Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): In rising to speak on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill I want to begin by acknowledging victims and survivors of sexual violence. Unfortunately there are far too many of us. In New Zealand we have very high rates of sexual violence victimisation. This affects all people in society but in particular it does affect women. Speaking as a woman I know that I have friends I have family members and I have my own experiences of sexual violence and I know this makes me just like everybody else and that should not be the case. So I stand to say that yes as a Parliament we should do everything we can to reduce these appalling rates of sexual violence to reduce the shame and traumatisation that comes with these incidents to ensure that those who perpetrate sexual violence are brought to justice and to ensure that where people are victims of sexual violence they face a legitimate and sure way to get justice. We know in this House that right now that too often isn't the case. We know that most people who survive sexual violence will never tell a court. In fact many will never tell the police. Many won't even tell their best friends their partners or their family members. So if we are to bring perpetrators of this criminality to account we need to do everything we can that is reasonable to remove the barriers to justice. So that is why National in Government made many steps in this area. Sexual violence was an area that in particular I want to acknowledge the work of my former colleague Amy Adams who as the Minister in this area progressed a number of sensible initiatives to improve front-line crisis response for victims to improve harmful sexual behaviour services and to provide more help to victims. This is the record that National brings to this House. We also bring an openness to this bill and what it is trying to achieve because we agree that too often the court process is traumatising. We know that for every 100 sexual violence incidents that go to the police only 31 end up in court only 11 end in conviction and only six end in imprisonment. We don't like those numbers because we believe perpetrators of crime should face full justice and we know that the court process can be incredibly traumatising. So I do want to in this speech highlight the aspects of this bill that I stand strongly in support of and that mean we will be supporting it to the committee of the whole House because we do believe that there is enough in this bill to justify strong support for it. They are in particular requiring judges to intervene in inappropriate questioning of witnesses because we know that where that is happening it is a revictimisation that is not necessary to further the course of justice; it is simply a way of humiliating witnesses and we believe that that is wrong. We think it is right to include a witness's vulnerability as one of the factors a judge may consider in determining whether that questioning is unacceptable. We think that's right and a proper discretion for judges to have. We also think it is correct to entitle sexual violence complainants and witnesses to give their evidence in alternative ways. Where we can still have a fair trial we should make it easier to shield witnesses from some of the stress of appearing in the witness box. We commend the measures in this bill to require judges to direct the jury on any myth or misconception relating to sexual violence that they consider relevant to the case because no one is asking for it—no one. Any implication that they are is just wrong and a judge should say it. We support measures to allow the court to be cleared of the public when a sexual violence victim impact statement is presented. We think that enhances the dignity of the victim and we think it is right to further clarify that victim impact statements may be presented to the court in alternative ways. So make no mistake here on this side of the House we support the rights of the victims of sexual violence and we support reducing the trauma of the court process for those victims. When we deal with issues in Parliament it's not always as easy as saying what we intend to do. We need to look at the detail and the implications and the other effects of the decisions we make here and we accept that the Minister and his colleagues have presented a bill in very good intention to make progress on these matters we all agree are important. But we are concerned that in doing so and in seeking to increase the rights of victims here there are two other critically important principles that are being put at risk by just two measures in this bill. Those principles—I just want to remind the members of this House how important they are to all of us. They are the right to a fair trial and the right to natural justice. Just as I spoke passionately of my defence of women and victims of sexual violence and of those who have survived I am also my brother's keeper and I am also someone who wishes that anyone accused of a crime may have the right to mount a sure defence. So it is for that reason that National will be putting forward two sincere Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) which we believe will better strike the balance required here of ensuring a right to a fair trial. The two areas in which we wish to do that my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges has outlined well and in some detail and I want to quickly go over them here. The first is around pre-recorded cross-examination. The bill as introduced would make that an option in all sexual violence cases. Now the Justice Committee who heard submissions on this aspect of the bill—and I want to commend both the members of that committee and those who submitted to it—heard that the reason that you should keep that pre-recording of cross-examination rare and exceptional rather than every time is that it has the significant potential to deny a defendant their right to a fair trial as protected in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is because recording affords no opportunity for the defendant to question a witness based on the evidence that comes to light in the course of the trial. Not only that but in practical terms submitters highlighted that pre-recording is inconsistent with the right of a person to be present at the trial and to present a defence. Finally as my colleague Mr Bridges outlined we did hear that there is considerable potential for an adverse and unintended consequence of this given that the existing right of recall under section 99 of the Evidence Act will remain on the statute book. So it could be that victims of sexual violence—given this right of pre-recording—find themselves hauled back into court anyway. So it doesn't serve its intended purpose while also putting the right to a fair trial at risk. It remains possible that a witness will have to be cross-examined again later at the trial and it will also work against the stated aim to reduce the extent to which that complainant is re-traumatised. So we have concerns about this measure and we submit to the House that you examine our SOPs here carefully. Second we have concerns around the admissibility of evidence in relation to a defendant's sexual history with their witness. It is the case at the moment that a judge has discretion as to when this sort of evidence is admitted. The Evidence Act already states that no evidence or questions can be put to a witness relating to sexual experience with any person other than the defendant and the bill changes that so that unless a judge gives permission no evidence can be given and no question put to a witness that relates to sexual experience with the complainant and we think that this potentially could again diminish people's rights to a fair trial. So National cares strongly about the rights of victims of sexual violence. We also stand in this House to defend the right of every New Zealander to a fair trial and to natural justice and we submit to members opposite to hear our call on these SOPs.