Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1894 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
It seems to me that the definition in the bill does not allow the witness assistant to attend in court automatically, as a right and as a person. The witness assistant does not fall within any of your descriptions. A worker from the Rape Crisis Centre does not fall within any descriptions.
Mr Stefaniak: They would be a party to the proceedings, a witness.
MR STANHOPE: No. A woman who had been raped and was appearing in court could decide for the purposes of the appearance that she wanted some support from a worker from the Rape Crisis Centre. She might want the support of the witness assistant. It seems to me that they are two examples-I am just trying to think quickly on my feet-of people who could be excluded from your definition of a person required to attend a court. They are people who do not have the protection of this section. A security officer does not have to satisfy the more onerous reasons for excluding such people from court.
It seems to me that there are a group or class of people-we should sit down and talk about this; perhaps we should have done so-who are not required to attend court. But the witness assistant certainly has quite specific duties and responsibilities.
Mr Stefaniak: And there is nothing to stop them going.
MR STANHOPE: They do not attract the protections that this section is designed to-
Mr Stefaniak: No, but you just said they were not required to attend court. These are people who are required.
MR STANHOPE: That is the point. We are deeming a class of people as people who are required to attend court. It seems to me that there is probably a range of other people who fall within my amendment-that is, a person who is accompanying a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c). If a rape victim is required to attend a rape trial, it seems to me that the people accompanying that person-it could be a member of the Rape Crisis Centre or the witness assistant-should have the same protections.
MS TUCKER (5.17): I will support the amendment moved by Labor. Mr Stefaniak has not addressed the main issues. The Bar Association also raised this matter, and I do not know if this is where Mr Stanhope got his amendment. They were concerned about this very issue. There may well be people who need to be in the court but who would not attract the protection under your criteria for people who are required to attend court. That could well be a personal support person or whatever. I am prepared to take the advice of the Bar Association. They have a strong view on this. I think this is a reasonable addition to the clause and I do not think it is legitimate to say, as Mr Stefaniak did, that it is a dangerous thing.
MR STEFANIAK
(Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (5.18): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I think people are missing the point here. Even if someone is a person who is required to attend court, the court can still direct them to leave if they are misbehaving. As someone who has appeared in our courts on a daily
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .