Page 1580 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A minority of legal professionals had some concerns about that. Further, the Bill implements a recommendation from the Australian Law Reform Commission, with some exceptions. The Bill makes it a general rule that a child give evidence by closed-circuit TV. I therefore felt it necessary to ask to see a copy of those reports and to try to get a more extensive understanding of the issues involved.
An issue that was specifically raised in the Minister's presentation speech was that child defendants are excluded from giving evidence by closed-circuit TV - this is referred to on page 4 of the Minister's presentation speech - notwithstanding that the Australian Law Reform Commission report recommended otherwise. The Minister's presentation speech said that "the need for child defendants to give evidence by closed-circuit TV was not convincing". It went on to outline some reasons why the Government's view was adopted in this instance. What the Minister's presentation speech did not say was that the Australian Law Reform Commission's view had been informed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14.1 - a not unimportant consideration, I believe.
I have not had the time to access the submissions which were received by the Australian Law Reform Commission in the conduct of their inquiry, although I firmly believe that they would have informed my views on this matter substantively. I should say that I had little difficulty with the provisions of the Bill, apart from the comment in the explanatory memorandum about financial considerations - there being none - but with specific reference being made to the need for the Supreme Court to improve access to its facilities to enable facilitation of the use of closed-circuit TV to take place. I understand that these improvements have been made on the basis of earlier amendments to legislation.
It was at this stage that I sought a briefing on the Bill, and I am grateful to the officers of the Attorney-General's Department for making themselves available to me for the briefing. I discovered at the briefing what was happening in other jurisdictions in Australia with respect to this issue; and, further, where the impetus for the changes proposed originally came from. For the information of members, it was the Piggott report from England in the mid-1980s which has substantially informed the debate. Subsequently, in 1989 the ACT became the first jurisdiction in Australia to consider the issue, and I understand that Chief Magistrate Ron Cahill was instrumental in ensuring that the issue was considered in the ACT.
The current situation as regards other jurisdictions in Australia is as follows: In New South Wales the legislation is more like the ACT's current legislation prior to the amending Bill being introduced by the Government. In Western Australia and Queensland the legislation is more like that which the ACT will move towards with the passage of this amendment Bill, although Western Australia uses the concept of vulnerable witnesses - not all witnesses - being able to give evidence by closed-circuit TV should they choose to. Interestingly, Queensland gives child defendants the opportunity to give evidence by closed-circuit TV, and it appears to be the only jurisdiction in Australia that allows this to occur. I have been unable to find further information about how long the provisions have been available in Queensland and whether they have been seen to be successful or not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .