Page 3440 - Week 09 - Thursday, 20 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The amendments to the Evidence Act also provide a more prescriptive framework for the circumstances in which a person would have authority in relation to an audiovisual recording used in evidence. They enable a witness to give evidence at a pre-trial hearing.
The scrutiny of bills committee pointed out that the prohibition on an accused directly cross-examining a vulnerable witness is contrary to the provisions of section 22(2) of the Human Rights Act and its justification under section 28 of the Human Rights Act may be problematic. No response to this matter has yet been received from the government. I would welcome a response at this stage from the minister. Again, while supporting the bill as a whole, I would simply say that this is another case of the government espousing human rights on the one hand but apparently denying them on another.
Amendments to the Magistrates Court Act 1930 make the provisions compliant with the Human Rights Act, which provides that a defendant has a right to be heard in person. The amendment precludes the court from sentencing a defendant if the court has heard and decided the case in the absence of the defendant. There are other provisions that can, by arrest warrant, get the defendant to court.
Amendments to the Supreme Court Act 1933 enable the court to deliver verdicts for alternative offences, that is, if the accused is found not guilty of an offence, but is guilty of another offence that is an alternative and summary offence. In doing so, the Supreme Court will acquire the same functions as the Magistrates Court.
Overall, these provisions will help to finetune the Criminal Code and the sentencing provisions in the ACT, and the opposition is happy to support them. Some of those matters are at the problematic end of the scale and will have to be watched very closely to ensure that they have the intended consequences, but overall we are happy to support the legislation.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.05): I rise today to support this bill and make a few brief comments. Two significant legislative reforms came into effect in the ACT on 30 May this year after being passed by the previous Assembly. One of those reforms was designed to reduce the potential for victims of sexual and violent offences to be further harmed by the court process. The other reform related to the introduction of hand-up committals or paper committals to the Magistrates Court with the aim of reflecting current practice and saving the time and costs of the court.
This amendment bill before the Assembly today clarifies the scope of those two reforms that commenced on 30 May. It is unfortunate that we have to legislate today to clarify the reforms of less than three months ago. Significant legislative reform should be self-contained and require little or no further amendment for some time. That is a general statement that holds true for all legislative reforms. Having said that, I do accept the statements by the Attorney-General, but in this instance the detail thrown up by the reforms has come to light only after commencement. It is therefore appropriate to legislate today to clarify the reforms, rather than wait.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .