Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill

I present legislative statements on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I move, That the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider these bills.

Improving justice outcomes for victims of family violence and sexual violence has been a top priority for this Government, and I’m very proud to present both of these bills to the House today. Together, these bills are a key element of the three-year victims’ work programme that the Government announced earlier in the year. Since National left office, our Government has tripled the funding for the Victims Assistance Scheme and doubled the funding for Victim Support. We’ve passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, established Te Aorerekura to improve access to family violence assistance in the community, and we have established three new pilots in the courts to improve victim safety, ensure they’re heard in bail decisions, and strengthen the support for child victims of sexual violence. We are delivering on our promise to build a justice system that serves all New Zealanders.

These bills address three issues with current legislative settings, and the changes that they will bring are these: addressing problematic lines of questioning and aligning the penalties of sexual offences when the victim is a child, removing barriers to lift victims’ automatic name suppression, and to provide new ways to address litigation abuse in family proceedings. Currently, the law allows for children who are victims of sexual offending to be cross-examined about whether they liked, wanted, or even enjoyed what has happened to them. This is absolutely unacceptable. How can it happen under current settings when an offender is charged with sexual violation because consent is relevant to the offence? It does not need to be like this. The age-specific offence known as sexual connection with a child has a built-in protection that means consent is irrelevant.

However, prosecutors don’t often pursue this charge because the sentence attached to it is 14 years, which is lower than that under the sexual violation offence, which is 20 years. These amendments, therefore, increase the maximum penalty of sexual connection with a child from 14 to 20 years’ imprisonment to align with the penalty for sexual violation. Sexual offending against children should be subject to the same or greater penalty as offending against adults, certainly not a lesser one.

We are also amending the offence of sexual violation so it cannot be charged if the victim is under 12 years old. This takes the question of consent off the table when a young victim is involved. It also ensures that the law leans into those safeguards that already exist for child victims, which, to date, have been underused.

The second issue we’re addressing relates to some of the barriers that victims face when trying to lift their automatic name suppression. The intent behind automatic name suppression for complainants in sexual cases was to protect their privacy during a deeply personal and difficult time in their life. While it is crucial to continue protecting victims of sexual violence, it is also important to recognise that not everyone needs or wants protection in this way. In fact, some people want others to know what has happened to them. In recent years, the Me Too and Let Her Speak movements have played a vital role in empowering victims to speak out, to tell their stories and let others know that they are not alone. Victims of sexual violence can apply to lift their automatic name suppression if they want to, but the system is not currently set up in a way that supports that choice. We’re strengthening these settings by bringing forward changes that better supports victims’ autonomy. This includes a new requirement for the court to consider a victim’s views about their automatic suppression, and minor changes to update the language of the law. These amendments will give victims greater say over their story and help the law better reflect society’s expectations in these areas.

They will also work with separate updates that are progressing to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, which will clarify the process for lifting name suppression. Many don’t know this is even an option, and, often, those that do not know, they don’t know where to start. Some have paid thousands of dollars for independent legal advice to help them apply, but this should never happen. Lifting suppression is free of cost. The fact that some victims feel that they need to pay out of their own pocket to get the support they need means the system is failing them. It needs to be simpler, streamlined, and more accessible. Whether a victim wishes to remain anonymous or speak out, we need to make sure our justice system supports the choice of victims.

Finally, we are strengthening the courts’ statutory powers to protect victims of litigation abuse in family proceedings. Litigation abuse is when someone uses the court system to harass, contact, or control their victim rather than to resolve legitimate disputes. I’d like to acknowledge the work and the advocacy of Emily Henderson in this space. She’s been a strong proponent of this change in the law and she’ll be very pleased to see this bill be in the House today. These may present fabricated allegations—this way of being vexatious through the court proceedings. People can file multiple and unnecessary court documents that take time, energy, and money to respond to. They may raise issues to punish, humiliate, or even force the other party to engage with them. It’s, essentially, using the court system against a victim. Using the court system to further cause harm is unacceptable. Family disputes relate to some of the most intimate parts of our lives. They can affect the care of our children, where we live, and what we own. They can impact whether we see our loved ones and whether we feel safe.

Litigation abuse and family proceedings can form part of a wider pattern of violence and abuse against the victim. We are making it particularly harmful. Current protections against litigation abuse focus on the specific number and nature of proceedings rather than the wider patterns of abuse. The threshold which must be met for a victim to access these protections is high and is particularly difficult to meet in family proceedings. The settings can also fail to address patterns of abuse which have developed or been perpetuated over time. The changes we are making address these existing limitations.

These amendments are designed to apply in a court where family proceedings may be heard. They cover cases about care arrangements for children, dividing relationship property following a separation, and also for family violence. Under the new provisions, the court must look at the person’s behaviour, both in and out of the court. If there is evidence of litigation abuse, the court can make an order that requires the court to review any further steps that a person takes in family proceedings or any new family proceedings they start to ensure that they are appropriate before allowing them to proceed. This balances the needs to protect victims with the right to justice and also access to the courts. These rights are of great importance in family proceedings, which affect fundamental aspects of people’s lives. The intention of these changes is to emphasise that the court is there to resolve legitimate disputes and not to perpetuate that abuse.

I’m proud to bring these bills to the House today because of what they mean for New Zealanders. We are delivering on our promise to build a justice system that serves all, and these bills bring us one step closer to providing better outcomes for victims within our justice system. I commend these bills to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party will be supporting these two bills, the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, at their first reading and sending them off to a select committee, and it’ll be, obviously, for a future Parliament to decide how and in what way they will be carried forward. The bills, as the Minister, the Hon Ginny Andersen, outlined, cover three things. Given the scale of the challenges that we have as a country, in violence generally and family violence generally, it’s fairly modest legislation, to be honest. It makes two worthy changes, and the third looks, on the surface, to be worthy, but the devil will be in the detail.

The first change, around dealing with children and changing the Crimes Act in relation to the question of consent, or lack of reasonable belief in consent, isn’t an appropriate consideration for children under the age of 12. I think the Minister made the point quite clearly that that’s not something that we should be tolerating, and it shouldn’t be a defence for young children who are victims of crime. So we’ll give that a tick, absolutely.

The second one is around automatic name suppression in criminal procedures. What we have, generally, when a complaint is made or sexual violence has occurred, is that automatic name suppression applies. There are cases where the victims don’t want to have the perpetrator of the crime benefiting from name suppression and they want the world to know, and so they want to waive that name suppression. The process to do that is very cumbersome, so this legislation brings in streamlined procedures to achieve that more swiftly. So we give that a tick as well. These are two things that, yes, are useful, and as to whether it achieves that is something the select committee process will work their way through.

The third area is around victims of family violence, in the extremely vexed area of the Family Court, where, I think, everybody, for a long time, has been dissatisfied with the scope for real, huge damage to be done to families in the course of dealing with the Family Court’s elongated cases. From the outside, it does appear too easy for one party or other to drag proceedings out through a whole host of means, and also to cause mayhem through a whole lot of claims and counterclaims, some of which don’t stack up. Parliament, frankly, on both sides of the House, has made attempts to improve it, and quite often the attempts to improve the system have only made things worse or haven’t solved the problem. So it is a fraught area and one that needs constant attention there. There’s a little bit of a danger of dipping in and out on specifics, as this legislation does, but we are open to considering this. And if it, on the surface, provides for judges to make civil restraint orders limiting future proceedings where someone has filed two or more proceedings that are “totally without merit”, that may have the chance to dial back on the vexatious complaints. So, on that one, yes, on the surface of it, it looks good, and a select committee in the future will have to go through the details and make sure that it actually achieves the desired outcome and doesn’t inadvertently make it more difficult for people to defend their side of the story, but, at the same time, actually achieves the streamlining of the system that we want.

The only point I’d make—you know, we’re two days before the House dissolves before the election—is that the Government has talked at great length over the last six years about being focused on the needs of victims and, frankly, we are quite critical of that. Yes, we’ve seen a big increase in family violence, and the three very modest things that these two bills achieve will make some progress, but, heck, there’s a whole lot more to do. I am conscious that the Minister referred to the various victim support schemes and victim assistance schemes that they’ve increased the funding for, but it was only a couple of years ago when officials let the cat out of the bag and said that that scheme had been deliberately under-promoted for a number of years under this Government because the funding wasn’t available and they were, basically, just keeping their head down so that victims didn’t know that the scheme was available. That was the approach of this Government. I’m glad they’ve tried to amend that. They also announced, with great fanfare, $20 million to help victims of strangulation, and it turned out that nowhere near the number of victims of strangulation have actually been helped by the scheme. It’s been very ineffective and, in fact, it’s helped more perpetrators of strangulation to get access to better defence.

Hon Marama Davidson: Every single victim has been helped in non-fatal strangulation.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, a Minister is coming up with details that haven’t been backed by the written answers that we’ve received, so the only point I’d say is that, yes, you’ve got to back up your statements with achievements. And so, yes, we support this; we just wish they could do a lot more.

Of course, the thing that most victims of crime want is not to have been a victim of crime in the first place. So restoring law and order more generally across our communities is the absolute focus—one of the key focuses—of a future National Government if we get the opportunity to serve in the next couple of months. And that starts right at the top. I mean, the starting point of your whole justice approach has been—for the six years that this Government has been in power, the one sort of clearly articulated goal of reducing the prison population irrespective of what’s going on in our community, irrespective of the level of violent crime—“Just make sure you reduce the prison population.” I think it has been misguided. That has not been in the interests of the victims of crime, and so we’ve seen many cases, many cases—it’s been well recorded in the media—of people being convicted of serious sexual crimes, rapes, multiple rapes in some instances, and receiving home detention sentences. It doesn’t give the victims any sense of justice; it doesn’t denounce the act effectively, which is one of the goals of the Sentencing Act; and it doesn’t keep our community safe. That’s why we think one of the more useful things you could do for victims of crime is to ensure that the perpetrators of crime do receive an appropriate sentence, which is why we’re going to restrict the ability of judges to massively reduce sentences.

So that, I think, would be a more powerful thing to do to address the concerns of the victims of sexual violence. But the Government has not chosen that, and it’s chosen the things in these bills. Like I say, in so far as they make progress, we will support them, but we wish and hope that they could do more. Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend Dr Henderson for her staunch advocacy in support of these changes.

But what does this harassment litigation abuse look like? Well, in the case of Khatri v Tomar, the defendant filed 88 applications in the Family Court, most of which the High Court couldn’t consider in deciding whether to make a restraint order because the applications were made within litigation that was initiated by his former wife, who had applied for a protection order and a parenting order. That is what harassment looks like. That is what litigation abuse looks like. These two bills address these horrific processes, and I commend these bills to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Obviously a very serious subject matter in these two bills.

I’ll just start by noting, as I think the Minister did, that there are two bills that are on the Table; they are being joined together as cognate bills, as we say, because they have a broad overarching purpose. I think, considering the aims of these, taken together, as wanting to improve the experience of victims in our court system does allow us to treat them together. They’re both worthy aims. No doubt every member of the House supports them. Obviously we can discuss, you know, the ways in which that best can be achieved and, to some extent, that will be part of the election campaign coming up. But, as far as the measures are concerned that are in front of us today, I reiterate the support that has been assured from our spokesperson, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, namely we do support the aims of the Government in relation to these bills. We will be voting in favour of them once the first reading debate has concluded.

The courts’ operation in this country has been, for many years, quite dysfunctional. The level of dysfunction has only increased in recent years, so backlogs, delays, costs, and other difficulties, including the way in which victims must interact with the justice system—these problems are well known; they’re agreed, to a large extent, including in the political environment, and the difference of opinion, I suppose, tends to be about the measures that we should take and how quickly we should take them and so forth. So, as a starting point, I think it’s positive that the problems of the system are acknowledged; however, there is much that needs to be done. These bills fit within that context but they are not the whole answer by any stretch of the imagination.

In the Family Court environment, particularly, we note that there is a longstanding discussion around the fact that some parties have, at various times—and I mean parties to the litigation; I don’t mean political parties—been accused by the other parties of making spurious allegations in a way that would see them gain tactical advantage in terms of how the proceedings play out. Obviously these are really complex issues. We grapple with the tension of wanting to allow people to bring matters to court, to have their day in front of a judge or a jury, as the case may be, and to be able to have access to justice in that way, but we don’t want, on the other hand, to allow that to be a process by for which they conduct abuse or perpetuate abuse against the other person. So it is genuinely a difficult balance to strike.

When we think about processes that themselves could be described as punishment, I think it’s fair to have the Parliament consider how we can reconcile those two tensions: on the one hand, we want people to be able to state their case in court, for the benefit in a Family Court environment where children are involved, and if there was a real fear and a genuine concern that the young people involved might be subject to emotional or physical abuse, of course it’s appropriate for an order to be sought. We want that discussion to be had; we want the protection to be in place, but, at the same time, we don’t want the process, and therefore the people involved, to be abused with claims not being made in good faith.

The distinction between what currently exists on the law and what is being proposed in relation to the family violence bill, within the cognate bills, as I understand it—and I’m not that au fait with the area of law, but it seems to me that the difference between what we’ve got now and what’s being proposed is that now a proceeding can be refused if the judge considers that it doesn’t have any merit. But, actually, that’s, in a way, a high bar because it might be the case that there is some merit in a case being brought but it is going to be brought in a way that is abusive of the process. So it might be multiple claims being filed as opposed to a single one so that the person who’s on the receiving end might feel bombarded by those and, of course, that might be the point. Sadly, there are those who are in whatever frame of mind that they think it’s appropriate to try to exhaust the other party emotionally or perhaps in a financial way and wear them down and bring them to a negotiating table in a way that reflects the power imbalance—well, almost invariably wouldn’t reflect the best interests of the child. And, of course, that should be a litmus test for many of these types of proceedings and, indeed, our law already says that that must be the case.

So the way that this tension is navigated by the bill is in the proposal that a new section 12B be inserted to the Family Court Act. So it says that the judge can, effectively, refuse that a person be able to bring a matter—that’s not the correct wording but that’s the gist of it—if two different things have happened. One is that the judge must be satisfied, having regard to all of the circumstances that a party to the proceeding has exhibited conduct that is an abuse of the court. Having all the circumstances taken into account, of course, is what we want; we want the judge to be able to decide in his or her discretion or judgment, so to speak, that taking everything together, that it would be an abuse of the court.

I’ll just focus on that for a moment because “abuse of the court” is sort of how we describe things in the way that these matters come up in our judicial system. The fact that it’s an abuse of the people involved is, of course, really the point but we talk about the court process and the system of justice as a whole needing to be protected, so that’s fine as far as it goes. I’d just note that along the way. So that’s the first bit of the test—that all the circumstances indicate that an abuse of the court would be the result of the conduct that’s been exhibited. Then, also, that the party has been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and this is to square what would otherwise be a logical gap whereby, if a person wants to have their day in court and thinks that they’ve got a case of merit, how can they make that case without—you know, if someone decides in advance that it’s unmeritorious. So we’ve got to have the opportunity for that to be judged. So the decision maker—the judge, in this case—has the opportunity to say, “Well, these two things have been satisfied.” And that’s basically the kind of analysis that was done.

For example, in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment by the AttorneyGeneral in relation to this matter, he rightly turned his mind to the question of whether access to justice was being unduly impinged and he thought that it was a reasonable limitation on the right because of this kind of test, this kind of balance that’s being achieved. So that’s as far as I can go or need to go, I think, on the subject of the litigation abuse, as it’s called.

Talking, now, sadly, about a different kind of abuse, as is our duty in this Parliament. Unfortunately, we do have to deal with such heavy subject matter as child victims of sexual conduct and other horrors. So it is that the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill deals with the scenario that just seems so illogical that, actually, I for one didn’t understand or didn’t realise that such a gap existed and it just seems bizarre that it did. But kudos to the Government for recognising that and for moving to close that loophole, if you will.

What I refer to is what others have spoken about already which is that if a young person—a child, indeed, as defined—has been subject to behaviour, if proven, that would amount to abuse, that they could be asked about the extent to which they had consented to it or even enjoyed it, and that seems grossly inappropriate not only on a common-sense basis but even just in terms of the way that the law operates, which is to say, if you are young enough such that you could not have consented to the actions—in a way that is sometimes referred to, therefore, as “statutory rape”, for example, or equivalent actions—then it’s an absurdity to be considering the question of whether consent was given because that’s irrelevant. It’s sort of strict liability in that sense; it’s not relevant whether the young person might have been put in a position where they were being encouraged to consent or enjoy etc. such behaviour as that.

So it’s appropriate that the Government is moving to rectify that anomaly. The Minister, I think, gave a pretty good account of how those different parts within the existing law operate. We support that change. We support the other changes. As my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith has said, these things also do need to be considered carefully by a select committee. That will happen soon enough. It won’t be during the term of this Parliament, or at least submissions might be called for in the meantime, and, hopefully, those who are interested in such matters will be able to have their say. There’ll be lots of interesting insights, no doubt, from practitioners, legal and otherwise, as well as those who are so deeply affected by these matters.

We welcome all that interaction; we welcome the valuable discussion and, in the meantime, we also welcome the first reading of these bills and commend them to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a very short call on this, because I think that my colleagues around the House have made some very good points on this. I want to underscore what the Minister said, which is that these bills take the question of consent off the table when a young child is involved in sexual offending.

The Crimes Act 1961 is amended by the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, and it includes sexual crimes against all of the population and specifically around children. Section 132(1) is the section here that the Justice Committee should look carefully at. It makes it an offence to have a sexual connection with a child, defined as a person under the age of 12. Despite that age-specific offence, rape or unlawful sexual connection with a child is often charged as sexual violation under section 128B. As Chris Penk made the point, there is what he called an anomaly there where prosecutors will often choose the offence which carries a lower penalty. Because consent is off the table in that offence, it cannot be argued in court, and nobody wants to put a child through being questioned around whether they consented to this kind of activity.

It’s right for Parliament to consider consent; it’s right for us to consider the value judgments made in our law around consent. It’s no anomaly that these exist, but it’s because Parliaments are squeamish around dealing with these issues. I commend this Minister, Ginny Andersen, for bringing in this bill, and also my colleague Dr Emily Henderson for tackling this head on. That’s why I support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand on behalf of ACT and support this bill. Whilst I appreciate the intentions of this bill and see how important these changes really are, it’s kind of a disappointment that we’re on the second to last day of Parliament and have waited this long to even get this far.

The victims of sexual violence face many barriers even before they end up in the courts, and I feel that this bill goes a long way to relieving some of the anxieties around sitting on a stand and telling your story to the world about what’s happened to you, without being cross-examined and being ripped apart on the stand. For a 12-year-old, that could be absolutely devastating, and not just for a couple of days but for years to come.

The barrier I talk about when it comes to before even appearing before the court is that these questions can be asked even before they’ve ended up on the stand within court. When they go to lay this complaint, when they go to seek for help, and when there is an investigation into the process before ending up in court, these questions can already be asked of them from the investigators, which is absolutely devastating, as well. So to have to face that on multiple occasions, I feel that’s actually quite disgusting that we’ve allowed this to go on for so long.

There’s also the inconsistencies between the two charges, and I’m glad that this has been cleared up—the unintended consequences of the imprisonment term and the penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. When you look at the two different charges, you find that the prosecutors are actually using a different charge because it’s easier to prosecute. Rather than using the charge for sexual conduct with a child under 12, they’re charging under sexual violation. So it’s nice to see that we’re aligning the maximum penalty for imprisonment so that we don’t have that anomaly, and so that children don’t have to face absolutely devastating consequences for their mental health, and, for years to come, just asking those questions of themselves. Because if the adults in your life are asking you those questions, you could start questioning yourself and your actions and your behaviours when it’s absolutely not your fault.

Children are not to blame when adults take advantage of a young person. And if we can protect them in any way from those kinds of accusations, I think this is really important and I absolutely thank the Government for bringing this to the table. These are things where politics needs to be taken aside and we need to make sure that we’re doing what’s in the best interests of our young people. And when I see a bill like this, it actually gives me some hope that there will be a better outcome for our young people going through the courts.

The only thing that I would have to say on this, though, is the age for consent for all sexual activity is regarded as 16, and, therefore, I kind of feel that the age of consent for all sexual activity should reflect this. I know that the charge for sexual conduct with a young person under 16 is in a separate section, but, I mean, if you’re not able to give consent, then it should be reflected within law and you shouldn’t be able to be cross-examined and asked, when you’re a 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old, whether you enjoyed someone taking advantage of you either. So I hope that within the select committee process, maybe we can have a bit of a conversation around including under-16-year-olds so that this anomaly between section 128B and section 132 don’t have the same unintended consequences for under-16-year-olds.

The other issue is that we need our young people to feel safe even before they go into court. I talked about the barriers—you know, just even having the courage to sit in court and face your perpetrator and know that sometimes you might be speaking out against somebody that your family knows. It could be a family member, it could be a family friend, and you may not have the support of the people around you. So I feel we need to really, really start looking into more ways that we can protect our young people when it comes to the court system and the way the courts deal with young people under the age of 16. I’m hoping that we have fixed this regulatory failure and the unintended consequences between section 128B and section 132 in order to allow prosecutors to do their job a lot more easily when it comes to dealing with sexual violence victims.

The other issue that I actually applaud is dealing with the Family Court and actually putting our foot down and saying it’s not OK to abuse the court system, especially when it comes to the Family Court. Anybody who knows somebody who has dealt with the Family Court knows that the process can sometimes take years. You can be in a battle for years. Separation is a terrible thing and it’s very emotional, and sometimes it can be taken way too far within our court system. We can have vexatious allegations made and we can have people coming to the courts with issues that they really shouldn’t be coming with and judges are being restricted in being able to stop that.

So I really applaud the fact that we’re going to allow the judges to start making decisions around that so that our young people aren’t being in a tug of war between two parents for years and years. The only people that win are the lawyers in those circumstances, and there are the costs to us as a society with young people being in that environment for so long. Anything that we can do to help within the Family Court system to stop the abuse of the processes within that system is a good thing, in my mind.

Then we also have the issue of when victims don’t want name suppression for their perpetrator. They should be allowed to speak out. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about allowing victims to have a voice and not suppressing a victim’s voice because it’s important, because part of the healing process is to be able to talk about what you’ve been through and actually stand up and not be frightened any more. In the way the court system is set up at the moment—whilst well intended—with having name suppression for the perpetrator to protect the victim, often the victim would like to speak out about the person who has harmed them. But because of this name suppression, they’re not allowed to speak out about what has happened to them, and they’re being revictimised all over again. They’re also seeking lawyers and paying thousands of dollars to try and figure out how to lift that name suppression. Legal aid is not available for that, and I just find that quite unbelievable.

The victim has had that kind of responsibility laid on to them when it shouldn’t be their responsibility to fight the courts, once again, to have a voice. So I think making their voice more important and having judges being able to take their voices into consideration around name suppression is a fantastic thing, because way too many times we have perpetrators hiding behind name suppression and victims are sitting there feeling like they have been silenced once again.

I always stand in Parliament and say victims need to have a voice, and they need to be able to stand up for themselves and say “This is not OK. This person hurt me or harmed me, and we need to do steps one, two, and three so that this doesn’t happen to anybody else.” But if they are under a name suppression order, they’re unable to do that. They are unable to speak out about their situation.

So this, out of all the bills, actually—this I feel is the most empowering piece of legislation that I have spoken to since being an MP in Parliament. I’m proud to support it, and I hope it helps victims to know that your voice matters and we will be listening once you’re allowed to speak. So ACT supports this bill.

I want to commend Karen Chhour and the colleagues across the House for being really centred on the problem that we are trying to solve here; indeed, for the vision that I know we all genuinely want, which is an explicit understanding that we can prevent family violence and sexual violence, that we should not have to accept that it is going to be an inevitable reality, that our mokopuna and generations to come deserve only that aspiration from all of us, that we actually can make the changes for everyone to live free from violence, to live their lives with dignity and peace.

These are two pieces of legislation that both relate to victims of sexual violence and victims of family violence that are going to improve their protections in our legal system. I am going to refer to the both of them at a high level, as many others have done. I am actually going to pull up some of the particular points that Karen Chhour made as well and expand on those, because I completely agree with some of the broader work that also still needs to be done.

So, firstly, with the protection that this legislation is wanting to improve for victim survivors, I cannot stand here without highlighting and holding up Te Aorerekura, the first ever nationwide intergenerational strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. These legislative pieces of work—we all know and we all agree, and there’s broad agreement that these are not on their own going to improve the system, but they are part of a very explicit and purposeful direction to finally centre victim survivors’ voices, expertise, experiences and validate them in a way that they should always have been. But, as the Chief Victims Advisor has pointed out on many occasions, the current status quo system is an adversarial one that requires winners and losers. That is not a system that has been able to bring justice, particularly to victims and survivors. However, we still need to fix it up while we continue to do the work to build a far more accountable system of justice, particularly centring victims and survivors, and one that also gets the support and the help for people who use violence to change their behaviour and to be far more accountable for the harm that they have caused.

I think a trigger warning stands, and I’m glad that that stands for the entirety of this particular debate. It’s really important that we are clear on the extent of the harm that has been happening, particularly for victim survivors across our justice system. The protections for children that are included in the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill—as a prevention of violence Minister coming into this space, I was disturbed and greatly disgusted that our system has been able to allow such repugnant questioning of young children as to whether they have consented or even invited in any way harmful sexual violence, rape, and sexual violent behaviour. That has been driven by the incentive within these laws. And I’m so relieved to see, and wish it didn’t take so long, that we are going to remove the incentives that have, unfortunately, encouraged prosecutors to reach for a consent defence, which has been allowed for in the legislation that we are trying to change.

I do really want to emphasise and thank the sector advocates, victim/survivors themselves, the NGOs, and experts who have for decades been yelling really clearly for this very change—also the Chief Victims Advisor, whose work has been a part of this legislation coming to the fore, and many others like those experts in this field. I think it’s really important that we understand the extent of the harm in the example that Dr Kim McGregor used in one of her research reports. It was when a nine-year-old was being questioned about whether she invited or even enjoyed sexual violence. That simply has to change. It seems like there’s broad agreement across the House for these changes. I think we can all agree that that is unacceptable and I’m really pleased to see those changes.

I want to again be clear that were it not for the decades of deep hard work that the prevention of violence sector—for example, the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children, backbone organisations, and many, many, many others have been doing such incredible work that we have benefited from, to really understand what are the changes and the levers that need to be pulled. So I’m pleased to be able to highlight their expertise and leadership in this space for these legislative changes.

Of course, we also all want to prevent the violence from happening in the first place. That is intergenerational change. I’m pleased that Te Aorerekura is an intergenerational strategy and action plan, but the drivers of violence are so deeply rooted, including in our system, that we know this is not overnight work. However, we can hold the hope of survivors and the communities when they can see us making solid, concrete changes, exemplified by the changes we are making today.

I want to also touch on name suppression. Now, what is important in prevention and response work to violence is the agency, the mana motuhake, the sovereignty, if you like, of victims/survivors. That has come through in exemplar practices that have been researched and reported on time after time after time about what is successful. Maintaining that agency and being validated, as Karen Chhour said, is part of the approach that we all have to adopt across all of our systems. So allowing for victims to wish to opt out, without the financial and administrative burden, of name suppression and upholding their right to automatic name suppression is a much-needed change.

I just really quickly want to mention that of course we—actually for this and for the litigation of abuse part. So we’re going to be far more explicit in not allowing the court systems to be used to continually harass victims and survivors. That’s been going on for far too long. But I do want to mention, of course, we, at the same time, want to protect fair process. I do think it’s right that this goes to a proper select committee process. I’m glad because a fair justice process is good for everyone. And I want to make it really clear that when we are speaking for victims, we are wanting to uphold fair justice and fair process, not destroy it, because it is victims who will benefit from us holding on to those principles of justice as well. So we’ll give that a good rough and tumble. We’ll give that a good tearing apart to make sure we’ve got the balance right to make sure we are maintaining fair process. But I think it has been really obvious from the examples where it’s just using the court in a hōhā way, being explicitly hōhā in the court, for no real justice or purpose. So we’ll cut that out and we’ll make sure we are cautious when we’re doing it.

Look, Karen Chhour also picked up about providing support for particularly children supporters, and this legislation is part of the overall victim-centred justice changes that are happening, including the pilot at the Counties Manukau court and site, which is we are, basically, affirming what they’ve already been doing, which is co-located, collaborative agencies on site with NGOs and experts providing proper support, particularly around children victims of sexual violence and through the court process. So we need to keep that momentum for the good stuff that works, and I’m pleased that we are supporting that.

My final mention is we do actually want to see—because Paul Goldsmith mentioned it—an increase in reporting. Most violence is not reported. Nearly all of sexual violence is not reported at all. So we want to see the reporting go up, but the prevalence go down. Taking the prevalence of violence down is the harder, gruntier work, but it’s worth having that goal, and I’m pleased there is a path for us to all support that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is extremely pleasing to see such broad support across the House for these two bills. It is so important for Parliament to do whatever we can. The more we can do to make it simpler, streamlined, and provide protection that supports the choice of victims, the better. I look forward to seeing this go to select committee and I commend this to the House.

I call Simon Watts for a five-minute call.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I’m glad to rise to speak on the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. As we’ve heard from speakers that have come before, we are aware, acutely, that the implications around the increase of both family harm but also family violence have significantly increased during and post the period of COVID. I think it is fair to say that many commentators have referred to this as the shadow pandemic, in which we’ve seen family harm actually increase more than 60 percent under this Government’s watch.

Those statistics are horrifying at one level, but the reality is that one in three women in this country, based on some of the latest statistics, will experience physical or sexual violence within the household. And when one increases that to include psychological and economic abuse, then that is one in two women in this country. That is something that we should be hanging our heads in shame in regards to. Those statistics are catastrophic in the context of our community and our society. What’s also interesting is that one in eight men are also reporting family violence being experienced or being victims of family violence.

So this is the backdrop of the environment and our communities in which we currently are part of. It is clear that the National Party support any efforts in regards to reducing and mitigating the implications and effects of both family violence but also in regards to sexual violence. This must be done with a degree of priority and a need to increase the pace of change and the pace of resolution to what is a growing issue, because it is not the New Zealand that I believe any of us envisages—to have that degree of proportionality of our population that is subject to such violence and abuse. The implications of that for future generations are wide ranging and are much broader than within the criminal justice section.

We know that many of these examples go unreported. As a volunteer ambulance officer and someone who still, occasionally, is out on the road, sadly, I have seen, and do see the implications often, and it’s probably—based on the number of people reporting—a very small wedge of those that actually are reported. The reality is that this is going on. It is going on within our communities and it is going on within our cities, regions, and provinces. And we need, as a House, to be very acutely aware that we need to do everything within our power in order to mitigate and reduce this and clearly send the signal that this has no place in our society, and has no tolerance, and we should be deploying all means and mechanisms in order to deal with that.

So I am hopeful in regards to this piece, or these two pieces of legislation, that once they move through to the select committee process that we get a wide range of feedback from those that understand the sector and provide recommendations in order to ensure the thoroughness of this legislation is appropriate. We must ensure that the legislation lessens the trauma on children, in particular those under the age of 12, who are completely vulnerable in this regard. We have an obligation to protect them and do everything within our power to protect them because they are our future.

National will be strongly supporting this bill. We will be strongly supporting any initiatives in order to minimise and mitigate and remove this risk and issue from society, and we will be commending this bill and looking forward to seeing it passed through in the next Parliament. Thank you.

Kia ora. I stand to speak to the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, and I emphasise the necessity of the trigger warning before I start the kōrero. There is no duty, no responsibility, more important to me as a mama, a whaea, and a nan, than to protect our tamariki and our whānau. Te Paati Māori must do, and we will all do, what we can to protect our tamariki from predators and those who protect predators. There is no good reason why a child under 12 years old should be questioned in a courtroom about whether they wanted or asked for or even enjoyed a sexual activity. There is no way a child under 12 can consent to a sexual activity, and anyone who suggests that is not worth listening to.

The changes to name suppression law in this will also support whānau, particularly young people, to protect them from the stories becoming public without their consent. This is a common-sense approach, and name suppression should protect victims more than it does perpetrators. We should never protect predators more than victims, no matter what their backgrounds and affiliations. So we acknowledge these bills; we acknowledge our Government—that these bills will strengthen safeguards to enhance protection for victims of sexual violence and family violence, and seek to ensure that the court process is aligned with the victims’ needs while preserving the fairness and, indeed, the integrity of the court system.

So, again, to be clear, we acknowledge the amendments reduce the risk of child victims of sexual violence being questioned about consent to sexual activity. This means that the tamariki are no longer going to be subjected to questions in the court, which are deplorable. Victims can be disempowered by the lack of streamlined processes, and we’ve seen that they don’t come readily forward because of the way that the system has previously been designed.

What we want to also acknowledge is that complainants need to know that their privacy or, indeed, their intent to speak out about the experience is completely at their determination. So we acknowledge that the amendments will help to ensure that the court system responds appropriately and efficiently.

We know Māori are disproportionately affected by sexual violence—particularly wāhine Māori, who are more likely to become assault victims than anyone else in Aotearoa. So these changes will likely enable more Māori to come forward and get justice.

We know that to protect our w’akapapa—our mokopuna Māori are twice as likely to experience abuse as non-Māori tamariki. This bill will help protect our mokopuna who are abused, by reducing the risk that they will have to be questioned in court. We know, too, that we must do more to detraumatise and to stop violence as a society.

The changes in this bill are important to help reduce the trauma that contributes to Aotearoa’s low prosecution and conviction rates for sexual violence. It helps give effect to the Sexual Violence Legislation Act 2021 and to Te Aorerekura, the national strategy and action plan, which has done so much mahi. We must continue to make a strong stand in support of stamping out sexual abuse and family violence in Aotearoa, and supporting these bills aligns with that kaupapa. We stand in support. Kia ora rā.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This has been my life’s work and I am delighted to be standing here speaking on these two bills. For those of us who have worked in this space and for those out in the community who continue to work in this space, I want to mihi to you. We carry the stories of heartbreak and grief and pain, and these bills are the kinds of bills that the community has been asking for. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, like my colleagues of the National Party, rise to support these two bills at the first reading. I think Simon Watts very eloquently touched on the backdrop to the need for legislative amendments such as these. We often talk about the very damning indictment on New Zealand society—extraordinarily high rates of violence towards both women and children—and it really is something that is a national shame to this country. We, as parliamentarians and, indeed, legislators, must take any and all opportunities that we can to strengthen judicial and court systems to particularly protect victims, and especially the most vulnerable victims in society, which are, of course, our children.

We have seen a 15 percent increase in sexual assault offences and a 23 percent increase in sexual offences against children in recent years, but, despite that, we’ve only seen a 5 percent drop in the number of people charged for these types of crimes. Similarly, we have seen family violence instances escalate in recent years. We have seen a dramatic 35 percent increase in family violence episodes, yet just a 31 percent drop in charges and, indeed, convictions. So that is why, as I said in my opening statement, we must, as parliamentarians, take any opportunity we have to strengthen the provisions within our court. And I speak specifically to the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, whereby we will look to make amendments within the legislation. But I think that the topic that most participants in the House today have spoken to is around strengthening provisions for victims of sexual violence, and, of course, most focus is rightly on changing provisions relating to consent for children who have been impacted by these crimes.

It is, of course, an omnibus bill. We do know that because of current provisions, just 6 percent of sexual assaults are reported. And I think we owe a duty in this House to make the necessary changes to ensure that we can enable more victims of these types of violence to get the justice that they deserve.

This new bill will insert a new subclause that means the proof that defence are allowed to prosecute for, that children will no longer need to be questioned around their understanding or, indeed, when they have given consent—we’re looking for any and all opportunities where we can reduce trauma to these kinds of victims.

A number of members have also talked about the removal of automatic name suppression. While we do understand the provisions have been kept there primarily for victims that have been offended by members of their own family, that the lifting of that name of that offender may obviously be related to the victim—in some instances, as we’ve seen very recently in Christchurch with the Mama Hooch case, that we all know about, it has become something of an empowerment for the women who have been impacted by the horrific offending that took place in that bar over a number of years. Some of them have chosen to lift that automatic name suppression so that they too can begin their journey towards healing. So we do support any amendment to this bill that will allow a streamlining for the courts to be able to remove that automatic suppression.

So, with those brief comments, I will conclude my contribution to the House this afternoon and we do look forward to watching the passage of this bill through select committee and, indeed, the work that that select committee will do on that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is significant and important legislation. It’s not lost on me and on this House that this has cross-party support, and that is significant. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bills referred to the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.