Page 2873 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.01), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to this debate. It is pleasing to see that this legislation does have unanimous support in this house. It is quite timely that we are putting it through this week. I just noticed that this week's Bulletin has a cover story featuring the problem of child abuse and ways in which society is trying to grapple with that problem. It is clear from everyone's remarks today that this approach of making it easier for the person who has been abused to give evidence is a positive move.
A few issues were raised that I think I should address. Mr Collaery ranged a bit beyond video evidence in abuse cases when he was talking about the videotaping of persons accused, which is due to commence in the ACT from the end of September. Cameras and equipment are in place now at the police stations and training is occurring. I can assure him that the ability to zoom in, with perhaps an overenthusiastic young police officer fancying himself as an Alfred Hitchcock and getting the knife dripping with blood, the look of anguish on the accused's face and pangs of guilt, will not occur.
The rooms are set up with two cameras with a fairly wide angle so that the entire room is covered, and, importantly, so that the door is covered and there can be no suggestion of anyone coming into the room and tampering with the accused or attempting to gently persuade the accused to make certain confessions. There is no possibility for editorialism by way of using close-ups or zooms or moving the cameras about. Of course, in relation to the video link evidence, it is much the same. It is a static camera, with the child giving evidence in the box.
Other issues that were raised by members during the debate included the issue of rooms at the Supreme Court. That is yet to be finalised. It is yet to be resolved whether it would be necessary to set up a special video interview room in the Supreme Court or whether it may be possible for the Supreme Court, on the probably fewer occasions than the Magistrates Court that it would be necessary or convenient for that court to use video evidence, to adjourn, go down the road to the court facilities at Childers Street in the Family Court/Magistrates Court complex and actually sit down there where the investment has already been made in this technology.
That is an issue that the Government is considering. The court will not be stopped from taking evidence. It is really a question of economics as to whether it is prudent to make the investment and put the facilities in the existing Supreme Court building or wait until we look at a general refit of that building some time in the future and in the meantime the Supreme Court could conveniently go down the road to Childers Street.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .