Page 63 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 16 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (9.04): Earlier speakers have emphasised clause 6, and I think with good reason. People in Canberra would be very concerned about children in particular being subjected to sexual assault, and well we should be.
Mr Berry: Here we go.
MR STEVENSON: I note that Mr Berry and someone else said, "Here we go". I suggest that you do not know where we go. Sometimes you have trouble knowing where you are going. Perhaps you could be quiet and pay me the courtesy of listening for a moment or two - or not listening; I do not care. I suggest that people are concerned, and with good reason. I commend Mr Humphries for a superbly presented speech. I have had some concern about this area, and I wondered about various aspects of specifically removing subclause (3) of clause 6. Mr Humphries's arguments were compelling, they were reasonable, and he came to a reasonable compromise. He did not say, "There are major concerns and, because of that, we will have none of it". He came to a reasonable compromise, and his amendment is just that.
We have heard from Mr Moore about whether it would be better that an innocent man be convicted and suffer, perhaps even go to gaol. It is easy to say that, provided you are not the innocent man. Then your view tends to change rather dramatically. Ms Szuty talked about children and whether or not they lie, whether or not they can sustain lies, how long they need to sustain them for. Mr Humphries said, very reasonably, that we all understand that children can tell lies. He made the point that it may not be a malicious lie, that there may be various reasons. It is also true that children can be, and are, coached into adopting a particular line. The Mr Bubbles case would be one of the best known examples of children being coached, and the evidence was not accepted because of that.
If we say that it is better for innocent men and women to be convicted, could that not lead to the suggestion that, if a person is accused, on the basis of "Where there is smoke, there is fire", it would be best to convict him just in case? Would that not make it safer for people to walk the streets, safer for children? I would say clearly, no. As Mr Humphries mentioned, there are maxims of law. There are principles of law that have protected us for many hundreds of years. When we look around the world at various systems - I will not say "systems of justice" because many of them are not; many systems that people think are just are not - I feel that Australia has a superb system of justice, based on certain principles, about which Mr Humphries spoke so well.
There is also concern that there was not consultation with the community, or with those people in the legal profession who act on behalf of people that are accused where children are involved. I have not spoken to many lawyers on that point, but I spoke to one who was heavily involved in that area. He has grave concerns, not because of any theoretical problem but because of what he has seen in the courts - the real life situation. Unfortunately, it is not only the parents, the mother or the father, who may coach a child or suggest to a child - however you want to put it - that certain things happened; it can also be people in the social services area, and cases of that exist within our law. I do not think it is better that innocent men be convicted. However, I would agree that there are some guilty people who go free because children have not been able to give uncorroborated evidence in the past. It is something that is of concern. I am not sure of the answer, but I am fairly certain that Mr Humphries's amendment is reasonable and should be agreed to by this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .