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

Members, we come now to our final debate, which is clauses 1 and 2, the debate on “Title” and “Commencement”.

As we touched on just earlier with one of my questions, if I can just explore it a bit longer, with regard to the six months—and I’m thinking about earlier, when we also brought in the subject matters of courts in rural districts and how these changes will be implemented. I know we’ve made changes along the way through the select committee process, which has been good because it’s addressed some of those concerns. But in my reflection over the last couple of hours, I say to our member, Dr Tracey McLellan, I have been wondering: is the six months—are you 100 percent confident that that’s sufficient for the changes that need to be made to be rolled out across New Zealand? I worry about that a little bit and I’d really like to get some more confidence from the member with respect to six months, as opposed to 12 months, after Royal assent, because I feel it’s really important to get this right.

When we talk about family violence, as we know, it’s a very poignant conversation and it comes with its emotional challenges, and I just wouldn’t want people to have their hopes up that things will be easier for them, only to find that it hasn’t been able to be implemented as soon as we said it would be and within that time frame.

I think about all the examples of when I’ve worked in the local court system back in New South Wales, and seeing the various situations that I saw that are tattooed in my memory, to a great extent. That’s what makes me concerned about this, and I don’t want people’s hopes to get up high and then we don’t deliver. So I’m wondering if the member can please reassure the committee with respect to six months, as opposed to 12 months.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, there’s never any 100 percent guarantee of everything, and so I want to make that very clear. But I would also like to reiterate that these measures are presumably available now, and so the upgrading from what is available now but rarely used, to what is available—because that is the presumption—shouldn’t be that great. There will be some upgrades required, but some of the alternative measures are as simple as using a screen, and at some point, we do have to acknowledge that the system does need to catch up with what should be available now.

The six-month lead-in was certainly based on ministry advice, remembering, of course, that it was originally 12 months—or that was the recommendation—but that was based on the fact that the pre-recorded video record would be a significant part of those alternative measures. But, as we’ve heard, removing that therefore removed what was accounting for most of that time. So I think that six months actually strikes quite a generous balance in what remains to the work that needs to be done.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in regards to being ready in that six-month time frame, I appreciate your answer to that. My question is just really around: do you have any concerns, in that six-month time frame, around getting it out there that this is available to people giving evidence? I just heard statements from previous answers where you’ve stated that this is already available but the problem is nobody knows that it is available. Are you concerned that this is enough time to get the message out to victims of family violence that they do have the ability to apply for this?

I think that’s kind of hitting the nail on the head exactly, because people don’t necessarily know that it’s available, hence the need for the presumption. I think that kind of takes care of the fact we can’t keep relying on the fact that an educative approach will improve the situation, but if it is the presumption, it’s up to the offices of the court and the people involved in that to better communicate that.

Just following on from my question, I know that the officials—and bless them, they’re really hard working and I appreciate all the research they do for us with our various bills on the Justice Committee; there’s so many nuances that we have to make sure we’re across. I guess, Dr Tracey McLellan, what I’m not really convinced of is whether you are particularly confident that six months is sufficient and would you entertain the idea of amending it back to 12 months? I know the officials said something, and, like I said, I respect them for sure, but are you particularly confident that six months is sufficient, given the wide, extensive range of research you’ve done yourself personally into your member’s bill?

Yes, I am, and I can only reiterate it’s my best guess, so to speak, but that’s what we’re basing everything on. If you take away the bulk of the work that would have been done in 12 months and remove it, I think six months, as a halfway measure, is probably quite generous, based on that advice.

When it comes to the title, there were some changes throughout, as happens in the select committee process. Currently, the proposal is that the Act will be called the “Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Act”, and I know, if I recall correctly our conversations, we felt that that would be more indicative of what this bill is trying to achieve. I wonder if the member has considered whether there is a way that we can further alter the title so that it can be more direct as well. I wonder about that, and I’d like the member to share with us what she thinks.

I do agree in so far as it’s quite a mouthful, but the change that was made, I think—certainly to my mind; my recollection of that process—was to ensure that it was very much about victims of violence, as were several other things that we could have talked about in Part 1, but didn’t. It was about making sure that it’s about giving evidence of violence so that perpetrators couldn’t, unintendedly—well, an unintended consequence of the bill as drafted could have meant that they would have had access to all those alternative means as well. I think part of updating the title was to make that very clear. I think it is wordy, but I think it actually specifies what needs to happen.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.