Clendon DavidDAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a short call on this third reading of the Evidence Amendment Bill. It is a special pleasure because it is not often that we can actually wholeheartedly support a Government justice bill. All too often its amendments or its new bills are locked in an unfortunate and very dated punitive 18th or 19th century model. Gladly this bill is not one of those and we have been pleased to support it throughout its journey through this House. The bill does some useful and positive things. I guess our only objection or our only criticism of this bill particularly on its way through the Committee stage was that it could have actually done more. There were a few provisions we would have liked to see included in it and we had Supplementary Order Papers to that effect but so be it. The bill as it is does some useful positive things and we are happy to support it.Not to restate what has already been said—but of course the bill does among other things protect video records when any sort of digital recording is made of witnesses or of evidence or whatever it might be. There are some fairly rigorous boundaries—some safeguards—put around the integrity of that information and that is critically important of course in this digital age when information if in the wrong hands can be literally worldwide in a moment. I think it is critically important for the integrity of the system that when people are giving recorded video evidence they are reassured that it will be used for only the very specific purpose for which it is made and it is not at any point vulnerable to being misused or abused in any instance. Jacinda Ardern also touched on the quite significant provision in the bill that effectively protects complainants—most often women complainants—from having their sexual history paraded in front a courtroom in front of the public domain simply because some particular aggressive defence counsel might see a little bit of way in there to discredit a complainant to make it appear as though that woman typically actually has some weak moral code or some bad practice or some bad history in sexual matters. No doubt there is the odd rock star or two or the odd exhibitionist who is quite happy to have the intimate details of their sex life paraded to the world but for the average person particularly a complainant in a legal case that would be most unpleasant and extremely damaging and traumatising for an individual. It does not entirely stop such information or such evidence being given but a judge in this instance would need to be very well convinced in advance that there was legitimate reason for that person's sexual history to be given as part of the evidence or part of the court case. So that is a very positive and useful provision in the bill. As we have heard the bill also introduces a presumption that all witnesses under the age of 18 will use some so-called alternative method of giving their evidence and that is a very good thing—alternative methods meaning obviously that their identity can be protected or that they are taken out of that quite daunting and even intimidating sort of courtroom environment. They can pre-record their evidence or they can sit behind screens—whatever the most appropriate mechanism might be to ensure the privacy and well-being of that person under the age of 18. On that point I would hope that the Government and particularly Ministers and the Cabinet would give some thought to the provision we have now embedded in this Evidence Amendment Bill when they are making decisions about whether or not all children up to the age of 18 should be included in the youth justice system. At the moment we have this unfortunate system where in most situations 17-year-olds are treated as adults. There is no defensible reason why we should maintain that unfortunate situation. It is at odds with our international commitments to the UN convention. Members will be aware that recently 33 organisations wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet encouraging them to include 17-year-olds—anybody under the age of 18—to be dealt with in the youth justice system as this bill encourages us to do. The 33 organisations that signed that open letter included Unicef YouthLaw Barnados PILLARS the YMCA and Prison Fellowship. These are not radical mad-eyed organisations; these are very conservative organisations with a long history and a lot of credibility that genuinely believe that we should not treat 17-year-olds as adults for the purposes of the justice system. We absolutely endorse that. Having managed to smuggle that point into my speech I will quit while I am ahead and simply reflect on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I sat on the committee for most of this bill. It was a good process. It was very positive. Points were debated discussed and on occasion argued. We got good outcomes and I think we can stand proudly by what I think is a very good piece of legislation. Thank you.