Wall Louisa: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWall Louisa: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 09 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11880. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my actual pleasure to speak on the Evidence Amendment Bill in this the second reading. Labour does support this bill. I am now a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee however I was not for the hearing of evidence related to this piece of legislation.I guess historically it is good to note that the Law Commission had been monitoring this Evidence Act since it came into force in 2006. In 2007 the Law Commission was asked to review the law relating to the disclosure to criminal courts of evidence of defendants’ previous convictions. That was actually inspired by the acquittal of two former police officers on trial for sexual offending. So for the House and people listening I note that that was actually part of the motivation for the review that the Law Commission then did. It is interesting to note also that the judiciary had its own Evidence Act committee that was monitoring its implementation. In April 2012 the Law Commission invited comment and feedback on the operation of the Act from the public and at that time a group was established an advisory group that had as members Ministry of Justice Crown Law the Public Defence Service the New Zealand Law Society and some academics.The purpose of this piece of legislation is as follows: admitting previous consistent statements privilege for plea discussions minor and technical amendments and restrictions on video record evidence. I really want to focus my contribution this afternoon on three particular areas: the notice requirements for evidence of sexual history; the presumption that child witnesses give evidence in alternative ways—part of that incorporates that victims should never be the ones on trial; and also the ability now for a support person or more than one support person to support child witnesses when they give evidence.To the bill itself—if we focus on clause 16 which will insert new section 44A to provide for a process for giving notice where a party proposes to offer evidence or question a witness about the sexual experience of the complainant with the person other than the defendant. The interesting thing to note is that the intention of the bill is to encourage admissibility decisions before trial. There was a submission from the judges of the district courts that actually has led to a stipulation about specified time frames which was a highlight in their submission so now there is a time frame. New section 44A(5) inserted by clause 16 provides that application must be made when a case management memorandum or a trial callover memorandum is filed under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 subject to the judge’s discretion. I want to highlight that the select committee did do a great job and it responded directly to the submission of the judges of the district courts.The other clause in the bill that I would like to highlight is clause 25 which will amend section 79 of the principal Act providing a support person to a child witness.Now there is a presumption that child witnesses will have somebody who will support them through that process. There is also scope for more than one person to support children giving evidence. There was also a subsection replaced—that was a suggestion of the Law Commission and I want to highlight that—section 79(3) which reads: “the Judge may in the interests of justice direct that support may not be given to a complainant or a child witness or other witnesses by (a) any person; or (b) a particular person.” The Law Commission highlighted that there should still be scope in the process to ensure that there are not adverse influences on any witnesses. So I want to commend the select committee for responding to that particular submission.In terms of my substantive contribution I really want to focus on clause 32 which replaces section 107 of the principal Act. This is about alternative ways of giving evidence by child witnesses in criminal proceedings. What I was actually horrified to read was that there are 750 child witnesses every year and that most of the complainants have faced sexual abuse. The intention of this piece of the legislation is that children do not have to be in courts with their abusers.It was interesting to find out that a piece of research was undertaken in 2010 and it was titled “Child witnesses in the New Zealand criminal courts: a review of practice and implications for policy”. That was conducted by the Institute of Public Policy at Auckland University of Technology and it was by Hanna Davies Henderson Crothers and Rotherham. It was funded by the Law Foundation of New Zealand with support from the Ministry of Social Development the Ministry of Justice and the New Zealand Police. What the research essentially emphasised was that what sits behind our justice system and our court system is that everyone has the right to a fair trial and that the most accurate and complete testimony from witnesses is paramount. Also there is a question of justice within our court system. What it noted was that from the 1960s New Zealand’s treatment of child witnesses had been questioned. So that was the motivation behind this piece of research.But what I found really interesting is that in terms of the ability now for video evidence what the research found was that during the 1990s child witnesses were waiting up to 260 days before they were able to present evidence in court. At the time of writing this report—and I guess it would have been in 2009-10—children were waiting up to 477 days. So the ability for some sort of contamination of the evidence—because they did a whole lot of other studies showing that children’s memories do become compromised because of the delays. What this section 107 in the legislation allows is for the forensic interviews of those children to be played in court and that they are considered as evidence-in-chief. Actually for me that is one of the most significant changes in this piece of legislation because what I found horrific as I said was that 750 children who had been sexually abused had to give evidence in court with their abuser there and that is now going to be rectified.I would also like to highlight just a couple of other things. In January 2016 the Law Commission acknowledged that sexual violence was significantly under-reported in New Zealand; many victims fear how they will be treated in court. So what we are talking about is incredibly relevant and I want to tautoko my colleague Jan Logie’s earlier contribution. Actually I will be looking at those Supplementary Order Papers. This is what the president of the Law Commission said: “A high percentage of victims of sexual violence are ‘opting out’ of the very system that is designed to deliver them justice.”; and: “They are doing so largely because they perceive the formal criminal justice system to be alienating traumatising and unresponsive to their legitimate concerns.” What I have found frightening is that in 2014-15 only 19.2 percent of assaults actually got to court but in 2015-16 that had decreased to 16.2 percent. So we actually do have a problem about the victims of sexual assault coming forward and wanting to give testimony in court.The other point that I want to highlight—and this is actually a bit of a wero to our Minister because I think she is doing a fantastic job—is that in December 2015 there was a recommendation by the Law Commission that a specialised sexual violence court be created. I think a natural progression of this whole area this kaupapa is the establishment of that specialised sexual violence court. So I want her to know I want the people of Aotearoa to know that this issue is a priority and that we will all work on it constructively. Kia ora.Bill read a second time.