Page 1585 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I certainly will be prepared to consider in the Legal Affairs Committee the question of whether this matter should be further examined. I certainly would be concerned if the Law Reform Commission took a different view about child defendants from the position that we are taking here tonight. Perhaps that would be a good enough reason to have a review, but I am open to persuasion on that question. I cautiously, therefore, commend the Bill to the house. I hope that we have put in place here a procedure which will do much more good than it does harm.
MRS GRASSBY (8.23): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill because I think it moves us into the twentieth century. Having closed-circuit television for children in courts is, I think, very important. In years past many offenders, I think, have escaped the law because of the trauma a child would go through in giving evidence in court. I do not think there is a parent who would wish their child to go through that. I know that if I had had to put my daughter into a court where she had to go through that trauma I would have thought twice about it. The fact that offenders go free is a problem.
Mr Humphries talked about the fear of children seeing wigs and gowns on judges and barristers. I think that is a fear to anybody. You can imagine what it does to a child, or can do to a child, in a court to see a judge sitting there in that silly wig and gown, looking like he was about to condemn them to death.
Ms Follett: Or anyone really.
MRS GRASSBY: Exactly. Thank you, Chief Minister. I can imagine exactly how a child would feel because I know how I would feel. Mr Humphries went on to say that problems could be caused by this Bill, but I think the pluses outweigh the minuses. I think it is a very important Bill and I congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing it into the house. I think there are many people out there who would feel a lot more comfortable as a result of this if their child was put in the position of having to give evidence, particularly in a case of sexual assault by a person they knew. Being in a court and seeing the person, they may be very frightened to say exactly what they think.
Mr Humphries: Sometimes it is the parent who is being tried under this procedure. The child is giving evidence against the parent.
MRS GRASSBY: Yes, I know that, Mr Humphries, but I think the pluses do outweigh the minuses. As I said, I congratulate the Attorney-General on this Bill. Being a parent, I think it is very important.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (8.25), in reply: I thank members for their support for this legislation, although I note the points of caution that were raised by Ms Szuty and by Mr Humphries. In closing the debate I think it is appropriate - as there has been general agreement I think there would be general agreement with this - to pay tribute to the work of Ron Cahill, the Chief Magistrate in the ACT. Judges and magistrates often are seen by the community as conservative and crusty individuals, and there has been a lot of criticism in the media in recent years about judges
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .