Page 4401 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If we are going to wind back the idea of making the courts a place which are frightening for some people to appear in, then the ideal people to start with are certainly children, and they are certainly women. There is no doubt that women appearing in sexual assault cases deserve to be the first exemptions or the first exclusions from this process where the court can make people feel very intimidated. But I pose the question, simply: Where exactly is the line to be drawn? Why do we allow people in those circumstances to do that and not others? If, for example, we are to feel in future years that people from non-English-speaking backgrounds face more pressure in our courts, will we say that they also should be afforded the comfort of closed-circuit television? Perhaps we should.
Ms Follett: Possibly; why not?
MR HUMPHRIES: "Possibly; why not?", says the Chief Minister. Indeed. We could argue that the elderly who have not been experienced in our court system might face more pressures in the circumstances than a young person. Should we not also consider exempting them? Is it possible that other people could demonstrate that they were nervous, that they were apprehensive, that they were worried, and could make an application to the court and say, "I really do not want to give evidence in a full court because I am worried about it. Please, may I give evidence by closed-circuit television"? Perhaps there is a very good argument for saying that everybody deserves that right, that we all need to have access to closed-circuit television; but that argument is not actually set out in the legislation or in the presentation speech by the Minister.
Madam Speaker, the Opposition supports this Bill and we believe that it is appropriate for there to be some action taken to insulate people in these circumstances, particularly women, from the traumatic effects of appearance in courts in sexual assault cases; but I think that the Government needs to answer the question, if not today then later on: Exactly what is the philosophical basis for this and how far does it go? Will the Government give a commitment that progressively others should get the benefit of this arrangement? Perhaps, at the end of the day, everybody who wishes to avail themselves of it should have the benefit of the same arrangement. I make this point very clear: I am not suggesting that women are any less deserving of special consideration than anybody else. I am certainly acknowledging very strongly the argument that says that sexual assault cases in our courts are very serious and cause particular distress to witnesses in those cases, and they deserve to be the first cab off the rank. My question is, though: Where does the rank end? How far down does it go?
MRS GRASSBY (5.38): Madam Speaker, sitting here, I thought I was listening to a speaker from the seventeenth century, not a speaker in this Legislative Assembly in 1994. It was one of the most conservative speeches that I have ever heard in my life. Mr Humphries referred to the fact that when we spoke to the Bar Association I asked about wigs and gowns. He quoted what Mr Richardson said. I firmly disagree with Mr Richardson. I do not think the Family Court was blown up at that time because of that. It was a new law that was brought in. As much as I think highly of the person who brought that in, the late Senator Lionel Murphy, I felt at the time that the law needed a lot of tidying up. To this day I still think it does.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .