Penk Chris; Faafoi KrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Can I start by acknowledging the point that has been made by a couple of members on both sides of the House so to speak. Of course we all do want ultimately the same thing I believe which is of course that no victim of sexual violence is retraumatised but of course at the same time we want to have a process that establishes the truth of a matter in a fair trial so that any convictions are safe so to speak. So I think it's gracious of members who maybe have approached this from another perspective to others to acknowledge that the intentions each of the other are good in this space.In that spirit I do want to state for the record that which has already been traversed at first reading and second reading but not at length Madam Chair you'll be pleased to know. But there are a number of really positive features in the bill in addition to the well-intentioned basis on which it has been brought forward. So we've talked before for example about the rights of victims in relation to victim impact statements and the way that those can be made.In relation to the particular—really down to basically a couple of points in this legislation that we've continued to discuss because there's been some nervousness as you will have gathered on this side of the House about the way they might play out and my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith has voiced that I think really well in relation to the potential for unintended consequences with the right of recall under section 99 of the Evidence Act potentially re-traumatising or having a second bite at the cherry being required in relation to evidence being given.I would just make the point that is probably reasonably obvious: the length of time between an incident or alleged incident and the giving of evidence is really problematic for all involved oftentimes. I think it does reflect a deep-seated difficulty and problem in our justice system one that's been quite longstanding and is getting worse—but is to be fair a longstanding one—which is the delay in trials taking place and the additional stress that that imposes upon all of those whose lives are upended and put on hold when the outcome of a day in court is delayed for such a significant period of time.I think we've talked about previously—and certainly I've recorded in the Supplementary Order Paper regarding the pre-trial recording of cross-examination—the fact that under section 103 of the Evidence Act already evidence can be directed to be given in an alternative way including for example pre-recorded by way of cross examination that is before the trial starts. That does lead to an interesting point around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act section 25(e) which I don't believe was traversed particularly thoroughly with all due respect in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet and advice in relation to the bill. So that's the right of a person to be present at the trial and to present a defence and if the discussion—that is to say the cross-examination—has taken place before the trial and cross-examination can't take place on the basis of things that have emerged during a trial that is potentially quite problematic in terms of that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act freedom or right that's supposed to be protected in that instrument.The other one that's been discussed—again by others and I don't intend to go into it more fully than needed—is in relation to a complainant's previous sexual experience with the defendant. That seems instinctively to be a different category from saying that her or his sexual disposition is one thing—and of course we all would say I believe that we wouldn't want someone to not receive a fair hearing if she or he were to say or for it to be said of them Oh they always act in a certain way"; you know that they were "asking for it" or whatever. I think we can safely assume that no one here would think that that was a reasonable basis for dismissing a good-faith complaint but at the same time it might be that if two people—or more I suppose—have engaged in a certain activity in the past that is at least potentially relevant and should not be something that is necessarily precluded or which is regarded as not likely to be relevant in a court.So I would just urge the Minister to respond if he's able for the sake of the record or at least turn his mind to the fact that there are already Evidence Act requirements around relevance and whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial. So having placed that on the record I do reiterate our commitment to the broader mahi of sexual violence legislation—[Time expired]Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member Chris Penk for the contribution. Just for the record—because the member did raise bill of rights issues and any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) vet—both the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 105 which has been tabled have been through the BORA process and received the Crown Law tick of approval in terms of that process. So it's been through the ringer twice including the changes that have been made via the Supplementary Order Paper."