Page 4398 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
EVIDENCE (CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION)
(AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1994
Debate resumed from 10 November 1994, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.25): Madam Speaker, the Opposition supports this Bill which has come up for debate, but I do think that I need to sound a note of warning about the legislation. I believe that it raises a philosophical question which will be more pronounced by the passage of the legislation. The Bill extends the use of closed-circuit television to adult witnesses in sexual abuse cases. Members will recall that in 1991 we passed legislation which facilitated at that stage a trial, and later a permanent arrangement, for children to use closed-circuit television when giving evidence in court. We are all well aware of the arguments for doing that. Children face a special trauma when giving evidence in court. We thought it was important to allow them to do so by means of television. That process of doing so was monitored by a trial of some sort. Having reviewed the results of that trial, it was, I think, earlier this year that we passed legislation to remove the sunset provisions and make that a permanent feature of our court systems. Children now, as a matter of course, can use closed-circuit television to give evidence in cases in our courts.
Madam Speaker, it is argued that we are to extend this arrangement now to people who have to give evidence in court where sexual assault or indecent assault proceedings are under way. The philosophical question I pose is this: If we believe that this is an appropriate thing to do in order to reduce the trauma of people appearing in our courts, generally women in this case, why should we not allow all witnesses in criminal proceedings to appear through closed-circuit television? Indeed, why not allow all witnesses, full stop, should they wish, in civil and criminal proceedings, to give evidence through closed-circuit television? Those of us who happen to have appeared in court from time to time on civil or criminal matters will know that it is a traumatic experience. Irrespective of what function one performs in that role, it can be a traumatic experience.
The question I posed - "Why should not everybody be entitled to give closed-circuit television evidence?" - I think, can be answered in one of two possible ways. One answer is that we do not have the resources to let everybody give evidence in this fashion. That may well be a short-term answer; but I think that in the longer term, if we believe that it is important to make justice accessible - I assume that this is an argument about accessibility of justice - we presumably, progressively, should make closed-circuit television a feature of other court proceedings over a period. It can be very traumatic to be a witness in an assault proceeding, or a murder case, or whatever it might be. There is an argument in all those cases for extending that particular provision. Having set up the physical infrastructure for giving evidence by closed-circuit television, namely, the line that runs from the courtroom to the other room where the witness sits and gives the evidence, the physical cost is basically met. The only cost, presumably, is the cost of an operator sitting in the room with the witness to facilitate the relaying of the material back into the courtroom. So, the infrastructure or resources question is not necessarily a very great one.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .