wake up seeking to become the subject of a court case or to be labelled as victims, at all. I will again say that no one wakes up in the morning wanting to be a victim, and that is why, on this side of the House, we will be supporting this bill. This is not about being political; this is about doing what is right, what is fair, and what helps to protect and support our most vulnerable. This is about treating those who find themselves in this position with dignity, respect, and humanity.

It’s our duty to continue to make changes to keep our people safe. That goes for both sides of the House, and I would challenge those on the other side of the House, when it comes to law and order, to do what’s right and to back the good work that we are doing on this side to protect our people and make sure that there are consequences for those who that choose to not be good citizens, for those that flout the law, and for those that make that choice. I commend this bill to the House.

Given there are some technical aspects to the bill, I appreciate the member needing to use his notes, but I do encourage him not to read his entire speech.

Madam Speaker, thank you for this, and it’s good to see the broad support for this bill across the House. I have been listening carefully to the speeches, and, obviously, Tracey McLellan’s speech was very thoughtful, but also I want to recognise other speeches in the House—such as from Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, and Tamatha Paul’s as well—which I found really informative and also really heartfelt as people touched on the personal stories involved, and I want to recognise that, but not myself take that approach.

I just want to touch on one thing, and it’s a little bit legalistic, but it is important. It’s really the fact that this bill is about evidence, and evidence is about finding out the facts. There is sometimes a suggestion that the best way to find the facts is to have someone in front of you, and you kind of eyeball them as they give evidence, and that’s actually what’s led to the common law tradition of having a witness in the witness box with opposing lawyers there, including cross-examination. It’s a bit of a fallacy, and I have to say that it’s a fallacy, because this bill retreats from that “witness in the witness box” approach and says that there are other ways to give evidence. What we actually know is that when people aren’t under extreme pressure, like they are in the witness box, they actually have better recollection and they can better order their thoughts, and whilst there might be a question-and-answer framework in some senses in the way they give evidence, not giving evidence in that really confrontational court procedure can, in fact, be a better fact-finding technique.

That’s really all I want to say about this bill. I think it’s important to remember that the stories of the victims are of course paramount, but the job of the court is to find facts, and the further and equally good reason for this bill is that it’s actually a better way to find out the facts of any given case. For all of those reasons that have been stated and this one as well, we support this bill.

I rise to speak on the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill at its third reading. Now, this bill has been on a reasonably long journey. It was introduced in March 2024, it was referred to the Justice Committee in November that year, it was then reported back in May 2025, and today, in August, we’re finally bringing it to its final stage.

At its core, this bill recognises that victims of family violence should not be retraumatised—and I’ll repeat that with an underscore under the “re”: retraumatised—by the very process of seeking justice and being heard. This bill aligns the Family Court with the protections already available in New Zealand in the criminal courts, giving vulnerable witnesses the right and the opportunity to give their evidence in a fair, safe, more supportive way, and just a chance to speak for themselves.

I would also acknowledge that, under the National Government, there has been a shift to putting victims first. We’ve been clear from day one, even during the campaign, that law and order is about holding offenders to account, but it is also about ensuring that victims are protected, victims are respected, and victims are supported at every stage of the justice system. Now, this bill is consistent with that direction from the National Government. It strengthens the Family Court by reducing the risk of intimidation and of retraumatising, but it recognises the trauma caused that can never be healed, and it is ensuring that the voices of those who have experienced family violence—particularly those who have been victimised—can be heard fairly and safely.

The Justice Committee did careful work on this bill. They recommended an amendment that tightened definitions—and, yes, I should actually claw back on my renaming of that bill. I should rephrase what I called that bill. It is the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. Now, the title of this bill was changed during the select committee work because it better reflects the reality of what the National Government has been doing, and particularly—and I will come to the acknowledgment very soon of the member who has brought the bill to the House—to recognise that protection needs to be given so that people can give family violence evidence in Family Court proceedings.

The Justice Committee did very careful work on this bill because it matters for so many people. They recommended many amendments and, in doing so, they struck a better balance, extending protections to vulnerable witnesses but also ensuring that fairness and procedural integrity are not lost.

This is where I need to come to the acknowledgment and to particularly shine the light to thank Dr Tracey McLellan, who is watching from across the House. She is the member in charge of this member’s bill and in charge of taking the bill through the House, and I want to send her a pre-congratulations for eventually passing this bill.

But I also need to acknowledge the entire Justice Committee, and I also had the opportunity and privilege to sit on this Justice Committee on behalf of some members and I was part of the discussions related to this bill. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Bayly, as the chairperson, and also the former chair, the Hon James Meager; many MPs, including Carl Bates, Cameron Brewer, Paulo Garcia, Rima Nakhle, and Tom Rutherford, and also, from across the House, the Hon Ginny Andersen, Jamie Arbuckle, Todd Stephenson, Vanushi Walters, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, and the list goes on. This bill has demonstrated that parties can work together and put away the politics to make sure that we’re delivering for the people, and I want to thank all of the members that were involved with this bill.

Lastly, I do want to add a note of realism. The protection in this bill will work only if the Family Court is properly resourced. Technology, staffing, and training must all be in one place to make alternative evidence-giving a meaningful reality, and that is something that the Government needs to continue to do and will continue to deliver. So, for all of the above reasons, I support this bill passing into law. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to stand and take a brief call in support of this bill, and it will be brief because I do look forward to seeing it become law.

I would like to congratulate my colleague Dr Tracey McLellan, and also Dr Emily Henderson. This is a bill that is a little bit special to me because I recall it when Emily Henderson spoke about the importance of this bill last term. Just before coming into the House today, I sent her a message to make sure that she was watching, as well, and I know that it’s very important to her.

Before I make a few brief comments about the bill, I did also want to acknowledge some wāhine toa in the gallery. We have Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo, our former EEO Women’s Rights Commissioner, who has worked tirelessly for women’s rights, and we also have Jo Cribb, the former chief executive of the Ministry for Women. I think it’s very fitting to have them here not just for this bill but, hopefully, for the passage of the next bill through the House, as well, which is also a very important bill in terms of women’s rights.

When I spoke previously in the House to this bill, I talked about the fact that when you walk into any law court in the country but also internationally, you see the same symbol of the blind justiciar. It’s this idea that justice is blind and is assessed on the facts, and that we ought not to see the people in front of us. However, I think we’ve moved significantly from where justice was born, into a place where we do see people, as we should—we should see people—and this is one of the ways that we’re doing that. It’s absolutely true that we still must maintain a balance in terms of getting the facts right and ensuring that there’s a fair hearing but also in terms of seeing people. I think we’re moving there with this legislation but also practices that the courts are adopting, like Te Ao Mārama. We’ve seen it in the drug and alcohol courts, and we’ve seen it in the rangatahi courts, as well. I think it’s absolutely appropriate that we bridge that gap between law and justice, essentially.

A few of the submitters on this bill suggested that we might want to go further. I do think this is one of those areas of law that warrants us paying attention and ensuring that we are monitoring what we’re doing so that we ensure we constantly get the balance right.

The last thing I would say is that I really do appreciate the support for this bill on the other side of the House, and I think that’s important. However, I also think it’s important that the other side of the House—the Government—recognises that addressing family violence is about supporting services, as well as ensuring we have a legislative framework that’s fit for purpose. We’re in a year at the moment where we’re about to see the closure of the North Shore Women’s Centre, which is the first port of call for many of the women who will be presenting. So this is a plea to Government members who say that this is not about politics but this is about doing the right thing—and I completely agree. This is just a plea to ensure that our social services are also funded adequately so that we can truly address this issue. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I call the honourable—Dr Vanessa Weenink.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

💬 Hon Members: “Honourable”.

Yeah, thank you for the short, quick promotion. It is—

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: She won’t read her speech—she’s clever.

Thank you so much, Dr Duncan Webb—the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, for that commendation of me. I think that’s probably about the sixth or seventh time you’ve mentioned me in these things.

Anyway, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I would like to congratulate Dr Tracey McLellan, a fellow MP based in Banks Peninsula. This is a really practical and useful piece of work to have brought to the House. I think—have you had other bills that have come through? It’s not just—yeah, it’s feeling familiar to be saying congratulations to Dr McLellan. She’s had a few, so it’s good to be able to bring this through.

National is supporting this bill. We’ve supported it throughout its journey, and now we’re proud to see it reach its final stage before it is becoming law. This cross-party support demonstrates that there are some things that transcend politics, and it’s about doing exactly what is right for people in New Zealand. This is when Parliament works at its best. Although I wasn’t part of the select committee, what—

💬 Rima Nakhle: Unfortunately.

Yes, unfortunately, although my fellow National Party members on the Justice Committee are excellent, and it’s a very hard-working select committee. They made some good improvements throughout the committee process—for example, they focused on actual victims and clarified that protections can apply specifically to people who have experienced family violence, and so it prevents that misuse from perpetrators, which can be a nuisance. Also, they ensured that it was a cost-effective implementation and they removed the expensive video-recording requirements they might have otherwise been needed, which saved about $20 million in court upgrades.

They also further enhanced judicial discretion. Judges can now act on their own initiative to ensure that proceedings remain fair, and not just on application by other parties.

It also protects existing processes and creates a realistic time frame for implementation. This will come into effect 12 months after Royal assent, meaning that there is time for all of those processes to be put in place appropriately, and that is what has been advised as a reasonable amount of time. So some of those things have been addressed.

Also, the legal practitioners highlighted that there needed to be stronger judicial discretion—and the committee responded to that—whereas victim advocates emphasised the importance of focusing on the actual victims. That is something that I know my friend and colleague Rima Nakhle would have definitely been a champion of. Rima has been a very strong advocate for victims.

💬 Rima Nakhle: So are you.

Yeah. Some of the other reasons why this change matters is because we know that increased participation and improved access improves justice. If more victims are willing to engage in Family Court proceedings because they’re simpler and easier to apply where it’s more accessible and more available for them, then they’re more likely to participate, which leads to more outcomes. We’re removing those barriers that prevent the participation because it’s these proceedings that will affect their lives.

This is also a bill that complements other work that the Government is doing. It complements the family violence operating model that’s being trialled in Christchurch, which a previous speaker has highlighted. There are many advocacy groups and victim support groups who will have participated in this, and I know, for example, about the stopping violence groups, as well as The Loft, which is nearby my electorate. It’s actually quite an interesting set-up at The Loft. They have one single place where the supporting of victims can be. There’s social workers, there’s access to the Ministry of Social Development services, and there’s some health services.

💬 Hon Member: Whereabouts is that, Vanessa?

That’s based in The Palms, in Christchurch. It’s very close to my electorate—on the border of the mighty Banks Peninsula electorate, but it is right there—and I’ve met with them several times, and they are really strong advocates. I know that anything that’s done to improve access and support for victims will be very welcomed by the people of my electorate and nearby electorates in Christchurch, and, well, the whole of Greater Christchurch, where it is being trialled out.

There has been wide support for this bill, as has been acknowledged and spoken about previously. Although it’s going to take a year before it comes into effect, it’s a proud moment for us all to be able to be here this evening as this historic moment happens. It’s a really important bill that will become law and it has real-world impacts. I think pretty much most of us in this House will know someone who has been a victim of family violence, who either has directly witnessed it themselves, has been a survivor of family violence, or who has supported those people.

As a GP, of course, I’ve supported people who have been victims of family violence, and going through the process in the judicial system is very stressful, in and of itself. Even that which might seem really a basic thing—having to attend the court—can be extremely stressful, and a couple of times, I’ve had to appear as an expert witness to support family violence cases. Apart from the absolute annoyance of having to turn up at, say, 10 o’clock in the morning only to be told that you have to wait till 12 in the afternoon and have no compensation for the fact that you have to take half a day off work—but that’s not about this bill. Apart from all of those barriers, all of those disincentives are things that put people off accessing the justice that they should be entitled to, and anything that we can do that smooths the way to make it easier to participate in the judicial system is something that we should look at and bring in.

Every case where there’s been incomplete evidence because victims couldn’t participate fully is a case where justice has been mis-served, and any time where people just have decided not to participate is a lost opportunity to prevent further harm. I think, through this, we will see evidence that there is more going on. Research tells us that there is likely to be a whole lot more harm in terms of family violence than ever comes before the court, as well as things like sexual violence. When it comes to family harm and violence, as well as sexual violence, we know that it’s not anywhere near as exposed in the court and the judicial system as what actually happens in the community.

By removing, in a small way and in a practical measure, some of those barriers today, we are improving our judicial system. We are doing right by victims in New Zealand, and I’m very proud to be able to speak in this stage as this bill passes into law. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.