Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to speak again and give some additional information about the Minister of Justice's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 188 and thank my Labour colleague Louisa Wall for her contribution and I think for creating that picture around why my SOP to add intimidating" to the list of inadmissible questioning is so important. This is because it is about how we can create and change the culture in our courts in a way that holds the belief that we can achieve justice without traumatising people. I think that intimidating questioning is clearly aimed at traumatising witnesses and I do not believe that that is necessary to achieving justice. I absolutely do not believe it and I do not believe that most New Zealanders think that witnesses should be intimidated in the docks or that our courts should be a place where that happens full stop let alone people who have experienced violence against them in such a deeply personal way—and the impact that that has on people—then having to stand up in front of a room of people and expose themselves and then be intimidated through that process. That is not about justice and I do hope that members in this Committee will vote tonight for a compassionate justice system that believes and stands up for the rights of defendants and the dignity of victims. I would just like to speak a little bit more again to the problem I have with the Minister's SOP which delays the review of this Act and puts that further out just by bringing to this Committee's attention some of the issues that would be considered in that review. There are issues around whether the court should record evidence at trials of complainants in cases where it is not already pre-recorded. This is particularly important again for victims of sexual violence when we have very long delays in people being able to get their cases to court. This process can go on for a very long time and if there has not been a pre-recording or if there is a mistrial or people have to come back to be able to keep holding that experience to be able to keep it alive and to be able to recall it accurately under questioning sometimes months if not years down the track is traumatic. So the review of this Act would help this Parliament consider that amendment properly. The review would also be looking at whether the basis of admissibility of relevant evidence should be expanded to include the impact on the complainant of having to answer questions—considering the impact of the questions on the complainant especially during cross-examination—and taking into account the distress likely to be experienced as a consequence of the questioning. We know again that this is very significantly linked to the issue of intimidation but it goes much wider than that around considering how we create court processes that give the defendant the right to a proper trial and proper consideration of evidence but do not cause distress to a complainant. That is not a simple thing to work out. A huge amount of work has been done on it and clearly we have not got there with this piece of legislation in being able to come up with solutions but the Minister's SOP will extend the process of being able to come up with a solution to that even further. It is pretty much at the heart of the problems with our court system at the moment. Also looking at other issues that came up for the Law Commission to consider were—"