Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

EVIDENCE (CHILDREN AND SPECIAL WITNESSES) BILL 2001 (No. 81)

Second Reading

Dr PATMORE (Bass - Minister for Justice and Industrial Relations - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Mr Speaker, this bill forms part of the Evidence Bill 2001 legislative package. It reproduces the current sections of the Evidence Act 1910 which provide special provisions for children and special witnesses when giving evidence in court. These relate to such matters as evidence by audio/visual link, the presence of support persons, out of court statements and closure of courts. There are some sections that have not been reproduced as they are covered by provisions in the Evidence Bill 2001. They are sections 122B, 122C and 122D. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN (Denison) - Mr Deputy Speaker, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition does support this bill. There is one other thing that the Attorney did not mention but was mentioned to me in the briefing by Ms Debra Rigby which I want to draw to the attention of the House. That is, it puts beyond doubt any question that might have arisen as to when the child had to actually be in the court building when evidence by television link was given in the trial. I was involved in one case as senior counsel for the defence a couple of years ago. The child actually had to be brought to the court and taken not through the court but through the corridors of the court with the police and media and so on. The child in that case was a 13 or 14-year-old girl from Launceston. I remember thinking at the time, it must have been unpleasant for her just to even be taken into the building. Then they are taken down into a room, Mr Deputy Speaker, where there is a closed circuit television and we are in the court and we see the witness. In most cases where the trial judge gives permission for the evidence to be given like this, it is plain sailing. But in a couple of cases we have had and not involving children but involving an interstate witness -

Dr Patmore - One very recently - we had to legislate before you arrived.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - That is right. It just did not work out.

Dr Patmore - Justice Slicer if I remember rightly.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - No, the Chief Justice actually.

Dr Patmore - Was it?

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - In the murder trial it was the Chief Justice. I think Slicer J. had another one. But what happened with this one was that we had the murder trial, the witness was in Queensland and counsel for the defence consented to an order that his evidence be taken by television link-up from Queensland. Mr Deputy Speaker, even with modern technology there were delays between question and answer and it was frankly unsatisfactory. In the event the Chief Justice said to the Crown, you had better bring him down and they did. But the bottom line with this amendment which Ms Rigby pointed out to me, otherwise I must admit I would not have appreciated the importance of it is they now have the technology whereby the child can give evidence in a totally separate building by television -

Dr Patmore - Anywhere in Australia.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - Anywhere in Australia and if a problem arises, as I said, she or he, as the case may be, can then be brought to the court if there is a difficulty. But it just takes away one additional thing. Why should a 12-year-old girl, or boy for that matter, be actually taken into the building? Most mornings when trials are on, you have two criminal court sittings. So you have 12 jurors in each case, you have counsel, police, witnesses and the child has to be taken through. The television cameras are out the front but they cannot film or report the child, as you know. All I am trying to say in a roundabout way, is that this is a very sensible amendment, humane legislation, and the Opposition has pleasure in supporting it.

Mr HIDDING (Lyons) - Mr Deputy Speaker, could I just seek some advice from the Attorney-General? I have had the opportunity to have a brief discussion with our representative of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition shadow Attorney-General in the State of Tasmania.

Dr Patmore - Sovereign State of Tasmania.

Mr HIDDING (Lyons) - Sovereign State of Tasmania, the archipelago. I am interested in this issue of audio-visual links. My colleague tells me that this clause is generally aimed at children who are giving evidence in a criminal/civil trial as a witness. So this might be a little from left field but I wonder if you could discuss with us the possibilities of the Ashley Detention Centre, which has space for some 45 children, who have one way or another been involved in matters that bring them before the court and often ongoing matters. They are placed in Ashley well before that matter is determined. We are aware of the quite numerous occasions that there have been problems with detainees of Ashley escaping from custody while they are on the way to various court cases and I just wondered now that we have this new facility whether there could not be an audio-visual room set up in that facility so that it was not often necessary -

Dr Patmore - It's already done.

Mr HIDDING - Is it?

Dr Patmore - Yes.

Mr HIDDING - Is it? These hearings are continually adjourned 'for mentions'. With this audio-visual room there will be much less reason to cart these kids all over Tasmania and give them opportunities to do the wrong thing.

It would seem to me that they are better if they are secure in that facility, settled down and on Thursday they have an appearance in the room whereby they can sit in front of the camera and do what they have to do.

Dr PATMORE (Bass - Minister for Justice and Industrial Relations) - Yes, that is already done. I was at Ashley a little while ago - I visited Ashley for other reasons - and had a discussion with the managers or whatever. I then had a discussion with the magistrates over making it a more common occurrence and, as I understand, it is working well now and there are now links to Launceston and Hobart from Ashley so transport -

Mr Hidding - No legislative change required for that?

Dr PATMORE - It is already done. This is a restatement of the act so this is not a new legislative change. This is taking the parts we want to take out of the old act and keeping them going.

Mr Hidding - But there is a change in this? One change comes about -

Dr PATMORE - No, it clarifies problems with the ruling that on my understanding came from Slicer J. But it could have been the Chief Justice as well.

Mr Michael Hodgman - I think it was Slicer J.

Dr PATMORE - It was and we had to amend that where he said that an interstate witness actually had - no, it was interstate - the person had to be interstate -

Mr Michael Hodgman - Yes.

Dr PATMORE - and that clarifies that. So, no, it is already being used, and it is saving time and money.

Bill read the second time and taken through the remaining stages.