Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): At this stage of the debate I would like to speak to all three of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are on the table and specifically to speak to Minister Amy Adams' SOP 188 first and to reference the Minister's comments in reference to my SOPs earlier in the evening. The Green Party will be voting against the Minister's SOP because it seeks to extend the periodic review of the operation of the Evidence Act 2006. This Act is incredibly important for justice for victims of sexual violence and domestic violence. In this country we have had many many pieces of work telling us what we need to do to reform our justice system. We know that there is about a 1 percent conviction rate for sexual violence in this country and about 2 percent for domestic violence. A significant part of the reason that the conviction rate is so low is our justice system and our courts and how they are operating. We have got a body of academic work where there have been interviews with lawyers and judges and lawyers and judges have said that if a family member of theirs was raped they would not advise them to go to the police and take a case to court because they would not want to see their loved one re-traumatised through the court process. We have had many recommendations telling us what we should do to fix the system to stop that reality to enable victims of sexual violence to achieve justice and as a consequence of that for us all to be safer as a society when people are held properly to account. Yet we have not managed to get those changes through our system. Initiated in 2009 we had the Law Commission work on alternative trials and pre-trial processes. It was taken off the table by the last parliamentary term's justice Minister Judith Collins and put back on by the current Minister of Justice Amy Adams but the problem was that she gave the Law Commission a very short time frame for considering the work which reduced the scope of what it was able to consider in that review. That review was reported back in December last year and one of its recommendations was that there needed to be further consideration given to reviewing the substantive rules of evidence—the exact content of this piece of legislation in front of us at the moment—and it suggested that it could take place at the same time as the next review of the Evidence Act 2006 which is now being extended by this SOP put forward by the Government. So we have had case after case going through our courts that have just broken the hearts of women and men around the country who have looked on and said: That is unfair. That is wrong—that somebody should be subjected to that experience in the process of trying to get justice." We have had a massive piece of academic work called From "Real Rape" to Real Justice: Prosecuting Rape in New Zealand by Elisabeth McDonald and Yvette Tinsley from Victoria University which has told us what we need to be considering. Only some of that work went into the Law Commission's review; some of it was put aside. Then that work got shrunk down and then one of their conclusions was "Well we need to be looking at the Evidence Act." and now the time frame for that has been put out again. It is actually completely unacceptable. We heard from the Minister earlier this evening that the Government cannot support the SOPs that I have put forward because: "Well the Government's looking at these issues in a considered way and they are very complex issues." This has been going on since before 2009 when the solutions and the issues were put on the table—since 2009. This is 7 years of victims of sexual violence in this country waiting for us to do our job to give them a system that has a hope of giving them some dignity in the process of trying to achieve justice. It is not acceptable that this House would extend that process any further. We have the chance to actually prioritise this. I will just calm myself at this moment and try to bring it back to the SOPs that we have put forward which are tiny—tiny—tinkerings with the system but they are systems and things that we could do in the form of an amendment to this Act that could make a small change. One of those things which was recommended by Elisabeth McDonald in her submission was to be able to allow the alternative ways of giving evidence which have been created in this legislation for children and to make that the presumption for victims of sexual violence and domestic violence. In her response to this the Minister noted that although the Government supports the intent of my SOPs this was an incredibly complex area and there are different vulnerabilities for adults and they need different solutions. Well I would like to point out to the Minister that the latest report from the Law Commission which came forward in December said that less traumatic methods of giving evidence at trial should be made available to complainants of sexual violence. That is what my SOP does. I will also note that the Minister also said that providing evidence by closed-circuit television will not solve it all—no it will not. I really really wish the Justice and Electoral Committee could have been given a bill that would have enabled it to consider all the issues to make a real difference but this is one thing that could. The ongoing research noted by Elisabeth McDonald still indicates that there is an inconsistent approach to the issue of support and advice to adult complainants in sexual cases and a presumption would address this issue: "There is no evidence to suggest this has changed as a matter of practice … nor has there been any responsive amendment to the Victims of Crimes Guidance to Prosecutors … [the] adult complainants who have made allegations of childhood sexual abuse may also be"—and this has been recognised by our courts—"extremely vulnerable and require assistance to give evidence …". Yet the select committee chose not to recommend those changes to this House. My SOP rectifies that oversight and gives this House the opportunity tonight to ensure that sexual violence victims have that presumption to give evidence in alternative ways. It does not lock them into to it. They can still opt out of it and provide evidence in other ways. This has been recommended by the Law Commission. The need for it is supported by long-standing research and this House should do that. Victims of sexual violence in this country deserve us to give that to them. The other recommendation that I make in the SOP is again incredibly minor. It is to ensure or to provide—excuse me just while I find my piece of paper—that we "add the word 'intimidating' to the list of unacceptable questions that a Judge may disallow or direct that a witness is not obliged to answer." The point of this is that although judges do currently have discretion—and that has been the argument against putting this in—the advice and the suggestion from Elisabeth McDonald for including it in the list is more about the signal that it will send to victims. Victims will know that intimidating evidence is not considered to be appropriate in our courts. That may actually help build that confidence in our court systems to help victims of sexual violence to come forward and use the system in the hope of getting justice. We know we cannot assure them of that at the moment. We know that actually when we have seen a very recent case where I would say some evidence that was allowed in lines of questioning was completely unacceptable I think there needs to be clearer direction for the court and also a clearer message of what victims can expect. On that note I will be interested in hearing responses."