Page 73 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 16 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The answer, as Ms Szuty said, is that in no way does this require a conviction or require the evidence to be believed. Mr Humphries is quite right in saying that children can tell lies. Adults can tell lies. Even politicians can tell lies, Mr Humphries - apart from when they are in opposition, it would seem, from your earlier remarks. It is always up to the judge to make that decision or, fundamentally, for the jury to decide veracity. The judge will have to decide, first of all, whether the child is capable of giving evidence, and there are established common law principles for that, and at the end of the day the judge will always warn that the evidence is uncorroborated, and that is another factor.
No fundamental principle is involved here, other than the principle of whether the child should be able to have his or her case heard. Mr Humphries accepts that principle in that he is prepared to do away with the absolute bar at age 14, but he introduces a new principle that says that at age seven or below there is an absolute principle that the child's evidence of sexual assault, of rape, cannot even get before a court. That, Mr Humphries, I do say is a simple issue of principle which you can either agree or disagree with, and we fundamentally disagree with your proposition.
The other point that must be made is that Mr Humphries repeatedly comes in here and says that we do not consult with the legal profession. He whipped out a press release during early January when things were quiet. I heard him saying that one of the issues he had addressed this year was a concern that the legal profession is not being properly consulted on Bills before the Assembly. I actually took that up with the president of the Law Society. I asked, "Are there any problems with the flow of material you are getting, the fact that we are getting the Bills to you and giving you the opportunity to come and talk with the Government if you have problems?", and he was not aware of any problems. We are getting that information to the Law Society, as one of the principal lobby groups, unions, what-have-you, in the community. They seem to be happy that they are getting that information.
So, Mr Humphries, we are getting information out, getting Bills out. Every Bill that comes into this Assembly we send to the Law Society, and it is a matter for the fairly intricate committee system of the Law Society as to how they disseminate it. If they have problems, they do not have any trouble in picking up the phone and letting me know of them.
MR MOORE (9.40): In speaking to Mr Humphries's amendment, I am compelled to think about the difference between the evidence of a child over seven and the evidence of a child under seven. I happen to be in the fortunate position, in this case, of having two children under seven and one over seven, as do Mrs Carnell and Mr Lamont. It seems to me that the arbitrary division that has been drawn by Mr Humphries is not valid. I feel that I can interpret that a child under seven could well be able to present to a court evidence that the court may find useful. That is the question - whether or not it is going to find - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .