Collins Judith: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20425] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Evidence Bill. I am concerned that we have not yet heard from Mr Fairbrother who was previously a criminal lawyer. He had a lot of experience in criminal law and he acted for all sorts of people. It is important when we are dealing with an issue like evidence that Labour put up speakers who might know something rather than speakers who contribute the nonsense we have just heard. 
Tonight I will speak about something quite wide ranging. One of the areas I want to deal with relates to the law of hearsay. There are several reasons why the Law Commission might have taken a decade of taxpayer funds to sit around talking about the law of evidence. One of the reasons might be that it is a very difficult matter and maybe it wanted to get it right. I would like to think that is one of the reasons it took so long. We do not go into the area of evidence and look at a mass of changes in it without some fear and trepidation. 
The National Party does not subscribe to the concepts of Mr Murray Smith from United Future. I am sure he would rather we had trial by ordeal than trial by jury. If we ever needed to have evidence as to what trial by ordeal might be like then my goodness he gave it to us tonight. Has anyone heard anything like his contribution? It was one of the most out-of-this-world 17th-century contributions on the law of evidence one could ever hear. Evidence is very very important. That is why this bill will go to the Justice and Electoral Committee and that is why I hope the Law Commission took a decade to review the area. However that does not explain why the Minister of Justice has sat on this matter for the last 5 years. I can only think that it was not nearly as important as the Civil Union Bill or the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which stated that marriage civil union and de facto are all the same and which a lot of United Future members supported. 
Murray Smith 
: I didn’t support it. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: If the member does not know it his leader supported it. 
One of the areas of evidence relating to the Family Court and the Employment Court does not seem to be covered in this bill as far as I can see. I have thought for a long time that some of the evidence that goes into those courts is a load of garbage. I have seen affidavits put in that are absolute twaddle—a technical term—and nonsense and I am appalled that some lawyers could take affidavits with that rubbish in them. I have had people to come to me on behalf of other lawyers bearing affidavits that stated they were frightened of their husbands. When I ask why they were frightened they reply that they were told to say that at Women’s Refuge. That is the sort of thing that passes for evidence in the Family Court today and that is wrong. In this country people’s situations can be unfairly prejudiced because of what we would call false “evidence”. 
Again in the Employment Relations Authority an awful lot of garbage is put in as evidence. I know that the Minister Rick Barker as a former trade unionist might hate to hear it but the sort of rubbish that passes for evidence in the employment area can be for example: “So and so said such and such to so and so and then they told me …”—and that is supposed to be evidence. In situations like that with that sort of nonsense it is very difficult for employers or employees to defend themselves—which is something that people like Peter Doone and his wife are having to think about today as they have been so badly libelled in Parliament. 
In relation to the burka I think it is absolute rubbish to say that we have to have cultural sensitivity in the case of a person who comes here makes accusations against someone and then hides behind a veil so that the accused cannot see the accuser’s demeanour. Yet the person who was accused could well have gone to jail. 
We tamper with the law of evidence at our peril. I do not view the State as a benign wonderful State that is there to find the truth; I view the State as an all-powerful very deadly machine that can be used against individuals at our peril as a free society. I see that that is in fact a view held by many of those who have previously practised criminal law—and I see that Mr Fairbrother agrees with me. The State comprises lots of different people many of whom have abused and will continue to abuse their power whether they be in various bodies of the legal profession in the police in the Customs Service or in any other authority. The fact is that people are people and some people will abuse their power. We tamper with rules of hearsay and of evidence at our peril. 
However it is very important to note that there are some good positive parts in the bill. I am very pleased to see that attempts have been made to deal with issues like video evidence and the area where sometimes someone is unavailable as a witness. Privilege is an area that gets quite a lot of mention in the bill. That of course relates to the privilege between a legal adviser or counsel and his or her client and also to religious confessions. It does not extend to doctors—a fact that they never believe until they are in court and are told they have to say what happened. 
One of my concerns is about complainants in sexual cases. I am very pleased to note that the Government proposes to keep the restrictions on using the previous history of complainants in rape cases—for instance their previous sexual history—against them. Once when I was the tender age of 18 and in my first year at law school I attended a rape trial. I did so at that stage thinking that one day I might like to be a criminal lawyer. Experiencing one rape trial and seeing what happened under the old law—before the law on evidence in sexual cases was changed—was sufficient for me to know that I could never as a lawyer do that to another woman. The way in which that particular woman was treated and the fact that she was not a virgin at the time of the rape meant that she had her reputation sullied and muddied in open court and it said to me that the law had to change. It was of course not her previous sexual history that was in doubt; it was the actions on a particular night that needed to be looked at. 
Another of my concerns relates to children’s evidence. I do not share the fantasy of the Greens that children do not fantasise. I think that the Greens fantasise and also that children do. It is very important as any parent will tell us that children enjoy fantasising. It is a natural and healthy part of being a child. Some of them still believe in Santa Claus—as I am sure the Greens do. 
Peter Brown 
: Pigs passing by the window. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Brown thinks I am not being fair. I think it is very important that we look at the rules in relation to children and the giving of evidence. I am very concerned about the evidence that has been put to the Justice and Electoral Committee in relation to the trial of Peter Ellis. I am also very concerned about the fact that again screens are being used and not only that they are being used but that sometimes evidence is being given by people in relation to matters in respect of which it does not always mean that fairness reigns. 
The administration of justice is a very very imprecise science. It is something that does not come easily in a lot of those cases. Sometimes the most awful crimes have been committed and people want to find the perpetrators. They want to know there is closure on those crimes. Everybody deserves a fair trial in this country no matter how revolting and heinous the crime. I know it is not a great vote-winner to say things like that but unfortunately it is the truth. Everybody even the most despicable person needs a fair trial.