Shearer David: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 09 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11871. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): As David Parker mentioned before Labour is supporting this bill and actually is supporting it with some enthusiasm because I think it is a very good bill and well needed at the moment.The Evidence Amendment Bill first came into being in 2006. It was the product of about 10 years of investigation and research by the Law Commission. It was brought in under the Labour Government and I think supported by the National Party at the time. This bill is 10 years further down the track and looks to tweak amend and improve some of the issues that perhaps were not as relevant at the time or certainly did not gain the attention of people at the time but have become issues over the course of those last 10 years and are now being sought to be redressed.The member who just sat down Jacqui Dean went through some of those changes. David Parker looked at the issues around consistent statements which will be more admissible under this piece of legislation—it will improve the workings of the court. I should say perhaps before getting into the detail of the bill that the Evidence Act itself is really at the cornerstone of our ability to conduct a fair trial. It really sets out what is admissible what is not and the behaviour with which lawyers should hold themselves within a court so that the people who are in front of the court get a fair trial. The witnesses and those people who are the alleged victims are also given a fair go as well. The changes to this bill are varied and will improve the ability of the courts to conduct themselves and see that evidence through so that people are actually able to get a fair trial and it is made easier for people giving evidence.As I was saying before the Hon David Parker talked about how enabling consistent statements to be admissible in the court makes that easier. It enables privileges for plea discussions to happen and makes that happen more easily where that is appropriate. That will enable the case to go before a court and be heard more easily.What the attention has been focused on is the way in which the victims and witnesses in crimes of a domestic violence or sexual nature are able to give evidence particularly those crimes that affect children. Unfortunately this is really long overdue. New Zealand has one of the worst records when it comes to child abuse and child deaths in the OECD. In fact we are fifth from the bottom out of 31 OECD countries. It is not a record that we should be in any way proud of. In fact it is a disgrace. One child is killed every 5 weeks in New Zealand and 90 percent of those deaths occur through somebody whom they know and generally somebody whom they know very well. Domestic violence is also one of the worst in the OECD. Again it is a pretty terrible record. On average we kill 13 women 10 men and about nine children every year.These are shocking statistics. Part of dealing with that is making sure that those who perpetrate these crimes are actually brought through the justice system and that we are able to make sure that they are punished through our court system. That means giving the victims and the witnesses to those crimes the ability to give evidence in a way that does not prejudice or affect or further traumatise them as well. By the same token the people who are the defendants in these cases who are in the court deserve a fair trial—like anybody does and like our court system demands that we have.So at the same time we are not changing dramatically the way in which evidence is able to be considered; we are simply looking at the means and the methods by which that evidence is able to be given by child victims or women who have perhaps been sexually assaulted for example and being able to do that in way where they are not further traumatised by the experience of having to go through that court system and be cross-examined.There was a case not so long ago of Mark Lyon who was a businessman a drug dealer and who was eventually convicted and sentenced to a number of years in jail for his sexual assaults on girls as young as 14. The father of one of those victims said that the changes that have been put forward today would have made a world of difference to his daughter and for frightened children knowing that they did not have to go into an adversarial courtroom. He went on to say that his daughter was shown through the court and although Mark Lyon was on the other side of a screen she was aware that he who had preyed on her was there and watching everything that she was doing. It terrified her—the fact that she had to give evidence in front of him.This bill as the previous speaker Jacqui Dean has just said enables the evidence to be given by both the victim and the witness through the means of video rather than them having to be there physically present in court. It does not mean they cannot be cross-examined or that the defence counsel cannot ask questions of them but some of those questions can be asked through closed-circuit television rather than directly in person in the court in front of a bunch of strangers in front of their alleged attackers and abusers and with them therefore becoming in a sense re-traumatised as a result of having to do that.I think this piece of legislation—there are other parts to it as well but in many ways I think that is the most critical part. In New Zealand where we have such a deplorable and an appalling record of domestic violence and sexual violence against children and women right across our society this bill will give at least some comfort to those who want to go to court and to go to trial in order to be able to give evidence and to make sure that the perpetrators of these crimes are actually taken before the courts with the possibility they will be prosecuted and sent to prison and punished. It will make their job not only easier when they are there but might encourage them to actually get to court and make sure that those people who have perpetrated these crimes are punished.I am sure that a lot of times now many crimes that have been committed are not making it into court because of the way in which the court deals or can deal with those victims. If that is the outcome of this amendment to the Evidence Act then I think it will have done a very good job. Once again like others I commend not only this bill but also the Government for bringing it forward. Thank you.