Page 2874 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other issue that was raised by Mr Humphries was the question of the continuation beyond the age of 18. You have to have a cut-off date at some point. This legislation is, as Mr Collaery correctly pointed out, somewhat contrary to general principles of civil liberties, in that the accused generally has a right to confront the person who is making accusations against them. That is the general principle of the common law that we all stand by. But there are occasions when society is justified in changing that balance and saying that, because of the severity of the offence and the inequality of the power of different members of society, we can change that balance.
We have done it with domestic violence legislation, where the traditional burden of proof has been shifted and we have made it very easy for complainants of domestic violence to get an order. That, it is generally agreed, is a justified alteration of the balance. I think, equally here, that it is a justifiable alteration in that general balance of the right to directly confront the person who is making an accusation against you. That balance is justified because of the special case of children who are the subject of abuse and it is the general view, clearly, of this Assembly that children are deserving of that special protection.
What then is a child? We have taken the general legal definition of a child being a person under 18. I suppose you could take a different age, but 18 seems to be sensible. Mr Humphries was concerned about clause 10 which says that the fact that you turn 18 during the course of a proceeding does not mean that you can suddenly stop using video evidence. That does seem sensible; you have to have a transitional provision. The situation in the extreme would be the person who turns 18, or whatever other age it is at which we say it is no longer appropriate to take video evidence, during a two- or three-day period in the witness box.
Surely it would be absurd to take the first two days of evidence through video link and then require the person to front up in the witness box because they have had a birthday on the evening intervening between the two days of giving evidence. Section 10 is, I think, a sensible provision, given that there has to be a cut-off date and the sensible cut-off date should be 18. It allows, if you are under 18 when the proceedings are begun, this facility to remain available when you attain the age of majority.
Mr Speaker, it is pleasing that this Bill has the unanimous support of the Assembly from the speakers we have heard today. The ACT clearly is taking a lead in this area and it is an experiment that is being watched with great interest in other parts of Australia.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .