O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I first of all want to make some comments about the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and then finish with some comments about clause 33A. First I turn to SOP 188 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams. New Zealand First will support this SOP. It does a couple of very simple things: firstly to replace the word notice" with "application" in clause 16 and then another simple thing to extend from 1 to 2 years the period for periodic review of the Act. We have no problem with any of that. The second of the three amendments that it makes which is that a previous consistent statement of a witness will be admissible in evidence rather than the witness being able to refer to it only to refresh his or her memory I think is perfectly fine by us and we are happy to support that SOP. The more substantial one I wanted to make comments on was SOP 195 in the name of Jan Logie and I thought she mounted a very logical and compelling argument in favour of the thrust of that SOP which would extend the use of the alternative ways to give evidence beyond the current limitation age of 18 years so that all complainants of family and sexual violence could make use of that. We think that is actually a very good thing to do and the main reason is that people who give evidence in those sorts of cases have often had traumatic experiences and it is good for them for those reasons to be able to give evidence in those alternative ways like video for example. In other words it is the same rationale for young people who find giving evidence very difficult. For these people in those circumstances it is just as difficult for them so why not extend that to people in those situations? For that reason New Zealand First will support that SOP. However we are not going to support Jan Logie's SOP 194—well one out of two is not too bad Jan. Anyway the reason for that is that we do not think that inserting the term "intimidating" after "misleading" in section 85(1) of the principal Act is a good idea. The reason simply is that I do not think the word "intimidating" is well enough understood or is certain enough to be used in that context. So we would prefer that the word not be there and we will therefore not support that SOP. The only other thing I need to talk about is something that I think deserves a comment and that relates to new clause 33A which inserts new sections 119A and 119B into the principal Act. The reason I mention that is that the Justice and Electoral Committee heard a submission on access to video evidence which I thought was quite compelling that demonstrated what can happen to a person if we do not get the law right in these sorts of respects. I refer in particular to access to video records of evidence outside criminal or Family Court cases because some tribunals and similar statutory bodies have powers quite outside this legislation to call for and consider video evidence but they are not subject to the regime that is actually prescribed in regulations under the principal Act. Injustices can flow from that and there was an injustice to the person who made this particular submission. Under new clause 33A the requirement that the police would be prohibited from releasing a video record of evidence to parties to proceedings outside criminal or family courts unless the relevant body orders it is we think most appropriate. It would deal with the situation raised by the submitter and would operate to avoid the sorts of injustices that we heard had occurred to that particular person. It is a very serious issue because that person had suffered serious damage to his reputation and his ability to gain employment so it is not as though it is a minor matter. It is a very serious matter and I want to commend the select committee for listening to him understanding and doing something about that issue. We very much support it."