Page 60 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 16 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have to look at what action we need to take to protect those children. Would it be better for one innocent man to be found guilty so that nine children can be protected? I think we need to reverse the onus this way to look at what we need to do to protect children from that most insidious of crimes, sexual assault. This Bill obviously will apply to other things, but I think it is aimed specifically at that area and therefore it is a very difficult issue to deal with. The Government should be congratulated for being prepared to take this stance, for being prepared to sacrifice to a certain extent the principle Mr Humphries has carefully outlined, in order to favour the other principle.
When we look at Mr Humphries's notion of taking an oath and the idea of eternal damnation for those people who believe in the power of that oath, I wonder whether, when they face their maker, as they look at it, they will be able to say, "Yes, but I took a decision to protect children". There is a multitude of writings in Christianity about the protection of children. Do children tell lies and do they sustain those lies? We would be naive to think that children do not at some stage tell lies. The magnitude of the issue being dealt with, though, can be weighed up, and there are examples from Europe in particular of criteria-based statement validity analysis - the sort of criteria that can be set out to determine to what extent statements given by children in particular can be objectively analysed in order to determine whether or not they are valid. That would weight the evidence more heavily as far as the judge and the jury are concerned.
I think that, administratively, there is room for the development of such criteria. Perhaps we are gaining a little more faith in some ways in the responsibility of judges or magistrates to hear the sort of evidence that is brought before them and to recognise that when the evidence is presented by a three-year-old or a four-year-old it will have far less weight; that when the evidence is presented by a 10-year-old it will carry more weight, depending on the evidence that is being presented.
In determining the need to protect children under these circumstances, by supporting this Bill, we are putting an even greater responsibility on our judges and magistrates and on our jury system. I am supporting this Bill and opposing Mr Humphries's amendment in the spirit of protecting the children who need protection, recognising that this decision will mean that occasionally a man who is innocent may well be found guilty and may suffer very badly for that - may suffer even a year or two in gaol. But I compare that suffering to the suffering of a victim of sexual abuse. I feel that I have no choice but to come down on the side of supporting this legislation, and I congratulate the Government for bringing it forward.
MS SZUTY (8.56): Madam Speaker, I too welcome the opportunity to speak on two of the issues that are taken up in the Evidence (Amendment) Bill 1992. Both of these amendments are about empowering people who use the court system. The enlarging of the provisions for interpreters sets out more clearly the intent that people should not be at a disadvantage by virtue of their inability to effectively use spoken English in the courtroom. It is important that such basic rights as the assistance of an interpreter are spelled out.
By far the most eagerly awaited and important change outlined in this amendment Bill is the admissibility of uncorroborated evidence given by children. The message here is clear and strong: Perpetrators, offenders, and those who would use the age of victims or witnesses to crime as a means of escaping conviction will no longer be able to dismiss the challenge to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .