Evidence Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEvidence Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2015. Volume:706;Page:5082. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Evidence Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information)on behalf of theMinister of Justice: I move That the Evidence Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider this bill. This bill is about better protecting vulnerable witnesses in court processes and includes the first part of our sexual violence reforms. It underlines the Government’s commitment to better support victims of crime and vulnerable people who get caught up in the justice system through no fault of their own.This bill also implements the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s review of the Evidence Act 2006 which was completed in 2013. Although the commission considered the Act to be working well generally it suggested a number of targeted and technical amendments to ensure the Act is up to date and workable in practice. Implementing these recommendations also presents the opportunity to progress further changes aimed at making the court process less traumatic for victims of sexual violence and child witnesses.The first of these changes that I would like to highlight aims to make the criminal trial process easier and less damaging for child witnesses. It will introduce a presumption that in all stages of a criminal trial child witnesses give evidence in alternative ways. Giving evidence in front of a whole court and the defendant and especially being cross-examined can be extremely distressing for any witness let alone a young child. Alternative methods of giving evidence such as through closed-circuit television or from behind screens can help reduce the trauma children experience.These methods can also help to elicit more accurate and reliable evidence especially when the trial is protracted or delayed. A good example of the way this presumption could work in practice is where a child witness gives some of their evidence in a pre-recorded video interview outside court. The bill will introduce a presumption that the video can be played at trial as the child’s evidence-in-chief. Because the interview will have been conducted in a less confrontational environment than a courtroom the process should better support the child’s well-being. It may also improve the quality of the evidence both because the events will be a fresher memory and because stress can make it harder for children to recall events accurately.Currently in all criminal cases involving child complainants the prosecutor has to apply for directions from the judge about how the child is to give evidence. Where a witness is a child a judge can order that the evidence be given by alternative means either on application or on their own initiative. We know that many children who give evidence in criminal cases already do so by alternative means. However applications for use of alternative methods vary across different regions of New Zealand. Applications for older children and young people to give evidence in alternative ways also appear to be less common. This bill will align standard practice and help to ensure all children in criminal trials are protected as much as possible while still allowing the method of giving evidence to be tailored to the case and to the child.It is also important to mention that the presumption will not hamper the court’s ability to hear further evidence from the child. Under the bill only evidence-in-chief can be pre-recorded. When it is the bill explicitly allows other parts of the child’s evidence to be given in other alternative ways. This includes further evidence-in-chief and evidence given in cross-examination which ensures the defence will still be able to effectively cross-examine all witnesses. The Act currently provides that child complainants have an automatic right to a support person. The bill will also extend this right to all child witnesses when they are giving evidence. Support people whom child witnesses know and trust can help to reduce the trauma of going through the criminal trial process without interfering with that process.Another of the bill’s amendments that I would like to draw to the House’s attention will support victims of sexual offending. It is important to emphasise that in the last 30 years our justice system has changed to better recognise the place of victims especially victims of sexual offences. Parliament has changed laws and the police and courts have changed their practices to ease the trauma for victims giving evidence and to better support them through this process. Even so it will never be easy for a victim of a sexual crime to come forward and make a complaint. It will never be easy for a victim to relive their painful experiences in a courtroom facing the judge jury legal counsel media and the person who is alleged to have offended against them and after a trial is over it will never be easy for a victim to deal with the consequences of what they have experienced. What I want to do is to make that inherently stressful process as undemanding as possible while still preserving the core elements of a fair trial.One thing we can do to lessen the distress and revictimisation is to ensure complainants can be prepared for what will happen during the trial. This bill will require the defence to give notice before the trial begins if it intends to use evidence about a complainant’s sexual history with someone other than the defendant. Currently permission to introduce this evidence can be sought from the judge at any time during the trial. A new requirement to give notice earlier means the admissibility of the evidence can be determined before the trial begins. The current court process is one of the most daunting and humiliating processes to go through particularly for sexual assault cases. The very least we can do is ensure the complainant knows what to expect before they come to court. This change was recommended in the Law Commission’s review. The commission also noted that it may improve efficiency and promote more consistent decision-making with regard to the admissibility of evidence.In the same vein as the amendments I have outlined so far the bill will also change the way some evidence is dealt with before trial. It will place new restrictions on access to police videos of witnesses’ evidence in sexual and violent cases and to child complainants’ evidence in all cases. The defence will only be able to view these sensitive video records on police premises or in other places agreed to by the police. To ensure defence access to the video is adequate in all cases the defence will also be able to apply to the court for a copy of the video. The defence will also have automatic access to the transcripts of the videos.The bill also introduces new offences for copying and distributing these types of video record evidence without the court’s permission. The aim of these new restrictions and offences is to reduce the risk that video records are misplaced or used inappropriately. This will serve as an assurance to vulnerable complainants and will help maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the justice system. We are reminded too frequently of how quickly sensitive information can spread out of control in the digital age and the damaging effects that can result. These effects are only heightened when the videos are of vulnerable people having to relive the circumstances of their victimisation. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that these amendments align with the intent of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill which is currently awaiting its third reading before this House.I want to just touch on a few of the other amendments such as the privilege to plea discussions. Aside from the changes just outlined the amendments proposed by this bill are largely technical and are in line with the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s review of the Act. One of the more substantial technical amendments made is the extension of privilege to plea discussions. Currently privilege applies to settlement negotiations and mediation in civil cases but the law is unclear as to whether plea discussions in criminal cases are privileged. Clarity in this area is increasingly important as plea discussions are now commonplace. Making plea discussions privileged will enable those discussions to be full and frank and will encourage cases to be resolved earlier. The bill will allow a court to order disclosure of a privileged communication or document in certain specified circumstances such as when disclosure is necessary for a subsequent prosecution or perjury.Another amendment will enable more previous consistent statements to be admitted as evidence. There are already some circumstances where previous consistent statements are allowed to be used as evidence in court. The bill will clarify and extend these circumstances slightly to include statements that make up an integral part of the events before the court—for example a record of the 111 call made to police. This amendment modifies the commission’s recommendation about previous consistent statements. The commission considered that decisions about the admissibility of statements should be made in accordance with the Act’s general admissibility rules.The laws of evidence are absolutely salient to the fair and effective operation of the justice system. This bill will help to ensure that those laws not only are fit for purpose but also will reduce the impact on vulnerable witnesses of giving evidence. I commend this bill to the House.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to say that we will be supporting this bill to select committee.The Evidence Act 2006 is one of our most important pieces of legislation. Effectively it codifies much of the prior common law and sets out rules that govern fair trials. I thank the Minister Louise Upston for her speech. I thought that was a very clear exposition of the reasons for these changes that are proposed. I thought that the way in which the Minister dealt with the issues as to the alternative ways in which child witnesses can give evidence was balanced. It is a very difficult issue. We do need to stop victims and witnesses of awful crimes including children who are witnesses to terrible crimes being abused through the trial process itself.But we also need to be fair to the accused. Sometimes people are accused when they are not guilty. I think one of the fears that most people would have in any society is that they do not have the ability to properly defend themselves against allegations and they need to have a right to a fair hearing as well. The Minister was careful to say that we are trying to protect victims and in this case particularly children who may not be the victim; they may be the victim but they may also be just a witness to some other domestic violence in a household for example. The way that we are trying to protect the child witness in allowing more humane—it could be said—ways for their giving evidence but still retaining the fundamental right of the accused to question that evidence through appropriate cross-examination is I think the right balance.I am sure that there will be members of the legal profession as well as advocates for children and victims more generally and victims who will give detailed submissions as to whether the legislation gets the balance right in respect of that issue.In respect of restrictions on video-recording evidence I support those too—on the use of a video record of evidence in sexual and violent cases. As the law currently stands the lawyer who might be acting for an accused person—if that lawyer has access to and has a copy of that video then my understanding is that under existing law they probably have a duty of disclosure to their client which would put them in an invidious position. Although they might have a ratbag client—and actually lawyers quite often know that their clients are ratbags—they still face duties to their clients of openness and disclosure and to provide them with copies of what they have got. Without this legislative control allowing this the lawyer might be under a duty to give that information across even though the lawyer might think that that is not in the public interest either. So we have to make sure of course that the accused and their legal representatives have proper access to the evidence that is being used against them but none the less we should not allow that to be copied and put out there on the internet for example. So I agree with that one also.In respect of the requirements to give advance notice when an accused’s prior sexual history is going to be used as evidence against them in the case that they are giving evidence in then again I think there should be warning of that. You should not spring that upon someone. If someone’s reputation is going to be attacked—if somehow someone’s sexual history in life is going to be used as a way to undermine their assertion that they perhaps did not give consent to another sexual occurrence—then I think you should warn them. It is not to say that it will never be relevant. I struggle to see how it would be relevant often but occasionally it could be. Where it is going to be put at issue then I think that it should have to be warned of and the provisions of this bill seem wise in that regard.In respect of the privilege for plea discussions again if you are going to have full and frank discussions leading to a proper pleading then that seems to be sensible. I would say that I have a slight concern about the rise of American-like bargaining around pleading. I think that the current Solicitor-General who is responsible for the prosecutorial decisions that are made on behalf of the Crown listened carefully to some complaints that had been made to me and at least one other member of the select committee which we raised with the Solicitor-General at either the estimates or the financial reviews last year. I was very pleased that the Solicitor-General took those complaints seriously and I was satisfied by his explanations this year that he looked into them carefully and that he did not think that the accusations that were made were fair.So I accept that explanation but I do think we all have to be careful that we do not fall into the situation where because we are starting to bulk-fund prosecutorial services—we do not want there to be a financial incentive that is inappropriate to settle for pleading guilty to a lower level of charge than reflects the seriousness of the offence. We do not want that to become part of the New Zealand justice system. None the less I can see why we need full and frank plea discussions and that privilege should be attached to those discussions.In respect of previous consistent statements this bill puts the position back to where it was before the Evidence Act 2006 was enacted. In that regard large pieces of legislation like that despite the best care of this Parliament and the Law Commission do occasionally throw up things that we did not get quite right. I think it is a testament to how good the work was on the Evidence Act 2006 that there have not been many instances of that.One final thing which is not within the scope of this bill but which I would like to have seen fixed is that we still have this problem in respect of the evidence that can be gathered through search and surveillance mechanisms for the Serious Fraud Office in New Zealand. We have conferred protections on the media through the Search and Surveillance Act which was passed a couple of years ago in this House in respect of the arms of the State—other than the Serious Fraud Office but including the police which confers protections on the media. We have had problems with the media being subjected to inappropriate search and surveillance by an arm of the State—most notably the Serious Fraud Office in the National Business Review case arising out of the South Canterbury Finance controversy.I just use this opportunity to put on record that I think we are overdue for fixing that up. I know it was stubbornness on the part of then Minister Judith Collins and there is a long record of how we tried to fix that. But I still think it is an outstanding matter that I would like to see fixed because I want to protect media freedoms including against inappropriate action by the Serious Fraud Office which overall is a good office. I just think that that is a bit of law that still needs to be tidied up. With those comments I again record that the Labour Party is supporting this bill.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):Following this first reading of the Evidence Amendment Bill the bill is going to the Justice and Electoral Committee and I am very pleased as chair to be sent this bill. Along with the Harmful Digital Communications Act which has just very recently passed through this House this bill indicates a general move by certainly the Government—which is supported in this instance by many parties around the House; we will find out how many parties around the House—that shows a trend towards greater protection for victims of crime.If I might just divert very slightly off the bill for a very short time—the harmful digital communications legislation will protect young people give them a measure of protection in law and in practice from cyber-bullying. This Evidence Amendment Bill of course is a different beast and it gives legislative protection for children who are victims in terms of giving evidence and cross-examination in the court. As the previous speaker David Parker noted in his very thoughtful contribution to this debate—and I thank him for that—this work does come out of the work of the Law Commission which was commissioned by the then Minister of Justice Judith Collins in 2013. This bill picks up most of those recommendations with one or two of those recommendations altered slightly. But in essence the Law Commission’s recommendations have been picked up in this Evidence Amendment Bill.The main provisions in this bill are to make changes to improve the court processes for vulnerable witnesses; clearly most of those are children. At the moment prosecutors have to apply to the court to use alternative ways of giving evidence. An application must be made and then the judge has to consider and give permission for alternative ways for evidence to be given on behalf of children. Commonly that will be for the child or young person to be supported by a family member or representative and perhaps for a videoconferencing method to be used to give evidence.The presumption in this bill will now be that child witnesses give evidence in alternative ways. It will be up to the child’s counsel and the child’s support person as to what kind of degree that child can be exposed to the courtroom in order to get the best evidence from that child. Fundamentally that is a very humane way—and a very humane change to our court system—to minimise the stress on children and any long-term impacts of not just the offending but the reliving of that offending in the court processes.The restriction on video recording of evidence again is supported by the Labour Opposition. I can only reflect that David Parker as a former lawyer—he is not practising now—who no doubt has been through this process on behalf of some of his clients again is in agreement with this provision. I do hope that the rest of the House is.As I was preparing for this speech I did not quite have time to go back through the legislative changes that this Government has made but it brought to my mind some other changes we had made in a former piece of legislation where this type of information was again restricted. The case I am thinking of is where a victim’s contact details—address and phone number—were able to be shared with the offender by the offender’s counsel. The offender was then able to recall those details—remember them—and harass that victim from inside prison. I will not make a stab at what that legislation was—it was a few years ago now—but again the provision in this Evidence Amendment Bill is in line with those further protections for witnesses. It is nothing else—it is not a mechanism for preventing information being shared with the defence counsel; rather it is a measure for protecting witnesses.The Minister Louise Upston in her opening comments outlined the privilege for plea discussions. The provisions in this bill extend the privilege that currently applies to settlement negotiations and mediation in civil proceedings to include plea discussions in criminal proceedings. At the moment there is no clear privilege in this matter in respect of communication in plea discussions. Again the Law Commission recommended reform in this area and that has been picked up in this bill. Again it deals with previous consistent statements admitted into evidence. Here I think the member who spoke previously David Parker rather glossed over perhaps some of the consequences of the 2006 amendment to the Evidence Act in saying: “Oh well we don’t always get everything right.” No we do not and there is an opportunity in this bill to reinstate the provision for consistent statements to be entered.Perhaps an example of that would be where a complaint was made in a criminal case; maybe a complainant a child told their mother that they had been raped. Consistent evidence of a 111 call made on the day or night of the occasion of that alleged rape could then be used as supporting evidence. So yet again that is another good inclusion in this bill. There are also a number of minor and technical amendments in this bill which the Justice and Electoral Committee together with other parties in the House will go over.I just want to finish my initial contribution on this bill by saying again that it is another piece of legislation brought to the House over the past 7 years that puts the victim of crime at the centre. In this instance it provides protections for child victims so that they can give good quality evidence—and that is the key; good quality evidence—to the court but without revictimising or further victimising or traumatising them. It provides more clarity to the court around evidence to be introduced that is consistent with the original statement and it also provides for notice requirements for evidence of previous sexual history where a notice must be given to the court if a previous sexual history is to be entered into evidence. With those words I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker and thank you very much. It is an honour to rise and speak on the Evidence Amendment Bill today and I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague the Hon David Parker to the Minister the Hon Louise Upston who I thought gave a very good speech in introducing this bill to the House. It was sensitive well constructed and certainly laid out a fair amount of the detail. That is important because as the general policy statement in the explanatory note of the Evidence Amendment Bill states: “This Bill makes a number of minor and technical amendments …”. I think the sheer nature of the discussions and debates that have happened in this House so far to date on the bill show that although minor and technical it is very important. So I do want to commend the Minister and I do look forward as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee to having this bill come in front of our committee and us being allowed to pore over the detail and the fine print.We in the Labour Party support this bill. I want to pick up on a couple of points that the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee Jacqui Dean mentioned in her contribution in the House today and one those points was really about putting the victim at the forefront of all our thinking when we consider bills like this. It is important that we do that and just as important as she mentioned too is that we wrap the correct services and support around the victims. In particular in this case the bill talks of children our most vulnerable in this country and it is important that we get this process right. So although I agree that this legislation is a step in the right direction it is but one step. I do acknowledge that some of the other bills that we have supported through the House in recent times add to that jigsaw puzzle that is looking after the victims and I support that.It is clear that the bill makes a number of amendments to the Evidence Act 2006 following a review by the Law Commission. I spoke briefly about how we need to wrap these support services around the victim. Another point that the member Jacqui Dean mentioned was a support person for our tamariki or the children who are required to give evidence. It is a good thing to have a support person for our most vulnerable our children when they go through this particular process but I want to make a point in my contribution about the nature of that support person. We know it is important to have family but often as we know in cases such as this family or wider family are involved. I just wonder what kind of influence a support person may have on the child before they give evidence. Perhaps that is something that we can debate or discuss a bit further in the select committee process.There was a report prepared by the Auckland University of Technology in 2010 that looked at this particular issue and it highlighted two very important points. One of those was the length of time that the child had to wait before giving evidence. It was approximately something like 15 months and that is as we would all agree I am sure arguably too long. However it is important that the trial must go through its process. It must be fair for all sides and it must be able to be considered properly and appropriately.The reason I mention that is that not too long ago I was called to jury service in a particular case about which I will not speak in too much detail on. It was clear sitting there as a juror just how hard these cases can be on children and young people who have to present in front of—as the members have already mentioned—such a daunting audience. You have your judge you have the jurors you have lawyers and also the person whom the charges are brought against. I think it is about time that as technology progresses so fast—although we may say it is just a video recording or it is a video conference or closed-circuit television it is important that we use the technology of the day and in this particular case the bill does allow for those provisions for our children to be cared for. I want to also mention the great work by my colleague Kelvin Davis who has stood up and indeed during the campaign campaigned against sexual violence. I know that he actually just flicked through a text and he is very happy that this particular bill has come up and he along with all of us will support it into the select committee.These are sensible changes. They are a step in the right direction. The protections of victims do need to extend beyond the courtroom interactions however. This is why at the beginning of my contribution I talked about a full wraparound service. I would be interested as this bill progresses to see what that looks like. It is not just about the time at which the child or the victim gives the evidence; it is about the entire process: how they are supported while the trial is going on and how they are supported post-trial. It is the whole wraparound service that we need to get right in order as the bill states for the child or the victim to move on. It is appropriate that we get that right so that the children can move on with their lives.I will not talk too much longer on this bill. We do support it here on this side of the House. We look forward to it going to the select committee of which I and of course members from across all parties are on and we look forward to debating this as it moves forward. I want to once again thank the Minister for her kind words in the introduction of this bill. Kia ora.JONO NAYLOR (National):I just want to echo the sentiments from the previous speaker Peeni Henare. It is certainly a pleasure to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee and I will touch on that a little bit further as I go through my speech. I want to start by just reflecting a little bit on what a good judicial system looks like. Of course first and foremost it has to be just and justice needs to be done and it needs to be seen to be done. It needs to ensure that it brings perpetrators who are guilty to have an appropriate consequence for their actions. It needs to be timely and it needs to happen in an appropriate time to ensure that justice is being done. But I think the third phase of it which to me is probably most critical is that our judicial system must not revictimise our victims.This bill I think just really does enhance our judicial system in a number of ways. Particularly there are some aspects of it that will improve timeliness and that has been expressed already through the opening remarks of the Minister the Hon Louise Upston so I will not dwell too much on that. But I do want to focus particularly on the aspects of what I think is really one of the critical points as I said about the judicial system: that we do not revictimise victims of crime and to a certain degree that we do not victimise witnesses of crime either. Often witnesses are the untalked-about victims where crime is concerned particularly when somebody has witnessed something that is particularly distressing and they have become by association victims even though they may not have had the crime specifically performed against them.This is in line with a huge amount of work that has already been done by this Government through other legislation: through the Victims’ Rights Amendment Act which has been dealt with; through—and I have forgotten the name of the legislation but it provides for an offenders’ levy so that offenders are therefore having to pay to provide better services for victims and otherwise; and as previous speakers have alluded to the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. It is showing again I guess that this Government is committed to ensuring that victims are being looked after that victims are at the forefront of our minds when we are thinking about the judicial system and we are ensuring that they are receiving the best care and the best processes to ensure that they can come through their experiences in the best possible shape. This is where I believe this Evidence Amendment Bill really does come into its own.I particularly want to focus on this point about how evidence is gathered from victims particularly young victims through alternative means other than putting people in a witness box. I particularly like the fact that this is now going to be a presumptive position. First and foremost it is going to be assumed that a child will give evidence in this way instead of an application having to be made and a Crown prosecutor or otherwise being unsure of what the outcome of that application will be.Can I just divert slightly and tell a little bit of a story from my own past experience that I think is relevant to the situation. I come from a background where I was working in social services. I have had to deal with young people in all sorts of difficult situations but a particular situation comes to mind where a young teenager confided in me that she had experienced a gang rape. It was particularly traumatic for her to have to disclose that to me and as you can well imagine not particularly pleasant for me to then have to deal with it. One of the tricky things that I faced in dealing with that situation was having to explain to this young woman that in order to bring justice to the perpetrators of that crime she was going to not only have to tell that story again to the police but potentially have to tell that story possibly again in court. Although she was keen to see the perpetrators brought to justice that was a big hurdle for her. It was not something that I particularly wanted her to have to do. There was good law in place. As the professional who was the first person to hear that I was of course interviewed by the police because there are aspects whereby that evidence can be admitted as well.But under this legislation should it pass for a professional working with somebody like that who would make such a disclosure it provides a much better avenue to take that person forward in their journey of dealing with the issue and recovering and also bringing those perpetrators to account. It would be great to then be able to acknowledge to that victim that actually it was assumed that they would not have to stand in front of the court and retell their story; that it would be able to be done in an environment that was more suited to them; and that they would be able to have a support person with them while they did that.I think the point that has been raised by Mr Henare over there about the nature of that support person is a really important one. It is probably something that we are going to need to think about because in say the situation I had found myself in it would have been good to have a professional person who perhaps had been supporting this person through what they were facing—perhaps they may have been the support person in a case like that. But we do need to ensure that actually there is not an opportunity for a victim or a witness as I said earlier to be sort of put in a compromised position because of the nature of the support person who is with them. That is clearly something that we are going to have to think about.So I really do look forward to this legislation coming to the Justice and Electoral Committee. As I said before it is a very good committee ably chaired by Jacqui Dean who we have heard from this evening and who is possibly you know one of the better if not the best select committee chair in the House. That is four times that I have said that now Jacqui. I have got to say it only one more time. [Interruption] It is controversial I know and I am going to upset a whole lot of other committee chairs out there but a deal is a deal. I said I would say it publicly and I am.But anyway all jokes aside this is a very very serious piece of legislation and it is one that I think perhaps through the select committee process there may be some things we can examine and look at that may help tweak it a little bit. But the basic premise of what is in here and what it is trying to achieve is I believe exactly where we need to be moving as a nation. It is exactly what this Government is committed to doing to ensure that victims and witnesses of crimes are being dealt with in the most appropriate way and that we are doing so without causing them any more suffering than what they have already been through—any more than is absolutely necessary. So I look forward to seeing the passage of this bill through this Parliament and look forward to getting to the point where we arrive at the third reading we can give it the Royal assent and our victims will be able to I guess really have confidence in our system.I think that ultimately that is really what it is about; it is about us as lawmakers in New Zealand being able to give the public of New Zealand even more confidence in our judicial system. By allowing victims of crime particularly young children this presumption that their evidence will be gathered in this way we are going to be ensuring that they are looked after. That will I believe really deliver a positive outcome for New Zealand. So as I said I am looking forward to this bill coming through the select committee I look forward to its passage through the House and I certainly look forward to it being passed into law. Thank you.DAVID CLENDON (Green):I am pleased to take a call on behalf of the Greens to express our support for this legislation. We think it is a good bill that will achieve some good outcomes. We note that to a large extent it follows of course the recommendations of the Law Commission review in 2013 of the primary legislation of the Evidence Act 2006. The preamble to the review essentially says that the Evidence Act is pretty robust and quite fit for purpose. The Law Commission did not find too much wrong with it. It did nevertheless manage to generate a fairly substantial document with a lot of detailed commentary in it and that is a good thing. Out of that has emerged the provisions of this bill and we see them as being quite positive and forward-looking.The Minister of Justice in her introduction as has been noted made some comments about the importance of doing as much as we can to reduce the stress of people who are obliged to give evidence in a court. That is almost inherently going to be stressful particularly for complainants. There is a risk of revictimisation of people who are obliged to speak to and describe events—often very traumatic events—which no doubt they would much prefer to put behind them and speak no more about. Of course the legal system does quite rightly require them to give evidence so anything we can do to reduce the likelihood of revictimisation and to reduce the stress and trauma involved in the legal process is to be desired. We think that this bill will make some contribution to that.In terms of some of the specifics of course the bill does seek to enable more previous consistent statements to be admissible and to extend the privilege that currently applies to settlement negotiation and mediation in civil proceedings to include plea discussions in criminal proceedings. I must confess that as a non-lawyer and a person who to date has managed to avoid being embroiled in significant legal proceedings I was unclear initially exactly what the background to those statements was and what the implications were. I am fortunate to have an executive assistant who does have legal training who was able to guide me through some of that. I am sure the select committee will deal with those matters but clearly they are matters that do seem to have positive potential outcomes in terms of the matters that will come to the court.The restriction on video recording of evidence—essentially putting in some boundaries and ensuring the safety and security of any recordings by either victims of violence or sexual violence or all evidence given by children—is important. Clearly people in that position of giving such evidence are vulnerable. It is a very difficult time for them. It would be unfortunate if video of their contribution and them giving their evidence was made more generally available than was absolutely necessary for the court to do its work—so that is a good provision of the bill.Similarly we wholeheartedly support the requirements for evidence of previous sexual history. Sadly in the past it was possible for complainants—particularly in matters of sexual violence—to be subject to some really quite aggressive irrelevant and very intrusive questioning around their entire sexual history that was often more to unsettle the complainant to challenge their credibility than it was to actually bring matters of relevance and value to the particular proceedings. This is changed to the extent that any investigation or any questioning of a complainant’s sexual history will be in relation only to the defendant and it has to be agreed upfront by court that it will be heard and matters of relevance and justification will be considered. It is a kind of no-surprises approach. It does enable people who will nevertheless be required to reveal quite intimate details of their personal lives to at least have the security of foreknowledge of that and be able to prepare for it to the extent that one can do such things.Similarly we are pleased at the change to a presumption that children or those under the age of 18 giving evidence in court will use alternative methods and will not simply stand in the dock in the way that an adult might. We have not always been fans of the change around presumption matters. I think back to some of the legislation passed last year or the year before where the presumption of innocence was overturned for some offences in favour of a presumption of guilt which we were not terribly thrilled about but in this instance the switch of presumption is we think positive. It may well be that some 16 or 17-year-olds are perfectly confident to stand in court and give their evidence as if they were adults. Certainly the presumption change does not preclude that but it does make it clear that any arguments will need to be made for other alternative mechanisms to be used. We think that is a very positive thing. We do have the technology and the capacity now to protect young people when they are giving evidence and it is important that we do that. I am interested to hear some of the comments about the nature of the support person who might be considered appropriate. I am sure that the select committee will come to those matters as it does others.I do look forward to the select committee investigation of this bill—to hearing evidence and submitters on it. It is a good and well-functioning select committee. We do for the most part get to the bottom of matters. I assume that the evidence and the submitters we will hear let me say—I should not get too presumptive—will for the large part be supportive of this. But nevertheless invariably the initial draft can be improved on and I look forward to being part of that work. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):This bill will enact all but one of the recommendations of the Law Commission’s 2013 Evidence Act review. I would like to begin by thanking the commission for its work and congratulating the Government on implementing those recommendations.I want to briefly review some of the changes. They are all fairly technical and minor in nature but still important. One of them is that the bill alters the law relating to hearsay in criminal proceedings. As we know in common law hearsay evidence is generally not admissible but the principal Act made hearsay evidence admissible in some cases. It preserved the common law rules relating to statements of co-conspirators and persons involved in joint criminal enterprises. In that context a hearsay statement made in a business record is admissible because they are regarded of course as being reliable but only if the person who supplied the information is unavailable or cannot reasonably be expected to recollect the matters in question or if the judge considers that there would be too much expense or delay in bringing such a person forward to give evidence themselves. In this bill clause 7 amends that Act by redefining the term “business record”—and it really did need some definition—and also excludes police records of statements or interviews with the victim or an eyewitness. In clause 9 the bill adds new section 22A which says that “a hearsay statement is admissible against a defendant if—(a) there is reasonable evidence of a conspiracy or joint enterprise; and (b) there is reasonable evidence that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy or joint enterprise; and (c) the [hearsay] statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy or joint enterprise.” Those changes are all needed and are appropriate.The bill also alters the law relating to improperly obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. As we know there is a longstanding principle that such evidence would be inadmissible but sections 30(1) and 30(2) of the principal Act provide that if evidence may have been improperly obtained the judge must consider it on the balance of probabilities and decide “whether or not the exclusion of the evidence is proportionate to the impropriety …”. This is done by means of a balancing process that gives appropriate weight to the impropriety but also takes proper account of the need for an effective and credible system of justice. Clause 11 simply removes the words “but also” and substitutes the word “and” so that it makes it clear that both the impropriety and in addition the need for an effective and credible system of justice are considered together. It is just a matter of clarity but it is an important matter of clarity.There are other amendments in the bill relating to admissibility of previous statements and documents used to refresh memory. Section 35(1) of the principal Act says that a previous statement of a witness is not admissible unless it is necessary to respond to a challenge to the witness’s veracity or accuracy and the statement provides the court with information that the witness is unable to recall. In this bill clause 12 amends these exceptions to the necessity of responding to a challenge to the witness’s testimony based on a previous inconsistent statement or a claim of invention by the witness or if the statement simply forms part of an integral part of an event before the court and the example is given of a 111 call. The other possibility is that the statement simply consists only of a complaint made. Those are all sensible changes to clarify the operation of those rules.The veracity rules are amended by clauses 13 and 14 of the bill. Section 37 of the principal Act provides that a party may not offer evidence about a person’s veracity unless the evidence is substantially helpful. In deciding that the judge has to consider the fact that the person might have been convicted of an offence—showing “a propensity for dishonesty” are the words used. The bill removes the word “dishonesty” in favour of “veracity” which simply means truthfulness specifically and not dishonesty generally. So that is a small but important improvement.Concerning the previous sexual experience of a complainant in sexual cases section 44(1) of the principal Act provides that no evidence can be given relating to the sexual experience of the complainant with any person other than the defendant except with the permission of the judge. In the bill clause 16 would add that in addition no such evidence can be used unless new requirements are met for a written notice to be given stating the name of the person to give the evidence and the subject matter of it so that everyone will be properly informed beforehand. But the judge may dispense with that notice if any party is substantially prejudiced or if the notice is not reasonably practical to be served and it is in the interest of justice to do so. Those changes appropriately clarify the parameters of the judge’s discretion which were not there previously in the legislation.Another change relates to privilege for plea discussions. In section 57 of the principal Act it is provided that privilege for negotiations in civil proceedings are acceptable but in this bill clause 22 new subsection (2A) extends that privilege to criminal proceedings. But under clause 22 new subsection (2B) the court may order disclosure where it is necessary for the subsequent prosecution for perjury or to clarify the terms of any agreement reached during those negotiations or if it would be contrary to justice not to do so. These are more quite sensible—minor but quite sensible—changes.Evidential rules on video-recorded evidence are amended by clause 30 of the bill so that a video record must first be offered for viewing by all parties or their lawyers. However a party is not entitled to be given a copy of a video of any child complainant or of any witness in a sexual case or a violence case. However a judge may still order that such videos be given to a lawyer representing the party before it is offered in evidence if it is in the interests of justice and considering the nature of the evidence.Finally clause 32 deals with alternative ways of giving evidence by a child and that has of course been a matter for some concern for quite a while. I remember that in Christchurch the Ellis case raised a whole range of very difficult issues in relation to those considerations. So this clause says that a child witness is entitled to give evidence in criminal cases by any appropriate means so long as the judge the jury the defendant and the lawyers concerned can see and hear the witness giving that evidence. This bill says that a child witness who has indicated that they are willing to give evidence in the ordinary way may be permitted to do so if the judge makes the decision and in doing so the judge must be satisfied that the witness fully appreciates the likely effect on him or her of doing that and for that purpose can call for a report on the likely effects on the witness. I think that is quite a valuable provision. It clarifies the circumstances under which a child witness can give evidence and takes appropriate action to protect the child. So I am glad to see that there.Overall all of these new amendments are deserving of support to the select committee and for that reason New Zealand First will vote for the bill to do so.CHRIS BISHOP (National):The Evidence Act 2006 was a big step forward for criminal law in New Zealand. I was a law student in 2006. In fact I was doing fourth-year law at the time and I did evidence law so it was interesting when I was doing that because the Act came into force while I was actually a student. So we had to learn two bits of law. We had to learn the Evidence Act which as David Parker rightly pointed out earlier in the House codifies essentially the common law rules. We also had to learn some of the common law rules and some of the statutory provisions that overlapped with the common law. So it was an interesting time to consider evidence law. But it is a really important Act and the Hon David Parker is very much correct to point out that it is of fundamental importance. I was very fortunate to be taught by Associate Professor—I think she was at the time—Elizabeth McDonald and she has actually had some involvement in the Law Commission review that has led to this bill. She is a very formidable figure.It is a very important Act. The process of the codification of evidence law in New Zealand actually started back in 1989. Like so many things we often deal with in this Parliament Geoffrey Palmer can be linked to it because it was something that the Law Commission started to look at back in 1989 and the eventual outcome 17 years later was the Evidence Act. It is of such importance that it is one of those Acts where Parliament put in place a review mechanism so that every 5 years the Government would have the ability to consider whether or not the Act was working as intended.The amendment bill that we are dealing with today comes out of the review that the Government commissioned in 2011 5 years after the bill was passed. The Law Commission did its review and published its report in 2013 and so we are dealing with the bill that results from that. And as has been pointed out by a member previously the Government actually adopted all bar one of the recommendations of the Law Commission.Other members have gone through the bill in quite a high level of detail. I want to focus my remarks on the changes the bill makes to the sexual experience of complainants in sexual cases. It is I believe an important change that the bill makes and something that I am looking forward to examining in greater detail on the Justice and Electoral Committee which as my colleague Jono Naylor pointed out is a good committee that operates in a fairly collegial fashion much like the Regulations Review Committee does which I was lauding only about an hour ago.The issue of the admissibility of the sexual experience of complainants in sexual cases in New Zealand has I think it is fair to say a mixed history. The traditional view was of course that the past sexual activity of complainants was relevant to the credibility of complainants even where there was no relevance to the alleged offending. Where consent was an issue in sexual cases—and it is so often the case in those sexual cases that consent is disputed—the defence would often argue that a complainant had consented because of past sexual encounters. There are some horror stories of the way in which complainants on the stand were put through the ringer by defence council about their sexual reputation or their past sexual encounters which is now ruled out completely. In some ways it was a form of propensity evidence.As the Law Commission notes the common law gave considerable latitude to the defence counsel and to the defence more generally in raising this as a form of defence and raising it in evidence. Parliament acted in 1977 by inserting section 23A of the Evidence Act 1908 into the Evidence Amendment Act of 1977 thus passing what is commonly referred to as rape shield legislation which was initially applied to rape only. Then in 1985 as part of the widespread reform of criminal justice statutes and evidence statutes it was brought into all cases of a sexual nature which I think is appropriate. That did place some limitations on what evidence could be applied to be admissible in those cases. The evidence could be admitted only if it was relevant and it could be admitted only if to exclude it would be contrary to the interests of justice. Section 44 of the current Evidence Act essentially replicates that provision.So what does this bill do? There is a plausible argument—one that I think some members have sympathy with; I certainly do—that sexual history between complainants and defendants should be absolutely prohibited. There is a plausible argument for that and the debates go back and forth on that. Actually it is true to say that New Zealand is one of the few jurisdictions to allow it. There is a plausible argument that it should be prohibited but I think that the balance of opinion—and I think that I subscribe to this view—is where the Law Commission came down which is that where there are cases involving a prior relationship those cases where consent is an issue will always turn on that belief in consent. So inevitably the prior relationship or the prior sexual relationship will be relevant to the question at issue in the case.So this bill does not prohibit sexual history evidence but what it does do is put in place some requirements that need to be fulfilled before an application can be made to offer that evidence in the case. So the bill says that no application may be made to offer evidence or ask any question about the sexual experience of a complainant unless the party proposing to offer the evidence has complied with requirements set out in the Act. The requirements are that they must provide every other party with a written notice stating the party’s intention to offer the evidence the name of the person who will give the evidence and the subject matter and the scope of the evidence. There is a series of other requirements that are laid out in the bill.This picks up on Elisabeth McDonald and Yvette Tinsley’s suggestion to the Law Commission review in 2011 which reported back in 2013. It actually replicates I think the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission. I understand that essentially what is being proposed in this bill has been in place in the state of Victoria in Australia since 2009. I for one am really looking forward to hearing from some submitters at the select committee about the experience of that in Victoria and how that has actually worked in practice. They have had 6 years of that to see how it goes. I am really looking forward to hearing whether or not it has worked in Victoria and whether or not it is something that we should be replicating in New Zealand through this bill.The relevant page from the Law Commission report is page 138 paragraph 7.33. In fact the whole of that section in the Law Commission report is worth a read. As my colleague David Clendon mentioned previously it is a very worthy report. It is a lengthy document and quite technical in its scope as I said at the start of my speech but it is actually really really important to the way in which criminal trials are conducted in this country. I support this bill. I certainly support it going to a select committee.The issue that I have canvassed in my speech today is one that Parliament has considered at various points. It is something that is contentious within the legal fraternity but it is something that Parliament has to grapple with again and I think the changes that are being promoted by the Government through this bill will be a useful change to the law of evidence to make sure that victims or alleged victims or complainants in sexual cases are treated with respect and treated with dignity because that is everyone’s right through the criminal justice system. With those remarks I commend this bill to the House.Mr SPEAKER: I understand this is a 5-minute split call.JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise to take a short call on this bill for the Green Party and we are supporting it. My colleague David Clendon spoke earlier more broadly about this bill but I would like to pay particular attention to the aspects of this bill that will impact on victims of sexual violence and on children. It is actually quite nice to follow on from my National Party colleague Chris Bishop and to mention and give respect to Elisabeth McDonald and Yvette Tinsley for their incredibly important work in this area as well as to all the other advocates in this country working in the community who have been working for decades to try to improve the absolutely appalling 1 percent conviction rate for perpetrators of sexual violence in this country. We do need to question whether it is in fact a justice system at all when gender-based crimes have such low conviction rates.Before I get into some of the details of this bill I do want to put it into a context of some action and inaction over time in relation to these legal and justice issues around sexual violence. We have had decades of challenge of being advocates and of legal academics drawing to our attention the need for substantive justice reform in this area. I think it came to most New Zealander’s attention how bad our system was when in 2006 we saw the acquittal of two former police officers and the then assistant commissioner of police who had been accused of the rape of Louise Nicholas in the 1980s. There was a very general and passionate response from most of this country in recognising the injustice of that decision and that that decision was an actual consequence of the way our legal system was set up where a woman who was incredibly brave to take a case to court was humiliated through the process and was not able to get justice.Out of that process the then Minister of Justice Mark Burton set up a task force for action—and I do emphasise that word “action”—on sexual violence which saw 2 years of ministries cross-ministries and advocates putting in thousands of hours probably of work to try to come up with solutions to be able to fix this terribly broken system. The then Minister of Justice in 2009 Simon Power described that work as the best road map that we had ever had for reducing sexual violence. Sadly we are still waiting to see the results of that.One of the key recommendations of that report was to refer options for fundamental change to the current justice system to the Law Commission. In 2011 I think the Law Commission was working on this and put out recommendations and ideas for consultation. It came back and the summary was produced in 2012. The then Minister of Justice Judith Collins took that work off the agenda of the Law Commission. So after decades of work of lost lives and of injustice that work was taken off the agenda. I do want to give credit to the new Minister of Justice Amy Adams for putting that work back on to the Law Commission’s agenda but I also want to register my absolute frustration that the time frame the Law Commission has been given of September this year means it has indicated that out of the 18 points for consideration in that consultation document it is probably going to be able to consider only two or three issues in substance.So that in actual fact is not a fundamental review of our justice system. It will be only a partial review and what this bill does is respond again to a partial part of the problem—one tiny aspect of a system that is so fundamentally broken we should all be in the streets complaining about it. When we have one in four women experiencing sexual violence in this country and a justice system that delivers justice in 1 percent of cases we have a bigger problem than this bill will solve.BRETT HUDSON (National):It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Evidence Amendment Bill in its first reading. I am sure we will be canvassing some points that other members have raised. The changes proposed in this bill are extremely important and very very welcome—very welcome it seems in this House and I am sure very welcome across New Zealand—particularly as they relate to matters around the means by which children provide evidence and the way to deal with issues of the admissibility and presentation of evidence in cases of sexual and violent crimes. Of course we can never legislate away the pain and suffering that is faced by victims but we can at the very least make very sound pragmatic efforts to help to make the process of the justice system and particularly the giving and hearing of evidence as easy as we possibly can for those victims.I would like to first touch upon the provisions around child witnesses giving evidence particularly giving evidence in alternative ways and also their right to have a support person present with them when they are giving that evidence. I think this is an extraordinarily important area of the changes that are proposed in this bill. Although I am a father I am very fortunate that I can say that none of my children have ever had to find themselves in a position to have to give evidence in court on any matter one of great seriousness and great trauma or otherwise. So I do not pretend to be able to say that I can fully appreciate what that must be like but I think it is well acknowledged across our society and it is a very strong feeling I do get as a parent that it must be an incredibly distressing exercise for children to go through and to be put through. It is a means that is necessary as part of ensuring that a defendant gets a fair hearing but it must be very very difficult for a child in this situation when they are there to give evidence.So what this bill will do is it will allow a presumption that child witnesses can use alternative ways to give evidence such as pre-recording of evidence-in-chief or delivering evidence via closed-circuit television hook-ups or behind screens. Although it is fair and important to note that at the moment it is possible for child witnesses to give evidence through alternative ways it is possible today only if an application is made. I think that is quite concerning actually if we reflect on that for a moment. What it does permit at the moment is for a defendant’s legal team to actually present an argument to try to prevent the child or children in question giving evidence in a way that will be easier and more comfortable or less distressing for them. Ultimately I think we probably all have confidence in the courts that the courts will make the right decision in the case of those applications. It certainly compounds more and more stress and worry for those child witnesses to have to go through that process before ultimately the court will make the right decision and allow them to deliver their evidence through the most appropriate means.By taking away that need to apply and operating on the presumption that the child can deliver their evidence through an alternative means we are helping I think to ensure that what will still be a very difficult time for that witness will be that much easier for them. This is a very important consideration for all members of this House and certainly is in line with this Government’s objectives and actions where we are very much about putting the victim at the heart of our justice system and making sure that their needs and considerations are dealt with also.I would also like to touch upon the restrictions on video-record evidence. What this bill will do is it will restrict defence access to police videos of witness evidence in sexual and in violent cases and in fact of a child’s evidence or a complainant’s evidence in all cases. The fundamental reason for this is we want to help to ensure that the risk that the video records will be misplaced or misused will be minimised and that is I think a very laudable basis for this. I would just like to make the point that this will not restrict the defence’s access to the evidence. It may mean that the evidence will have to be viewed on police premises or that they will have to apply to the court for a copy of those types of records but it will not prevent the defence from gaining access to them and it will not prevent the defendant’s right to the information and access to the evidence to help them go about their case. I think it is another element that this bill introduces that will help to remove barriers perhaps to complainants bringing forward their case and will help to reduce the risk that the evidence they give may be misused or misplaced.Moving on from that I would also like to touch upon—and my colleague Mr Bishop I think talked a great deal about this in his fine contribution to this debate—the notice about requirements for evidence of previous sexual history. The requirement that the defence will have to give notice before the start of a trial if they intend to use the evidence about a victim’s sexual history with someone other than the defendant is I think very very important. Like the rest of society we do peruse a lot of the media available and we all hear I think cases where a complainant’s past activities are brought to bear by the defence in a way that is intended to place a certain colour on their character that may or may not bring a jury to view other evidence in another light. I think it is very important—not necessarily that we have a situation where such evidence is inadmissible but that the complainant can know in advance that they are going to be questioned on certain matters or that certain matters may be brought to light and that they can also prepare adequately to deal with those.One thing that springs to mind actually—I would suggest it is possibly not a complete match to the sort of example I just used—is that we do know that in the defence of Clayton Weatherston who was ultimately found guilty of the murder of Sophie Elliot his defence team absolutely did use the victim’s in that case the murder victim’s past behaviours. In fact I think what they held were some fairly recent behaviours that they used to cast a light on her character in perhaps an attempt to mitigate the actions of Mr Weatherston. I recall that the public reaction to that—certainly the media reaction—was a strong sense that it was a reprehensible sort of an approach to take in that case. So I think the measures that we are looking to put in place through this bill will give the complainants and their team a fairer playing field in that instance to actually address the sorts of issues that the defence might bring up and it will in fact allow tests of admissibility earlier rather than in the middle of proceedings. I think that is another piece that the bill will bring about that is very very good to see.Another element I will touch upon is around privilege for plea discussions. At the moment it does seem that perhaps there is some concern that there may not be clear privilege in respect of communication on plea discussions. There is this view and certainly the Law Commission held a view and recommended reform in the area to ensure that the defence and police can go through full and frank plea discussions in a means that may help to encourage early disposal of cases. That will also have an impact a positive impact on perhaps removing witnesses from a need to testify and therefore reducing the stress that may be placed upon them. So I think this is an extremely sound very welcome bill to be introduced to the House and I commend it to the House.Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be—Paul Foster-Bell: Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Paul Foster-Bell.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):I am sorry Mr Speaker; I was a little bit slow off the mark there. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call in this first reading debate of the Evidence Amendment Bill a very important piece of legislation being introduced in the name of the Hon Amy Adams our assiduous and hard-working Minister of Justice in this National-led Government. Evidence in our legal system is incredibly important and it is a matter that this House does take—and I am sure all members are of this view—with the utmost seriousness given its important part in ensuring we have a fair and reasonable system for justice in this country.I was fortunate enough 2 weeks ago to be in Runnymede in Surrey for the 800th anniversary of the sealing by King John—and it is a myth that King John signed the Magna Carta; he did seal it. Over that 800-year period since that momentous event our legal system has developed many protections checks balances institutions and traditions that provide for fairness. One of the very first times that it was actually put down in writing and became the law of the land that people were to be judged by their own peers was contained in the Magna Carta. Thinking of that I think that the way in which people are judged by their peers by juries comes down to how the evidence is admitted and the veracity of the evidence but also how fairly that evidence has been obtained and these reforms contained in this bill do make a significant contribution to modernising the way in which evidence is treated in our legal system to ensure that fairness.Just to go back to a general background the New Zealand courts do follow the common law adversarial traditions in litigation although there are exceptions including the mediation process in the Family Court under the Family Proceedings Act 1980. The evidence that is required to establish either a civil claim or to prove a criminal charge is presented to the court by the parties and this usually done through the calling of witnesses and the questioning of either the party’s own witnesses or the questioning—the cross-examination—of witnesses on the other side of the case. The very serious criminal charges tend to be tried by a judge sitting with a jury as are a very small number of civil cases. Other cases generally the more minor ones whether civil or criminal are tried by a judge sitting alone and the judge’s function in that particular regard is to preside over the hearing to decide on the case according to the evidence and to rule as to the admissibility of that evidence. In a trial with a jury however it is the jury’s function to determine the facts and to give the verdict and the judge’s task is to direct them about the application of the law to rule on the admissibility of the evidence and to assist them with the summing up of the respective cases at the end of the trial.In neither civil nor criminal trials may the judge or jury go beyond the evidence placed before them or accepted by the parties or embark on an independent inquiry of the facts. This is a very important point and it has been accepted. It was established most recently I think in the case of Jayasena v The Queen a 1970 case which referred to section 3 of the Ceylon Evidence Ordinance and which stated—and I do think this is relevant in this case—as follows: “A fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists.”So having established this background as to the nature of the law of evidence and where it comes from I think the technical changes proposed by the Minister’s bill the Evidence Amendment Bill make very good sense in modernising what has become a system that exists now in a very different world to that in which that 1970 case was heard and certainly a massively different world to the one in which Magna Carta was sealed 800 years ago. So the purpose of this bill is to better protect vulnerable witnesses and to ensure that evidence is handled appropriately and securely and sensitively in the complex and technologically sophisticated world in which we live today.No Government can ever legislate away the pain and suffering faced by the victims of crime but this is a bill that will allow the more vulnerable victims and witnesses to be better supported through the judicial process. It is part of a wider set of outcomes that this Government is hoping to achieve that put victims at the heart of the justice system through some of the new legislation that this Government has stewarded through the House. The main provisions of this bill improve the court processes for vulnerable witnesses. We have actually brought in a presumption that child witnesses will be able to give evidence in alternative ways and will have the right to a support person. I think this is incredibly important for our smallest and most vulnerable citizens who have been the tragic victims of some of the worst offending you can imagine. It does strike me as odd that a judge would have to give permission that a child would be allowed to have a support person during the time in which they were giving their evidence to the court. It is also out of step I think with the world in which we live today—that those alternative ways of giving evidence were not automatically available to children.This bill replacing that former state of affairs in which the judge had the call introduces a presumption that all child witnesses will have access to those alternative ways of giving evidence—for example via the video recordings of a police interview or via closed-circuit television which is recorded from behind witness screens in the court. In adding the right to have a support person we do genuinely believe that this will reduce the stress on those children who are giving evidence who may be the victims of some of that appalling offending. We also think that this will help give more reliable and accurate evidence during the judicial process.There are some restrictions we are introducing to take into account the changing world in which we live including restricting defence counsel’s access to the police videos of witness evidence in sexual and violent cases and all child complainants’ evidence. The idea behind this is to reduce the risk of those video records being misused or misplaced. It is around the security and one can only imagine how upsetting it would be for a young victim and their family to find that a video recording of their evidence had been accidentally left on a device—for instance a laptop or a recording device—that was disposed of by the court and somehow ended up in the wrong hands. But even worse if there was a malicious case—and I think my respected colleague Brett Hudson the list member based in Ōhāriu referred to the horrific case of Clayton Weatherston where a vindictive defendant actually used evidence that was provided in a cruel attempt to harass the family. I think in those particular circumstances it is appropriate that the actual recordings are not left in the wrong hands. There is an offence that we will be introducing in relation to the unauthorised possession use and distribution of video-recorded evidence in court.We are changing the notice requirements for evidence of previous sexual history and I think this is only fair that when we are talking about bringing in someone’s sexual history with another person other than the defendant advance notice is given. This is a change that was recommended by the Law Commission and I do believe it is uncontroversial in this House. It is very sensible and should be I think moved through. In terms of privilege we are changing the privilege rules around plea discussions. We believe that extending privilege to plea discussions—this is the sort of privilege that already applies to settlement negotiations and mediation in civil proceedings. We think it will enable a full and free plea discussion and encourage the earlier disposal of the case. This is a very good bill and for that reason I commend it to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.