Bishop Chris: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBishop Chris: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 09 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11877. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS BISHOP (National): This is a very important piece of legislation and people listening on the radio or watching on Parliament TV this afternoon may not appreciate the significance of the codification of the Evidence Act in 2006. It drew together the various strands from the common law and common law rules and various other parts of statutes and codified the law relating to evidence. Evidence law is actually of paramount importance in our justice system and to the rule of law because it governs the way in which things can be put before the courts in trials. It is of huge significance.The Evidence Act in 2006 was a big step forward because as I say it did codify that and it allowed people to go to a particular Act on the statute book and identify all of the various rules and all of the various things that they had to do in trials. Of course one might well make the criticism that it is all very well to say you can go to a particular Act but of course the terms of art that are within that Act are based on the common law. But notwithstanding that it was definitely a big step forward. In fact I was at law school in 2006 when this was going through and we actually had to learn two pieces of law—we had to learn the former law and then we had to learn the codified law so it did create a few issues. But I think it was a big step forward.One of the far-sighted things I think that Parliament did in 2016 was to put in place an automatic review mechanism so that the Law Commission would do a review of the Act in 2011. Of course the Law Commission is a very appropriate body to do such a review. For something that is so technical but so important you want the experts in the field which of course is the Law Commission—orat least it has access to the experts and the time and resources to consider something intensively and in a proper and appropriate fashion. It did the review in 2011 then in 2013 we had its report and then Parliament acted last year—well the Government acted and put this bill before Parliament. I think the way in which the Government and Parliament have gone about reforming the law in this is sort of like a case study I guess you could say for the way in which proper deliberative and consultative law reform should be done. That is highly appropriate given the particular area of law that we are talking about.This is a reasonably technical bill. It is something that is very targeted at the minor but important changes that came out of the Law Commission’s review and it is really great that we have I think unanimous support in the Parliament for passing this bill. With something so important you do want to have I think a degree of consensus in the Parliament.I just want to briefly mention the area of the admissibility of sexual experience of complainants before the court. This is something that the New Zealand common law and in fact the New Zealand legal system as is the case in other countries has struggled with for many years and we continue to struggle with it. Some members will of course have seen the Stanford rape case that is currently going on in the United States and the national conversation that is going on in the United States about rape culture the way in which the legal system over there has dealt with the victim and also the way in which the system has dealt with the offender in that case. The letter that the victim in that case read before the court as a sort of victim impact statement is the most harrowing 7500 words you will ever want to read and quite a shocking and searing experience. The way in which the legal system deals with rape in particular and sexual violence and assault needs to be improved and I think everyone acknowledges that. This bill goes some way towards doing that.There is an argument—I think an argument that people make in good faith and in good conscience—that the sexual history or experience of victims should not be admissible at all and that there should just be a blanket prohibition on that. Some people make that argument and I acknowledge that argument. The position that the New Zealand law has got to is that it is admissible only when relevant and only if to exclude it would be contrary to the interests of justice. That is the position that the New Zealand law has got to. But what this bill does is introduce not so much a safeguard as an improvement on the status quo by adding a requirement that the defence gives notice before they start a trial as to whether they intend to use evidence about a victim’s sexual history with someone other than the defendant.This was a change recommended by the Law Commission. It came out of very important work that Yvette Tinsley and Associate Professor Elisabeth McDonald from Victoria University of Wellington’s law school have done and I think it is replicated in the legal system in the state of Victoria in Australia. What that will mean is that the admissibility of that evidence will be determined pre-trial. At the moment the status quo is that it can be introduced at any time or at least permission can be sought from the judge at any time. That can be distressing for victims and can lead to some uncertainty. So at least everyone is going to be on the same page and the trial will commence with everyone knowing whether or not that evidence will be used or at least put before the court.I think that is a step forward and I think there is a wider debate that we need to have as a society and as Parliament about the way in which we deal with these issues. The Government is doing important work in a number of different respects to do with family and sexual violence and sexual violence more generally but I think that it is an ongoing conversation that we need to have. With those brief remarks I commend this bill to the House.