Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It is a privilege to rise in support of the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill as it returns to this House for its second reading. This bill delivers what I believe to be long overdue changes to our Family Court system—changes that put the safety, the dignity, and the wellbeing of victims of family violence at the centre of the proceedings. If we are serious about standing with victims, then we should certainly support this bill. I want to acknowledge Dr Emily Henderson, whose expertise and commitment to justice for victims helped shape this bill, and who continues her work out there in the big wide world to make a real difference in this space.

At the heart of this bill is a simple but powerful shift: victims of family violence would no longer need to justify their need for protection when giving evidence in Family Court. Instead, there would be a presumption that they can give their evidence through alternative means, via screen, remotely, or using other protective methods. The responsibility to prevent further harm lies with the court, and not on the shoulders of those already harmed; it’s not a privilege that they must apply for.

The Justice Committee heard powerful and deeply distressing accounts from survivors and from advocacy groups and advocates, including The Backbone Collective, ECLIPSE Family Violence Services, Tautoko Mai, and the New Zealand Women’s Law Journal, to name just a few. They recalled stories about how victims had been forced to face their abusers in court—how they were subject to intimidation, coercion, and psychological abuse. One survivor described hiding in a bathroom—too afraid, actually, to enter the courtroom; and another described the calculated gestures, often subtle, that can be used in that environment to control and to undermine their testimony and their safety. So these aren’t rare stories; they are a reality for far too many people, and they actually demand action from this House.

While the select committee had to weigh up these urgent needs against the current operational limits of the Family Court, the adjustments that were made to this bill at select committee weren’t concessions of principle, per se, but practical steps to ensure that the bill can at least be implemented effectively and without any further delay, so that victims can have the opportunity to see some real change now, and not simply wait—as they have been—for some uncertain point in the future.

For example, while the initial proposal included pre-recorded video evidence, similar to what is available in criminal courts, there were concerns raised about the lack of infrastructure throughout our Family Court rooms in the country, and also about compounding what are already quite lengthy existing delays in the court system. So, given that evidence-in-chief is primarily presented via affidavit, we made the pragmatic decision to defer that provision at this stage. The bill also confirms that, again, affidavit evidence remains the primary mode of giving evidence in a Family Court—because it is. So it makes it very clear that just because of this bill, that doesn’t change, with oral evidence only required if a judge considers it appropriate, preserving those existing protections for victims.

The select committee also added a clear definition of “Family Court proceeding” and “family violence evidence” to ensure the protection that we’re proposing through this bill only applies to those who have experienced family violence directly, strengthening the intent of the bill and preventing it from unintendedly being misused—perhaps even by alleged perpetrators. We’ve also amended the Family Court Rules to align with the new definitions, ensuring that the protections of this bill are effectively embedded, therefore, into practice.

Some submitters called for even stronger protections, and I do acknowledge that, such as eliminating any form of visual contact between victim and abuser and reducing the 28-day notice period. These absolutely are worthy proposals and should remain on the table for future reform. But what we are delivering here today—hopefully—is a foundational shift, one that will meaningfully improve the safety of victims, and one that can do that right from the outset.

Labour is proud of its record on family and sexual violence. We introduced Te Aorerekura, New Zealand’s first national strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence. We invested in front-line services and strengthened legal protections for victims. We also passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, which improved evidence protections in the criminal justice system, many of which were the inspiration for this bill. This bill is the next step in that journey; it brings the Family Court closer to the standards that are already in place in the criminal court system, and it reflects what I believe to be a clear and principled stance: that the justice system must serve victims and not retraumatise them.

I want to thank the select committee and all its members for their diligence in listening to the evidence and going through all of the points that needed to be raised and worked through. I’d also like to acknowledge the ministry officials for their guidance and for providing their expertise and answering all of the necessary questions. Most of all, I would really like to acknowledge all of the submitters, and particularly the people who dedicate their working lives to advocating for people—for victims and for people who experience family violence—in this space, and for all of the people who, on top of that, shared those personal stories. They did so for us to be able to make steps to improve what is the reality for a lot of people in this country—far too many people.

This bill represents what is real and meaningful progress. It’s a step forward that will actually make a difference in the lives of real people in a practical sense. If this House says it stands with those affected by family violence, then this bill is an opportunity before us here today to demonstrate that. It’s a real opportunity to make a positive difference. Labour and myself, we commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand on behalf of the National Party and state our continued support for the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. We supported the bill at first reading. We engaged proactively with the member in charge of the bill through the select committee process, and we feel that we have been able to work on this legislation as a unified, collaborative Justice Committee to enable the bill to be in a place that we think it could actually, practically, work across New Zealand. That’s why we continue to support it.

One of the changes that we recommended through the Justice Committee was actually, initially, a change to the name of the bill itself. As I started this speech, I said it was the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill, but the proposed change that the committee made, along with a number of other proposed amendments, was to change the title of the bill to the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. We felt that the change of title would clearly describe actually what the bill seeks to do. That’s why the committee recommended it.

Congratulations to the member in charge of the bill, Dr Tracey McLellan, for her continued advocacy in this space and carrying on the work of her predecessor who initially did the work in the first place. After we went through the thorough examination by the Justice Committee, including from the 30 submitters who made submissions and the eight who presented orally to the committee as well, the bill does represent, really, in my view, a significant step forward in protecting victims of family violence when they give evidence in Family Court proceedings.

Currently, victims in Family Court don’t have the same protections available as victims in criminal proceedings, and that’s the intention of this bill. If you drill down to the intent of what we’re trying to fix here, that’s it: enable those victims in the Family Court to have the same protections that victims in criminal proceedings have. It creates an automatic entitlement for family violence victims to give evidence in alternative ways, rather than having to apply and hope for judicial discretion.

The real issue that we’re looking to solve here is that Family Court proceedings can be deeply traumatic for victims who actually have to face their abusers in person. Many victims—and we heard from some through the select committee process—are re-traumatised by having to give evidence in the same room as the person who hurt them. For me, having not been in that position, that’s a hard position for me to try and appreciate and understand. But when someone tells me that, for them, it’s really difficult to give evidence because the perpetrator is sitting in the same room with them, you take it and you understand it and you view it from their perspective and you say, “We believe you, we understand what you’re saying, and we’re going to work to try and change it so you never face that scenario ever again if you step into the Family Court.”

What has happened previously is by not having this available for people, it can lead to poor-quality evidence, victims potentially withdrawing from proceedings or being unable to participate effectively in the justice process. What the bill does is, instead, create an automatic entitlement for family violence victims to give evidence using screens or audiovisual links from another location.

There are five particular amendments I want to focus on that were made by the Justice Committee. The first was focused on actual victims. We clarified that only people who experienced family violence can use these protections, which we believed would prevent misuse by the perpetrators. Number two was practical implementation. We removed the costly video-recording requirements that would have needed around $20 million in court upgrades, and I appreciate the member’s support for that change as well. Number three was that we enhanced judicial discretion. Judges can now act on their own initiative to ensure proceedings remain fair, not just on application by other parties. Number four was protected existing processes. We made clear that this doesn’t replace affidavit evidence, which is already protected. Finally, there was the realistic time frame. We managed to work with the member in charge of the bill to get a 12-month implementation period, which allows proper preparation for judicial education, staff training, and, most importantly, the necessary court facilities across New Zealand.

One of those changes I talked about was the second point around the practical implementation and the potential $20 million cost across the courts in New Zealand. There were initial concerns about cost and implementation, but they are addressed by removing the expensive video-recording requirements, and I believe we’ve landed in a really good space with that.

One of the other queries we received was about ensuring that this bill maintained fairness, because we need to acknowledge that, in the court of law, there is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So what we needed to do was strike the really right balance of ensuring that the judge in charge of the trial and in charge of the court maintains their discretion to ensure that there are fair proceedings. That was really important for us to hammer home in the legislation.

This is simply about levelling the playing field, not giving victims an unfair advantage and not giving the perpetrators an unfair advantage as well. We believe this legislation levels that playing field to ensure the victims, when they come to give their evidence, have these options available to them so that they can feel safe during these proceedings and that they can contribute to the case that is before the court.

This aligns with broader justice system reforms, it complements the family violence operating model that’s already been trialled in Christchurch, it aligns Family Court protections with those already available in criminal proceedings, and it recognises that the Family Court is often where the most vulnerable families seek help. Why does this matter for our communities? Well, Family Court decisions affect children’s safety, custody arrangements, and family futures. We believe that when victims can’t participate effectively, everybody suffers.

The feedback we received through the committee process from victim advocacy groups talked about how they were strongly in support of these changes. Legal practitioners recognised the need for better protections and supported the committee’s amendments. And the judiciary has indicated their support for practical improvements. There were initial concerns, but we addressed those through the amendments process, which I discussed and outlined earlier.

I want to come back to the point of why National is supporting this bill. We believe, through the work that was undertaken through the Justice Committee, that we’ve now got the bill in a place that we think it can actually tangibly work across New Zealand and protect those victims when they come to give evidence. The committee process made the bill stronger and, we believe, more practical. This is an evidence-based policy that addresses a real problem with practical solutions, and we ensured that it protects the vulnerable while maintaining procedural fairness, as I discussed as well. I believe the bill strikes the right balance between victim protection and procedural fairness. It’s time to align our Family Court with best practice and our values as a compassionate society.

I echo the sentiments of the member in charge, the previous speaker, and thank the Ministry of Justice officials, the advisers, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the others who worked behind the scenes—which many of the general public don’t get the opportunity to see—to help move this bill into a place that we can continue to support it.

I thank those 30 submitters to the committee, the individuals and the groups and organisations, who took the time to share their views with the committee so that we could consider them. I thank those eight people who came and presented to the committee, either in person or online, for helping us make this a bill that is completely workable across New Zealand.

I want to ensure that we return back and, ultimately, remind ourselves of the real reason why we’re here doing this: we’re doing this because, currently, victims in Family Courts don’t have the same protections available to them that victims in criminal proceedings do. So, therefore, we’re changing the legislation through this bill to create an automatic entitlement for family violence victims to give evidence in alternative ways, rather than having to apply and hope for judicial discretion. This is a bill I wholeheartedly support. I commend the member in charge, and I thank the wider House for its ongoing support of this legislation as well. I commend it to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill in its second reading. First, I want to acknowledge and mihi to the member Dr Tracey McLellan for bringing this bill to the House. It is an important piece of mahi and I am pleased to see us working together on both sides of the House to make this sound piece of legislation. Also, I would like to thank and acknowledge the whānau, advocates, and experts who we heard from at the select committee stage and who have long called for these very changes. Your persistence and vision are helping shape a more just and compassionate Aotearoa, and, for that, we thank you.

This bill seeks to extend the range of possible protections for parties and witnesses giving evidence of family violence in Family Court. This would closely follow the protections available to the similar complainants and witnesses in criminal proceedings. The bill would do so by amending the Evidence Act 2006 and would create an entitlement for a party or a witness to give evidence of family violence in court proceedings in an alternative way. For many survivors and victims of family violence, giving evidence in court is often traumatising. This move will make a real difference to the empathy and care we show in our Family Courts.

Currently, the formal structure of proceedings too often fails to account for the trauma, power imbalance, and the very real fear that survivors and victims experience. We’ve heard how terrifying it can be, not just on the day of giving evidence but in the lead up and in asking the court to make this allowance. This bill helps to change that. It introduces a presumption in favour of allowing evidence of family violence to be given in an alternative way, such as from a separate room, behind a screen, or via a video link, which is what already happens in criminal proceedings. Even though these options are technically available in Family Court now, they are rarely used. We are changing that here today. By embedding a presumption into the Evidence Act, we allow for that option to be more accessible and more easily used.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee in scrutinising this bill and strengthening its clarity and impact. We heard from a range of community stakeholders and experts, and I specifically want to shout out to Mana Mokopuna and the Disabled Persons Assembly. The key changes that were made and outlined in the select committee report include the title of the bill, changing the definitions around Family Court proceedings and family violence evidence, along with the removal of the entitlement to give evidence by a video recording made before the hearing. Specifically, I would like to draw attention to the changes to new section 106BB, inserted in clause 6, made by the select committee. It’s important that we are clear about why we made these changes. It was noted that due to the current constraints around pre-recorded video recording capability in Family Court rooms, it may impact on the timeliness and put further strain on the court system. We want to reduce this pressure on witnesses so that they can move forward with their lives.

While we recognise the reasoning behind these changes, the Greens remain committed to pushing for the resources required to ensure that in the future this option to pre-record evidence would be a workable option. This would ensure that victims are not retraumatised while giving their evidence submissions, which should be a goal for all of us.

I would also like to uplift the voices and concerns raised by the Disabled Persons Assembly at the select committee around ensuring that the use of live video links is accompanied by ensuring that disabled communities have their access needs met. Specifically, the assembly noted that the legislation should have closed captions and make sure that people have access to the information.

We acknowledge the intent behind the bill and welcome the improvements it brings. To the survivors and advocates and whānau and communities who have carried these experiences and pushed for change: this progress is a reflection of your persistence. To those who didn’t have this protection and were further harmed, thank you for your strength. We hope this brings you some solace in knowing that we are moving forward and making things better.

The Disabled Persons Assembly also talked about making sure we have access to New Zealand Sign Language interpreters, video captioning, and other forms of communication and accessibility assistance necessary to ensure full and equitable participation. This bill is a practical step forward towards justice that works for victims and survivors and, crucially, one that upholds their dignity. Far too often, we have heard stories of survivors being retraumatised in the very courts that they turn to for protection and for justice. We’re going to do better—that’s what today is about.

It’s an honour to be standing here after hearing all of the select committee hearings and reading through those submissions. I want all of those people to know that coming together as a whole Parliament was really important to our committee. We really worked together to make sure that we scrutinised this bill to make sure that it is fit for purpose, and it’s always a good day when Parliament comes together and moves our waka forward. I am proud to be part of that Justice Committee who did this hard mahi, and to all the officials and the people that have been fighting for this for years and years, today is that day.

We look forward to having this option available to people. When I think about who this affects, I think about the stories that I’ve heard, which I won’t retell now—they are personal stories that have been trusted to me. But the people who have been through this and not had the chance to give their evidence from a separate room or from a video conferencing call—I’m actually getting goosebumps thinking about how horrific that must have been for you. I really want to reiterate that, today, this is about you. I’m sorry that this wasn’t in place, but when we are looking forward, we are looking to the future, and knowing that this really sensible piece of legislation is going to be going through.

So, in closing, the Green Party is proud to support this bill. It makes a sensible and needed step towards a justice system that better reflects the needs of those affected by family violence. We acknowledge that intent and we welcome those improvements. Again, I say to you survivors, advocates, whānau, communities who have carried these experiences and pushed for change: this one is for you. We hope to see that this House will pass the bill and continue working towards a system that better serves all of those who rely on it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in the second reading on the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I just want to actually say I totally agree with the previous Green speaker, Kahurangi Carter, when she said we are going to be coming together, I think, to make some progress in this area. Often in this place, we focus on what divides us, and ACT actually believe that we have a common humanity: there is more that we have in common than is against us. ACT did support this bill in the first reading, because we actually did think it was a good idea. We could see there could be some advantages in making these changes. I think, as I’m going to talk about in a moment, the bill has been improved through the select committee process, but I want to acknowledge the member in charge, Tracey McLellan, for her advocacy and actually working very constructively with the Justice Committee as we worked through this process.

As we’ve heard, the Justice Committee did have a number of submitters, and some 30 submissions were received. I want to thank the submitters that gave oral submissions to the committee, seven of them, for giving up their time. Actually, a lot of them were practitioners in the court system, but also there were some people with personal experience that wanted to make their view known about how this bill would actually make a difference.

I think what we’re talking about here is actually a very, very sensible change that Dr McLellan has shepherded through, where we are actually just changing the onus and making these alternative ways of giving evidence in the Family Court when they relate to family violence and sexual violence, so that we actually are thinking about our victims, and making sure that the important process of them receiving justice is done in a way that suits their needs and doesn’t make it both uncomfortable and confrontational and actually turn people off from using our justice system. That’s actually what we want: people to feel able to bring these cases, to be able to speak their truth and put their perspective forward, and, hopefully, get the protection they need within our Family Court system.

Again, I’m very lucky, in ACT, to have a couple of Ministers in my caucus: the Minister for Courts, Nicole McKee; and the Hon Karen Chhour, the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. We actually had quite informed and robust discussions around this bill in our caucuses. We were looking at both supporting it in the first reading and as it came back to the House for the second reading. It’s really good to have colleagues like that, who you can actually have a discussion with about the important issues in this bill and make sure this actually is going to deliver it a difference. Again, I want to acknowledge the member for taking on board some of the suggestions that came through, because there were some things that were identified that wouldn’t have been workable, so some changes were made.

I think, also, the updates we are making to our court facilities to allow audiovisual link (AVL) from rooms adjacent to traditional courtrooms—again, I was lucky enough last year, I think, to tour the Christchurch justice precinct, and they’ve obviously got a very modern court facility in Christchurch. But they have what we would understand as traditional courtrooms where they may be having Family Court proceedings—the kind of courtroom I would have went to when I was a lawyer a very, very long time ago. But now we actually have these adjacent AVL rooms so that, actually, someone can give evidence via audiovisual link. I should actually say what it is: for people listening, that’s basically like a Zoom-type set up where you can be supported by your support person and your lawyer. You are separate from the court, but you’re actually giving evidence via a video link into the court next door or wherever it might be—it doesn’t need to necessarily be next door. But, again, these facilities are now more common across New Zealand and will continue to be more common. So, again, it’s sensible to allow that kind of evidence to be given in these cases.

The other thing we spent a lot of time hearing about—obviously, in the Family Court, a lot of the evidence is given by affidavits; so written evidence. So, again, we wanted to be explicitly clear that we weren’t actually changing what has served the Family Court very well—right?—which is where people provide affidavits and written evidence that the court can actually consider, which, again, is quite appropriate in a number of these cases, because, then, people are actually given time to commit their evidence to paper, go through it, make sure it’s right, and then it’s submitted.

So, again, we were explicit in the changes in the select committee that we weren’t trying to disrupt the Family Court in the way it operates. But where there is a need for someone to provide evidence in person, that should be accommodated in a way that makes that much more comfortable for them to do, is appropriate, and is not going to revictimise them, as some of my colleagues have said in their speeches. So, again, we were clear that we see this as actually enhancing the Family Court in the way evidence is given, not disrupting it.

Look, I want to say again, Dr McLellan is very clear in her advocacy around this, that what we’ve, essentially, done here is changed the onus. So, actually, some of the things in this bill could be done today in the Family Court, it’s just that you have to request it—it’s a bit of a process. Dr McLellan was very clear that, look, we’ve tried that for a number of years—many, many years—and things haven’t changed. So this bill really changes the onus so that it’s presumed that’s the way you’ll give evidence, and anything else has to be done, obviously, with the leave of the court. Look, I think that definitely a very strong argument was made, and I think that we on the committee accepted that and said “OK, things haven’t worked, practice hasn’t changed, so let’s do something different and actually place victims first.” So, again, I think that was a very well-articulated argument by the member in charge, and so we accepted that.

Again, as we work through this, there is some devil in the detail. Again, I want to acknowledge that the Green member Kahurangi Carter addressed the fact that we actually had to drop the video recording. Look, while initially it sounds quite easy, in practice it’s not, because what that provision would have meant is you could pre-record your evidence. But that actually is more complicated than it sounds, because you actually still have to have other lawyers involved, because even when you’re giving your evidence in a recording, your lawyer may be helping you give evidence, but then you have to be cross-examined and ask questions. So there’s quite a lot of complication to actually getting the parties that need to be there in one place, to do the recording, etc., there’ll be notice periods, etc. So I think it was sensible that we dropped that. We, obviously, also have heard from other members about how there could be some significant costs with associated with that. As I said, now with this kind of more—well, it’s real-time audiovisual link technology now available, we’re hoping that that actually will be the way through and that pre-recorded video evidence may not be necessary. But, again, I think we’re open-minded. If that becomes an issue in the future, obviously it could be revisited.

Finally, I just want to say that, again, I think some sensible changes were made around ensuring judicial discretion is maintained. So, again, I want to say we’re very much focused on people having to give evidence, victims, etc.—I think that’s very important. But we also must keep an eye on the fairness of our justice system and making sure that respondents’ rights, or the other parties, are also acknowledged. But a way of doing that, which I think is very sensibly done in this, is allowing the judge to make a determination there. So if there were some overriding reason why the parties actually needed to be together physically, or it was in the interest of justice, the judge could still do that. So, again, I think that was a very sensible decision that we changed it. It’s spelt out, and we made sure that we said, “Yep, very important that we make these changes for people giving evidence in the Family Court around particularly family violence and sexual violence. But if there is a need for the judge to do something different because it’s appropriate and in the interests of justice and making sure our justice system is maintained and fairness is upheld, then they can still do that.” So I think that’s a very important change.

Just in conclusion, we hope this will actually strengthen our Family Court system, and will actually continue to enhance the rights of victims and those having to give evidence in quite horrific circumstances. And, yeah, we hope that we’ve all played our little part today in making our justice system just a little bit better. Thank you.

Helen White: Mr Speaker. No?

Yeah, I think we’ve got our order right there. Look, I’m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. First of all, I just want to acknowledge the member in charge of this bill, Dr Tracey McLellan, and the select committee for all the good work they’ve done. I’m not on the Justice Committee so I’m kind of filling in for both Jamie Arbuckle, who represents us on the Justice Committee; and also for Casey Costello, who would have otherwise spoken because she has, of course, extensive experience in a former life of those very, very challenging situations which we are describing here in terms of family violence.

Look, Mr Speaker, I think the first—Madam Speaker now—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is Madam Speaker now.

ANDY FOSTER: It is now Madam Speaker—you’ve changed!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ve changed—we do that to you.

ANDY FOSTER: Indeed, indeed. Madam Speaker, I think there are two things that I wanted to observe about the process that we’ve got here. First of all, it is great, as Kahurangi Carter said, to see the cross-party agreement here across the House, that everybody is working together collaboratively. If we could do that a bit more, that would be a fine thing.

The other thing to say is that it is great to see a select committee making changes—thinking through issues and making changes, and that is what the purpose of a select committee should be always. But sometimes it is not the way that it works, but that is the way select committee should work.

I wanted to reflect on the—I mean, family violence is something which is outside of my personal experience, but what I do know is that it is an extremely stressful, terrible situation, and I think we all acknowledge that that is awful, whether we have been exposed to that or not.

What this bill is about is trying to make that process a little bit less stressful, a little bit less painful for the people who are the victims of family violence. I mean, I can only imagine what a stressful situation it would be to have to be in a room and to face the person who you are saying is the person who has committed violence against you. It could have been a short period of time; it could have been for years. That will be a terribly, terribly difficult situation—terribly stressful situation. What this bill is about is trying to make sure that we are not revictimising the victims of family violence by exposing them to that situation. So it’s a sensible and pragmatic way of saying, “Look, we will try and make that process—painful that it might be—a little less painful and a little less stressful.” I think that is a very, very important move forward.

We often have protection orders. Now, why do we have protection orders? It is because there are people who do not want, cannot cope with, should not be exposed to people who’ve perpetrated violence against them. That’s why we have protection orders. Why, in that situation, would we then say, “Well, we’re going to put those people, the victim and the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator in the same room.”, essentially to revictimise the victim again? That, in a sense, is an illustration of what this legislation is trying to avoid doing.

Now, what’s really good is to see the bill is responding to significant calls from the legal professions, significant calls from people involved in family violence, significant calls from survivors of family violence to say that this is something which is an important thing to move forward on. I think that that is something we should listen to because it’s about ensuring both fair access and less stressful access to justice for the survivors of family violence, but also trying to advance, from our perspective, family wellbeing—the wellbeing of the victim.

As I look at the report back from the select committee, there are a number of important areas. I think Casey Costello spoke on our behalf at the front end of this, in the first reading, where the select committee has made very sensible and useful changes. I think that shows the value of the select committee process.

The first one of those is that, as introduced, the bill, essentially, allowed anybody access to be able to say, “Well, look, I want to present evidence outside of the court.”, you know, by video, or whatever it might be. There is an issue there about the ability to see the body language of a person, which is diminished by being in a video situation or in another room, especially when you’re going through the cross-examination process. That of course, effectively, as I understand it, would have meant that anybody, any witness, not the victim, but any other witness, even the perpetrator potentially would be able to say, “Well, look, I want to be able to give my evidence outside of the court.” That was somewhat problematic. The select committee looked at that, heard the evidence, and said, “Actually we want to change that”. We are talking about protecting the victims, not allowing this as a free-for-all for all the parties involved in giving evidence, because of course they’ve got to be able to be subject, in the process of natural justice, to being cross-examined.

The second area is that issue of—as it was introduced—the ability to be able to do that in advance. But as we’ve heard already in the debate, if you do give evidence in advance, then how is somebody going to easily be able to cross-examine you when you’re not actually there? So it’s got to be done live so there is that cross-examination, because, ultimately, we want to be able to get to the truth of the matter.

It is important that we do recognise that in most of these situations you might say, “Well, look, it’s probably going to be fairly clear.” But I note that when I looked up some numbers there, only in 46 percent of the situations involving family violence is the perpetrator identified—so just under half—and 42 percent, so most of those, end up going to prosecution. So nearly all of those who are identified end up going to prosecution. But the conviction rate apparently is only 13 percent; and the imprisonment rate, only 8 percent. So we need to bear those sort of things in mind in terms of natural justice as well. So that ability to be able to cross-examine becomes very, very important.

We’ve got provision now, which wasn’t there in the initial bill, in terms of judicial discretion. So the judge can say, “Yes, I will allow for this evidence to be given outside the courtroom in an alternative way.” or “I won’t.” They can make that decision and that is right and proper. So you can have that balanced thinking from somebody obviously who’s very, very experienced in these matters.

The fourth area of change is that one around affidavit evidence around the Family Court. Of course, that is because there is no face to face in that particular situation, but, arguably, the way in which the bill was originally introduced might have caught that up. I might say that what little experience I’ve heard of about the Family Court and the affidavit process and the kind of process that it has gone through there and given us the significance of those decisions that are made, which, essentially, sometimes, can be about access to one’s own children, that there might be some need to have a look at legislation in that space as well.

Just to finish off, I think most of the points that I have made I’ve covered already. But, look, I want to congratulate again the committee for really good work, for making the changes that it’s made, and again, to Dr Tracey McLellan for shepherding through this piece of legislation. Obviously it’s been done in a really collaborative way, and that’s really, really always very, very heartening to hear. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Where do I start? I think this bill is a step in the right direction, bravely and—I don’t know about “timely”, having worked in this sector. Maybe I do want to comment on that a little bit too, as I go into the kōrero. As I’m listening to the speeches and seeing the cohesion of thinking and the acknowledgment of the finer points, in terms of how it will be applied, that sounds great and all very, very good. Finally—finally—here we are.

Family violence courts are a relatively new thing; they’ve not been around for a terribly long time. I remember that because I remember Judge Recordon in Auckland—we were all sitting about in chambers, and he said, “You know the biggest issue I have with this, Meno, is that what we’re going to have to assess we don’t know. We don’t understand the subject of violence. We don’t understand it. So me, as a judge”—Judge Recordon and others—“how do we understand what we’re listening to? How do we recognise, even just know, what we’re hearing, and how do we think about this?” This is great, what Tracey McLellan has done, Michaela and, tēnā rā hoki koe ki a ia, tēnā rā hoki koe [thanks certainly to her, really thank you].

These sorts of things might seem, when we’re talking about it, as “This is great. Finally we’re getting it done”, but what it’s taken to get to this point—I just want to mihi to her and to all that effort to bring it to today and to cause the kind of cohesion to agree with it. Anyone that doesn’t—I couldn’t imagine that was going to happen in this Chamber today, anyway. The sobering reality for us is that 58 percent of wāhine Māori are impacted by family violence, not because we want to be but because that’s what oppression does to you; it messes you up completely and you do some outrageous things. That’s very much part of what I want to share, but also we are 100 percent of the solution; we will be and can be, and so, in terms of our whānau and our mokopuna, all of those things, this makes good sense for us in terms of our own solutions towards our own mokopuna and our own whānau and our own women, Māori becoming stronger, more vibrant, and healthy, and living healthy Māori lives.

I just want to reflect back a little bit again: one of the situations that I came across, which is what sparked when I was listening to one of the speeches tonight, was not only what Judge Recordon said but I remember taking a woman into the police station to put in a report, and when she was giving her statement, she used the words, “It was excruciating because when he bent me over the back of the sofa, I couldn’t get up.”, and he said, “Could you use another word than ‘excruciating’ because I can’t spell it?” Then we went along to the GP and she was describing what had just occurred to her the night before and the GP said to her, in front of me, “What did you do to upset him?” The point of these remarks that I’m making right here, right now, with all the effort that Tracey’s put in, is that these attitudes haven’t gone away just because we’re making this decision tonight. They have not gone away. They are still very much in the homes and the houses of many, in the GP clinics or in the police stations. I love many GPs and police people, who I love and are related to me, but systemically that kind of attitude is still prevalent.

I want to make this point as we make our decision—and, yes, of course, I acknowledge that we’re making this decision, and we support it; the party supports it and I support it, but it is not that far away that family violence courts weren’t a thing. Family violence was just “Oh, well, that’s none of our business, Meno; that’s their business. You don’t talk about those things outside of your home, right? You don’t talk about it. That’s their business to deal with.” So continue with the bravery, is what I want to say. We have to keep moving forward on this particular piece of work, and it grows.

So, Todd, good on you and my mates on the left of me, even though they’re having a little giggle. I know they support this, and it’s a good thing—particularly men, tāne mā, me whakarongo koe [gentlemen, you should listen]. And Todd, to your kōrero, because, you know, you’re a cool guy; you stand up and you bring that kind of position, I know, as a guy—you’re a little bit tearful too, so that always helps, but to tell the truth as a man speaking into this space is really, really critical.

I’ve got 10 seconds, so we absolutely support it. It’s a great idea, with some great, great legs on it, but I just want to leave those points: “excruciating”—this was the word that she was asked to change because he couldn’t spell it. Those are the things I want to leave as memories in this House. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I want to add to the support around the House for this bill, and I want to thank all the different members for their contributions on this topic. It’s good to see that we’re always quite aligned when it comes to the issues around family and sexual violence and making our courts safer and more accessible for people that choose to access them.

As everyone has already talked about, this bill is about making it safer for victim survivors of family and sexual violence to participate in the justice process in a way that protects their safety and their dignity. Our Family Court is one of our specialist courts here in Aotearoa, and as Mariameno was just talking about, it’s a relatively new concept. I’m a big fan of our specialist courts—our Youth Court, our drug court, our second-opportunities courts. They all are amazing because they take into account the specific nature and context in which events have taken place and where harm has occurred, and they look to different non-conventional ways of shepherding those complaints through the justice process.

I was glad to hear Mariameno’s anecdotes around this bill and why it is so important with that story around the word “excruciating”. It made me think about when I have people that come to me in my electoral office who have been assaulted or harmed in town or are in dangerous family positions. Often the first thing that we do is we talk to them about what the different avenues are that they can take and what justice might look like for them. For some people, justice looks like pursuing through police action and through the courts, maybe through the Family Courts or the District Courts or one of our courts and through our justice system. For some, because of the court process and because of the justice system, they choose not to go down that pathway, because they are afraid of the re-traumatisation that might take place within the proceedings, because they are afraid that they won’t be believed, and because it is just too hard for them to rehash some really harmful and hurtful times in their lives.

I did a bit of research into how many victims choose not to go down the justice pathway because of how re-traumatising our procedures can be. In 2019, a Ministry of Justice report found that only 11 percent of reported sexual violence cases ended in conviction and that only 37 percent of people chose to take police action against a perpetrator. In that same year, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey found that 94 percent of sexual assaults were not reported to police. There are many reasons for this. There are the obvious reasons of the shame that these kinds of events can elicit within a person. There are fears that this could lead to a further breakdown in relationships within families. There’s the doubt that proceedings would result in a conviction and the fear, again, of not being believed. But a big reason that people choose not to go down this pathway is because the process in itself is re-traumatising.

Sometimes, when we see especially some of the more high-profile proceedings around family violence and sexual violence and we watch victim/survivors giving their evidence, sometimes their behaviour is hard to make sense of. That’s because when people are traumatised, things, like space and time and behaviour and confidence, are severely inhibited.

I think that the parts of this bill that allow for some more flexibility and more feelings of safety for people who have to recount what they have experienced is really important, and this can lead to a reclamation of power, particularly for children who might have to give evidence about harm that they’ve endured as well. I know that these provisions will make it maybe not easier but will make the process a little bit—well, I guess the word is “easier”—to go through. It removes the kind of confronting nature that is often before you in a courtroom, and being face to face with somebody who has hurt you or that has hurt your family is an extremely challenging thing to do. It requires a lot of bravery and courage and strength that I don’t think should be required of someone who has, ultimately, been wronged and who is seeking some justice within our justice system.

We support this bill. We want to thank Tracey McLellan for all of her mahi on this and for bringing attention to the ways that we can improve our courts to make them safer and to pursue justice for victims and survivors of family and sexual violence. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too rise in support of this bill, the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. We’re in the second reading stage, and this bill is a bill in the name of our colleague, Dr Tracey McLellan from the Labour Party across the debating Chamber. What I got to see of Dr Tracey McLellan during this whole process is that at times when it looked like it may not go any further, there might be some people asking for it to be, perhaps, thought about at a different time, Dr Tracey McLellan just fought really hard for us to see, on the Justice Committee, how important it is for this bill to go ahead in its form, with the changes—we ended up making changes.

Of course, the intention of the bill is something that we all see is very important. Essentially, if we simmer it down, it’s a further layer of protection for victims. And granted, many times there’s alleged perpetrators in different proceedings, and so the victims fall under that category. But it’s no secret that I personally am someone that fights to a great extent—alongside my colleagues—for the rights of victims, particularly over the rights of criminals.

I think this conversation today is really important. It’s one of those conversations, again, that touches on some very confronting issues. This bill, what it seeks to do is add a presumption, as we’ve been saying, in favour of alternative ways of giving evidence of family violence in Family Court proceedings. By doing this, the overall aim is to reduce the stress and the trauma that victims have going through these proceedings, so that we can also improve evidence quality. When I talk about the confrontational nature of this bill, I want to acknowledge my beautiful young niece Rima Luti, who’s in the gallery. She’s travelled from Australia to spend a few days with me in New Zealand. She’s only in her teenage years, but she’s of that age where I talk to her about these confronting issues. I know that her mother, being a psychologist since she was young, has spoken to her about sexual abuse and about sexual violence, particularly because of what her mother hears from young people and people in their adult years that are trying to deal with, on a psychological level, the trauma associated with sexual violence, sexual assault. So this is why it’s important, and I’m happy that my niece is here to see part of this conversation take place.

If we go down to some basics on this bill, the first reading was on 6 November 2024, and it was referred to the Justice Committee—a committee that I am so privileged and so honoured to be part of. I say that very often, both within this House and in public, because what we see on the Justice Committee, both when we go into the public domain of the submission hearings or whether it’s behind those private doors, we see how we can work together to achieve better goals for victims. I know, particularly on the Government side, that’s always the laser focus that we have.

We received 30 written submissions. I want to really thank the people, the organisations that took time to give those submissions, because it helped us with making those little tweaks so that we can continue progressing this bill forward. Fourteen individuals, 16 organisations, and we heard seven oral submitters, and most submitters supported the bill’s intent. Quite a number of submitters recommended amendments as well. I’d like to just focus a little bit on those submissions and the themes, because the departmental report—and this is part of what my colleague Tom Rutherford, for the Bay of Plenty, was mentioning earlier. There’s so much behind-the-scenes work that takes place in bringing an idea to the form of a bill and then progressing the bill and, hopefully, passing the bill.

I do also want to tautoko the staff that helped take us through this stage, and also put together the various reports that we rely on, on top of and above the own research that we do. And thank you, Dr McLellan, for helping shepherd that as well, with the staff.

So if I was to just go back to the departmental report, which broke down the submissions in terms of themes, the first theme that it gave us a summary of was protecting victims from harm. This was highlighted in the overwhelming support from submissions for the bill—15 submitters, including the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges and The Backbone Collective. They emphasised, as we’ve touched on, how important it is that the family justice system doesn’t retraumatise—well, the fact is that the victims are being retraumatised when they go through the various stages of the procedure. They are exposed to intimidation or physical harm in some situations, and different organisations gave examples.

Indeed, I’ve touched upon, in the past, in the House, while I was studying law in Sydney, where I grew up with my whānau, I worked in the local court system over there, in different court systems. It’s tattooed in my memory, the times when I saw with my own eyes: victims very afraid to give evidence, to be cross-examined, because of many factors, but particularly the retraumatisation and also seeing the alleged perpetrator there in court. These submissions highlighted aspects like those and highlighted how many victims are forced to share physical space with abusers. So as we’ve touched upon—quite a number of us, including Tamatha Paul just before me—this leads a lot of victims to withdraw applications out of fear. That’s very sad, because imagine the ripple effect of that retraumatisation as well. The changes in this bill can help mitigate a lot of these concerns as well.

Another theme that was summarised was aligning family and criminal jurisdictions, and we’ve spoken about that. Submitters such as Community Law Centres Aotearoa and The Law Association of New Zealand, argued that the Family Court, as we’ve been saying, should provide the same support for alternative evidence as exists in criminal cases. Again, the victims face the same trauma as sexual violence complainants and so therefore they deserve equivalent protections. This is a major part of what this bill aims to achieve.

Another subject matter identified in the submissions was that—I’m not going to go through all of them, but addressing the systemic challenges, submitters called for broader systemic change in the Family Court. This is something that I know our Government—our focus is on victims. So I welcome a lot of the other changes that we’re making in the criminal milieu to make sure that victims are put first.

There were a number of concerns raised, as well. I particularly recall The New Zealand Law Society questioning the necessity of this bill, especially given the existing provisions that were available for people to, as some people shared before me, make an application to have their evidence heard in alternative ways. But what this bill says is that—submitters that I remember, I questioned one submitter in particular, I can’t remember exactly who it was right now. I asked them, “Look, have you made these applications and are they usually successful?” And the gentleman said, “Yes”, he’s never recorded a time that these applications were not successful.

So I’m glad I got to reiterate some of the submission themes, as my colleagues are talking about so many other points as well. I’d like to reiterate our vehement support for victims as a National Party, as a coalition Government. I know, as well, there’s many people across the House that always support victims.

This is a vital step towards the Family Court system prioritising victims’ safety and dignity. I want to again welcome my beautiful niece Rima Luti to the House; and thank you, Dr Tracey McLellan, for your work here. I commend this bill to the House.

First of all, congratulations and thank you to Dr Tracey McLellan and to Dr Emily Henderson for bringing us this work. I know, with regard to Emily, she’s worked in the courts for a number of years and she’s thought long and deep about these issues. I worked in a different field of law, but I started my legal career in a city office and—actually, at the Law Commission, across the road. I then went to a city office, and then I went out to Ōtāhuhu because I wanted a real law job. When I got there, one of the first cases that came to me was a woman who came in who had had a machete held over her head by her partner. I really had never encountered something like that in my life, and it will always stay with me that those experiences are ones that many of us just don’t understand the reality of.

I know that this legislation is an attempt to rebalance the law. While there is capacity to make an application to have evidence heard in a different way, what I understand from my interactions with people like that woman is how incredibly devastating those kinds of violent situations are to people’s confidence and their trust in any system whatsoever. It’s very easy, when you’re involved in a Family Court situation, to not really understand what it’s like for the person coming into it for the first time but also to forget that somebody has genuine fear for genuine reason, when you might be a little bit protected from that as one of the officers in that court—not particularly protected, but at least a little bit protected. I remember that last year there was an incident where one of the family lawyers was attacked in one of the elevators by somebody, who actually laid into them really physically. And there was an interview that talked about people coming into the court and bringing, in the back of their wallet, something that looked like a credit card but could cut people. So these are very real things in our society.

This bill has tried to balance the needs of the person who’s been through these experiences and the needs of people in the system to be treated with some natural justice. I think it’s done a good job of being both pragmatic and principled.

The last thing I really wanted to say about this is I don’t think the balance has been right, and I think that has actually impacted on the justice of the situation. There have been other people who talked about this, but, to reiterate, the issue is we do not have people coming forward in the current system, because it’s too hard, because it’s frightening. If you think about the woman I was talking about who’d had that kind of experience, we should be thinking about how we can make it possible for someone to come through a system who’s had that kind of experience. That should be one of the things we absolutely take into account, because if someone was prepared to do that to a woman, they’re prepared to do it to another one and they’re prepared to do it to their children. That’s the kind of thing we absolutely have to stop in its tracks, and so I hope this law makes a little bit of a difference in that regard. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

I stand in support of the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge and commend Dr Tracey McLellan for the work that she has done to bring this to the House. It is a very worthy bill; it seeks to achieve a lot of good points—firstly, to facilitate the process of the Family Court.

I think much can be said about situations where the perpetrators of family violence who are in the process of a Family Court proceeding can use the process to repeatedly come face to face with their victims, the people who themselves have received the family violence and the people who have actually witnessed the family violence—the children, people in the same home. Allowing for witnesses and the offended parties to be able to provide evidence in a way that they feel less threatened and do not have to come face to face with their abusers will facilitate their openness to get into the process and not be afraid of having to do an actual face to face in close quarters in court.

We can very easily, if we are far removed from family violence, not appreciate the extreme fear and anxiety that victims and people who witness violence feel. I deal with a lot of families in my law practice, and I have seen children extremely, extremely badly affected. It’s so easy to make a child afraid, and witnessing violence in the home is an extreme stressor to them. It cannot be described, actually, in words how they react to it. So facilitating the manner by which a victim may be able to provide evidence without having to go through, again, that face to face will surely facilitate the process.

The bill wishes to amend the current situation where the Family Court process mainly allows for the witnesses, the victims to present oral evidence in court after they have given their affidavits in support of their complaints. Even if there has been a facility to allow them to apply for an alternative process, or even if judges do have that opportunity to provide alternative opportunities to witnesses and victims, we understand that this is not often the case, and it’s more often that people do have to go through that face-to-face process. So the bill will make this opportunity automatic. The improvement of science and technology in the way video presentations can be done and calls can be made should really facilitate the opportunity to give witnesses and victims this chance to not to have to be in person in court.

The bill will achieve consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It will also allow for the Family Court process to more closely, especially in family violence situations—it will allow the court to go through a process very similar to a criminal process where witnesses and victims are afforded protections already. So it just aligns the Family Court process in terms of family violence with existing processes.

Also, it’s very important to note that the kind of evidence that needs to be presented and considered as eligible for a video conference or presentation by video is specified. The bill allows for what kind of evidence is able to be presented in video conference.

I finish by saying that technology and trained staff really are the pathways to making this happen, and the law that is now before us allows us to give reprieve and reduce the stress that many people face—many, many people face. With this in mind and the hope of improving their situations, I commend this bill to the House.

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

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

Good evening, everybody. When the House adjourned for the dinner break, we were up to the second reading of the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. We were up to call No. 10, which is a split call, and the Labour Party has the first five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make some brief remarks in support of this bill. Like other colleagues, I’d like to commend the member Dr Tracey McLellan and former member Dr Emily Henderson in terms of progressing the bill. I didn’t have the privilege of being on the Justice Committee to hear the submissions on this bill. However, I was here in the last Parliament when the genesis of this idea was initially proposed by Dr Henderson, so I’m delighted to be here to see it through this reading.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, a former US Supreme Court judge, was quoted as saying, “This is a court of law, my boy, not a court of justice.” He was of course in, I think, the early 1900s in terms of his role on the Supreme Court, and he was very much focused on justice being limited to reading the letter of the law. If you travel around courts in the world, you’ll frequently see the same scales of justice and the blindfolded Justitia as the model for the law, and the people and what they bring to the courts are certainly not necessarily considered in that mix. But I think we’ve seen a shift over generations towards a model that does see people and that does recognise their personal context, as well as some of the more invisible barriers that limit who can even walk through the door of a courtroom. In my view, this is a bill that looks to bridge that gap between the law and justice.

Having said that, I also do feel that the select committee managed this bill really well in terms of not unfairly tilting the fine balance that colleagues have mentioned between both access and procedural fairness to the accused but also in terms of retaining the powers of the judge to be able to make decisions and refer back to what was the ordinary process. I want to acknowledge that there were submitters who wanted the bill to go further than it did, including the Law Association’s family law committee, who I thought made the valid point about the 28-day notice period for using alternative methods of giving evidence. They suggested that might not be appropriate in urgent cases where children or other victims needed immediate protection.

So I do think that there are aspects of this bill in terms of the issues that we should revisit in a timely way. But, for now, I do think that this is a proposal that is fit for purpose and that strikes the right balance, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.