However, for the remainder of my time in this third reading, I want to talk about two provisions for which there was obviously some debate—first of all, around pre-recorded evidence, because the bill entitles complainants to give their evidence in alternative ways; for example, via the likes of audiovisual link from outside of the courtroom or by a pre-recorded video. The bill makes it clear that pre-recorded cross-examination is one of the options unless the judge decides to disallow it. This type of cross-examination was first used in Western Australia back in 1992 as an initiative to help child witnesses give quality evidence and move on with their lives earlier. It has happened in New Zealand, though rarely since 2011, when the Court of Appeal determined it should be used only in exceptional circumstances. Since that time, all other Australian states have now introduced pre-recorded cross-examination, as has the United Kingdom, either in successful trials or as fully fledged practices for certain witnesses. Scotland has also recently legislated for children to pre-record their cross-examination, with powers to extend the process to vulnerable adult witnesses. I do want to emphasise that these jurisdictions share our fundamental criminal justice rights and our firm commitment to the rule of law.