Page 75 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 16 February 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

Mr Kaine: It could be most convincing.

MR HUMPHRIES: It could be most convincing because of the age of the child, the demeanour of the child, and the court genuinely believes what that child is saying, even though that need not necessarily be true. I do not think the evidence in these matters is by any means as clear cut as others have suggested in this debate. It is complex and it does not indicate any particularly clear direction. I, for one, think we are safer to extend this rule gradually rather than all at once.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Humphries's) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 5  NOES, 9 

Mrs Carnell Mr Berry
Mr De Domenico Mr Connolly
Mr Humphries Ms Follett
Mr Kaine Mrs Grassby
Mr Westende Mr Lamont
 Ms McRae
 Mr Moore
 Ms Szuty
 Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8

MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (9.48): Madam Speaker, as I foreshadowed, the effect of the clause is to remove the sunset clause in the Evidence (Closed-Circuit Television) Act. That was achieved in a separate Bill brought before this Assembly in the dying hours of the 1992 sittings, so this clause is redundant. It can therefore simply be opposed. I urge members to oppose it, and I have explained why we are doing that.

Clause negatived.

Remainder of Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .