Logie Jan; Faafoi KrisJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a real pleasure to take a call in the committee stage of the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister Hon Kris Faafoi in bringing this back into the House on the day that the Government launched Te Aorerekura: the national strategy for ending family violence and sexual violence within 25 years. I think that is a really significant piece of work. We know from survivors of sexual violence as well as their advocates that the right to an appropriate justice system is of real concern. This has been on the agenda for a very long time. Some of the provisions in this go back specifically to the taskforce for action I think from 2009 and what Simon Power the then Minister of Justice described as the best road map the country had had for ending sexual violence. This work is really long overdue and is not actually putting us in the advanced path of any country in the world. This is just catching us up with some other jurisdictions that we like to compare ourselves to and just ensuring basic dignity in our court system.There are a lot of provisions in this piece of legislation that are really important. The extending around communications assistance to those who may have trouble following the court processes. As a non-legal person myself I have a lot of sympathy for that let alone for people with learning disabilities for particular impairments that may make it that much harder. That is of benefit to every single person in our court process—the defendant as well as the complainant. That is provided for in this legislation.Providing instances where the judge must intervene if they believe the questioning is inappropriate misleading or needlessly repetitive because we've got recent evidence of those behaviours happening unchecked in our courts and judges telling us that they're not intervening because they fear there being an appeal process based on their intervention. So we need to give judges that legal certainty to be able to stop those behaviours.Also around judicial direction to address rape myths if they haven't been addressed through the process in the trial. That was a non-exhaustive list but I commend the select committee for their work on adding to some of the rape myths that were identified: looking at the things around where the suggestions that the way somebody dressed meant they wanted to be raped; that they abdicated their right to consent by the way they dressed or the fact that they've been flirting with somebody. We have recent analysis of a court case—truly shocking—where somebody had flirted with the defendant earlier in the evening and that was absolutely used to suggest that that person had consented to the rape because they'd flirted and sat on their knees—clearly consent to having sex several hours later! In my world those things don't flow on from each other. There's quite a few steps where you need to say yes or no along the way before you get to sex. And other examples around drinking and alcohol or drugs and how that affects decision making. And it's really important that juries get that information about what is rape because we know that there are a lot of myths in our society and that there's a lot of victim blaming and that can lead to what I characterise and use inappropriately as miscarriages of justice when juries make decisions based on myths rather than an accurate understanding of the law and an understanding of what is rape.The controversial parts of this bill—and I do want to follow up from the Hon Paul Goldsmith's questioning around prerecords and the fact that the Court of Appeal had said that it should only be rare or exceptional circumstances. I noticed the member Emily Henderson just coming into the House tonight and noticing that her academic work critiqued that ruling when she was a research fellow at Auckland University and noting that the Court of Appeal did not draw on the evidence of 20 years of prerecording for child witnesses in sexual violence cases in Western Australia that found that there was not an undermining of the right to a fair trial. In fact it had strengthened the fair trial and good interrogation of evidence through that process rather than undermining it. I would also point the member to the fact that the legislation around this point also—[Time expired]Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Just a quick contribution. First of all can I acknowledge my two Green colleagues in the House tonight the Hon Marama Davidson and Jan Logie—obviously on the day that we've launched our national action plan on sexual violence and family violence. I want to acknowledge the work that both of those members have undertaken to get us to that point and congratulate them.One point that I wanted to raise upon my re-reading of the Hansard from the second reading debate was an assertion from Opposition members about who was either supportive or not supportive of this piece of legislation. I know the judiciary don't like to be dragged into debates in this House or into politics but they were in the second reading debate from members to my left about whether or not they were supportive of this legislation. Now I don't think they've made a declaration about whether they're supportive of this legislation but there was a Court of Appeal ruling in 2020 which made it very clear that the judiciary is more supportive of the use of the types of video evidence that we are looking at in this piece of legislation. In that ruling the Court of Appeal judges said We see considerable merit in pre-recording the evidence of a vulnerable witness before trial. Not only does this provide a vulnerable witness with a more accommodating environment in which to give their evidence; it also provides counsel and the trial judge with an opportunity to take any remedial steps that may be required after the vulnerable witness gives his or her evidence."I do want to acknowledge the argument that the Opposition is making because I do think we need to make sure that we are addressing questions around fair trial rights but I do believe the safeguards within this legislation actually offer that well and truly. There have been concerns in other jurisdictions across the Tasman where similar concerns were raised ahead of regimes such as this being introduced but time and evidence have suggested that the concerns that were raised pre these kinds of regimes being introduced haven't been borne out because of safeguards like that which are a part of this legislation being there. So again respectful of the concern—I think it's a valid one to have.The other thing I do want to note was part of the contribution of Jan Logie about some of the types of questioning. I've had meetings with both sides of the ledger here in terms of what does and what doesn't happen in some of these trials and the types or manner in which questions are being asked. I think the reality is and I'm convinced that they still do and whether it is motivated to be intimidatory it is for those who are answering the questions. So I think one of the components of this piece of legislation is that a judge has discretion not only to make judgments around the question but also the manner in which the questions are being asked. And I think again that is another component of this piece of legislation which has been well looked into by the Law Commission twice and which I think will effectively mean better justice is served. And I mean that by allowing a safe environment for victims or alleged victims of sexual violence to be able to have their day and their say in court against a defendant but also to ensure that those fair trial rights are protected as well."