Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I do want to take a call earlier in this debate and I will take the opportunity to respond to the points Mr Parker raised. I also just want to touch on what I also understood to be the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in front of the Committee. Given that the Committee has granted a little bit of leeway to Mr Parker to talk about them I am sure it will be equally generous in allowing me a little bit of leeway to respond. May I begin of course with a very overarching comment about the effect and impact of the bill. I think it is one that has as far as I know broad support in the House as to its aims which are effectively to ensure that vulnerable witnesses particularly child witnesses are far better protected in the ways in which they can give evidence and that when prior video evidence is taken particularly in sexual violence cases and involving vulnerable complainants that evidence is very carefully handled—and of course the changes that Mr Parker made reference to in terms of prior consistent statements. If I can just firstly address the issues that Mr Parker raised around clause 26 and the impact of the changes there I can confirm for Mr Parker that the changes in this solely pick up the Law Commission recommendation which is really just to move what was in section 35 of the Evidence Act 2006 into section 90 being its better place. There is a slight amendment in my SOP simply because the drafting left out a single word but a reasonably important one which is admissibility" and so we have just made sure that the bill as you have it in front of you with the addition of the Government SOP simply replaces the original wording of section 35(3) into the new location as reflected by the Law Commission's recommendation. I can assure Mr Parker both that it is simply giving effect to the Law Commission recommendation and that it does not change the operation and the practice that is well understood in respect of what was section 35(3) and will now be in section 90. I am just going to briefly again touch on what I understood to be the SOPs from Jan Logie and let us work with the benefit of doubt for a moment—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether we could have clarification because I have just been approached by the Greens' whip to say that their understanding is that those Supplementary Order Papers that I was addressing were in fact tabled and are live. So if we could have some clarification of that Mr Chair then I—sorry to interrupt the Minister but it would be relevant to the Minister's answers too.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes. To clarify Supplementary Order Paper 195 in the name of Jan Logie and Supplementary Order Paper 194 in her name are live.Hon AMY ADAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman. So it is nice to know that Mr Parker and I both were operating off the same information and that it was in fact correct which is always an added bonus.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): It always helps.Hon AMY ADAMS: Ha ha! It is not always the case but we will take it. So we have the two SOPs from Ms Logie and I certainly want to support the intention that I know she is trying to deliver in this space which is better protection for vulnerable witnesses. Although the Government will not be supporting the SOPs I do want to pass on my assurance to the Committee that we are absolutely interested in continuing to work on further ways that we can to support victims particularly of sexual and family violence not only in the manner in which they give their evidence and the use of alternative means but actually a far wider range of changes than that. Mr Parker made comment in his contribution about the fact that actually although there is a lot of ability for us to make improvements in this space it is in fact an incredibly complex area. My view in getting this legislation up in this time frame was that the changes we had encompassed here were clear they were straightforward they were well supported and the sooner I could give effect to them the better. The changes that we are working on around the Law Commission's piece of work around sexual violence family violence and the way the court responds are extensive. They combine a range of changes from the minor and simple through to the quite considerable reform of how we think about our system of laws. I think we should be open to that discussion. I think it is a big discussion to have but I think it is one that we should take time to get right. Although child witnesses and sexual violence and family violence complainants and victims have some matters in common they are actually quite different vulnerabilities that we are dealing with and I think the solutions need to be thought through carefully. Obviously in some cases a witness will be both a child witness and also a victim of sexual violence. Of course the main thing is that the most comprehensive level of protection should apply in that case. But where we are dealing with sexual violence victims who are not children although I absolutely have a piece of work in front of me that is comprehensive in looking at these issues I do not think it is as simple as saying: "Well if you give your evidence through closed-circuit television we can consider the support of sexual violence victims appropriately dealt with." But I am very interested in working not only with Ms Logie but with members around the House who I know have an interest in improving this area of work. If I can talk then to Ms Logie's other SOP which the Government also will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 194 which is seeking to amend section 85 of the Evidence Act 2006 to explicitly provide that a judge may disallow intimidating questions. The reason again that we are not proposing to support the SOP in this form is simply that I am satisfied that for current purposes the existing ability of a judge to order that questions be ruled out of order because they are unfair or improper gives the judiciary a very wide range of redress in the case of intimidating questions. Again certainly the whole conduct of our courtrooms the conduct of defence counsel the conduct of some of the prosecuting counsel—more usually defence counsel—and the questioning of witnesses is part of this wider piece of work that we want to be considering. Can I just make the point too referring to the earlier SOP that although this bill sets up a clear presumption in favour of the use of alternative ways of giving evidence there is still an absolute ability for the judge in any case to make that determination. So it should not be mistaken that sexual violence victims do not have the ability to give evidence through alternative means; they absolutely do. What we have done in this bill is create a rebuttable presumption that that should always be the case for child witnesses and I would expect that judges do use that with considerable care when it is appropriate for sexual violence victims now. But if I can simply reiterate my support of Ms Logie and the Committee to continue to work on how the whole system of prosecuting sexual and family violence is better dealt with—I will absolutely do that. However I am not convinced that these SOPs pulled out as individual little aspects of that piece of work are best progressed in this form. I note that the select committee considered them and rejected them and I share their view but the work is important which will continue through another channel."