Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in the second reading on the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I just want to actually say I totally agree with the previous Green speaker, Kahurangi Carter, when she said we are going to be coming together, I think, to make some progress in this area. Often in this place, we focus on what divides us, and ACT actually believe that we have a common humanity: there is more that we have in common than is against us. ACT did support this bill in the first reading, because we actually did think it was a good idea. We could see there could be some advantages in making these changes. I think, as I’m going to talk about in a moment, the bill has been improved through the select committee process, but I want to acknowledge the member in charge, Tracey McLellan, for her advocacy and actually working very constructively with the Justice Committee as we worked through this process.
As we’ve heard, the Justice Committee did have a number of submitters, and some 30 submissions were received. I want to thank the submitters that gave oral submissions to the committee, seven of them, for giving up their time. Actually, a lot of them were practitioners in the court system, but also there were some people with personal experience that wanted to make their view known about how this bill would actually make a difference.
I think what we’re talking about here is actually a very, very sensible change that Dr McLellan has shepherded through, where we are actually just changing the onus and making these alternative ways of giving evidence in the Family Court when they relate to family violence and sexual violence, so that we actually are thinking about our victims, and making sure that the important process of them receiving justice is done in a way that suits their needs and doesn’t make it both uncomfortable and confrontational and actually turn people off from using our justice system. That’s actually what we want: people to feel able to bring these cases, to be able to speak their truth and put their perspective forward, and, hopefully, get the protection they need within our Family Court system.
Again, I’m very lucky, in ACT, to have a couple of Ministers in my caucus: the Minister for Courts, Nicole McKee; and the Hon Karen Chhour, the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. We actually had quite informed and robust discussions around this bill in our caucuses. We were looking at both supporting it in the first reading and as it came back to the House for the second reading. It’s really good to have colleagues like that, who you can actually have a discussion with about the important issues in this bill and make sure this actually is going to deliver it a difference. Again, I want to acknowledge the member for taking on board some of the suggestions that came through, because there were some things that were identified that wouldn’t have been workable, so some changes were made.
I think, also, the updates we are making to our court facilities to allow audiovisual link (AVL) from rooms adjacent to traditional courtrooms—again, I was lucky enough last year, I think, to tour the Christchurch justice precinct, and they’ve obviously got a very modern court facility in Christchurch. But they have what we would understand as traditional courtrooms where they may be having Family Court proceedings—the kind of courtroom I would have went to when I was a lawyer a very, very long time ago. But now we actually have these adjacent AVL rooms so that, actually, someone can give evidence via audiovisual link. I should actually say what it is: for people listening, that’s basically like a Zoom-type set up where you can be supported by your support person and your lawyer. You are separate from the court, but you’re actually giving evidence via a video link into the court next door or wherever it might be—it doesn’t need to necessarily be next door. But, again, these facilities are now more common across New Zealand and will continue to be more common. So, again, it’s sensible to allow that kind of evidence to be given in these cases.
The other thing we spent a lot of time hearing about—obviously, in the Family Court, a lot of the evidence is given by affidavits; so written evidence. So, again, we wanted to be explicitly clear that we weren’t actually changing what has served the Family Court very well—right?—which is where people provide affidavits and written evidence that the court can actually consider, which, again, is quite appropriate in a number of these cases, because, then, people are actually given time to commit their evidence to paper, go through it, make sure it’s right, and then it’s submitted.
So, again, we were explicit in the changes in the select committee that we weren’t trying to disrupt the Family Court in the way it operates. But where there is a need for someone to provide evidence in person, that should be accommodated in a way that makes that much more comfortable for them to do, is appropriate, and is not going to revictimise them, as some of my colleagues have said in their speeches. So, again, we were clear that we see this as actually enhancing the Family Court in the way evidence is given, not disrupting it.
Look, I want to say again, Dr McLellan is very clear in her advocacy around this, that what we’ve, essentially, done here is changed the onus. So, actually, some of the things in this bill could be done today in the Family Court, it’s just that you have to request it—it’s a bit of a process. Dr McLellan was very clear that, look, we’ve tried that for a number of years—many, many years—and things haven’t changed. So this bill really changes the onus so that it’s presumed that’s the way you’ll give evidence, and anything else has to be done, obviously, with the leave of the court. Look, I think that definitely a very strong argument was made, and I think that we on the committee accepted that and said “OK, things haven’t worked, practice hasn’t changed, so let’s do something different and actually place victims first.” So, again, I think that was a very well-articulated argument by the member in charge, and so we accepted that.
Again, as we work through this, there is some devil in the detail. Again, I want to acknowledge that the Green member Kahurangi Carter addressed the fact that we actually had to drop the video recording. Look, while initially it sounds quite easy, in practice it’s not, because what that provision would have meant is you could pre-record your evidence. But that actually is more complicated than it sounds, because you actually still have to have other lawyers involved, because even when you’re giving your evidence in a recording, your lawyer may be helping you give evidence, but then you have to be cross-examined and ask questions. So there’s quite a lot of complication to actually getting the parties that need to be there in one place, to do the recording, etc., there’ll be notice periods, etc. So I think it was sensible that we dropped that. We, obviously, also have heard from other members about how there could be some significant costs with associated with that. As I said, now with this kind of more—well, it’s real-time audiovisual link technology now available, we’re hoping that that actually will be the way through and that pre-recorded video evidence may not be necessary. But, again, I think we’re open-minded. If that becomes an issue in the future, obviously it could be revisited.
Finally, I just want to say that, again, I think some sensible changes were made around ensuring judicial discretion is maintained. So, again, I want to say we’re very much focused on people having to give evidence, victims, etc.—I think that’s very important. But we also must keep an eye on the fairness of our justice system and making sure that respondents’ rights, or the other parties, are also acknowledged. But a way of doing that, which I think is very sensibly done in this, is allowing the judge to make a determination there. So if there were some overriding reason why the parties actually needed to be together physically, or it was in the interest of justice, the judge could still do that. So, again, I think that was a very sensible decision that we changed it. It’s spelt out, and we made sure that we said, “Yep, very important that we make these changes for people giving evidence in the Family Court around particularly family violence and sexual violence. But if there is a need for the judge to do something different because it’s appropriate and in the interests of justice and making sure our justice system is maintained and fairness is upheld, then they can still do that.” So I think that’s a very important change.
Just in conclusion, we hope this will actually strengthen our Family Court system, and will actually continue to enhance the rights of victims and those having to give evidence in quite horrific circumstances. And, yeah, we hope that we’ve all played our little part today in making our justice system just a little bit better. Thank you.