Statutes Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 May 2015.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:11): I indicate that I am not the lead speaker for the opposition; the member for Bragg will in due course take that role. I look forward to contributions by the member for Bragg and the member for Hartley, who I know has a bit to say on this matter, and others. The role that I held through 2011-12 of shadow minister for disabilities gave me an opportunity to spend a good many months visiting with stakeholder groups, representative groups and, more importantly, families of people with disabilities and people with disabilities in a range of areas.

It was a really cherished period in my life where I was able to gain a fuller understanding of many of the issues confronting some of the people in this situation and the absolute horror felt by so many members of the community upon hearing of cases such as the one that I am sure will attract some comment in other speeches of children on a school bus being taken off the school bus and abused disgustingly and then prosecution not being able to be made because the evidence available to the prosecution was not of a nature that was sufficient to get a conviction. Imagine the horror of the families of those children. Imagine the horror of families of any children who would be in such a circumstance. Reform of this nature is important that it be undertaken because it is not good enough for us as a society to cling to a process that delivers such poor outcomes when changes can be made.

So, I look forward to the further debate on this matter. The intent is to enable assistance to be given to vulnerable witnesses in order that their testimony may be appreciated by the court. One would hope that its intent will be fulfilled and that it may benefit the children in particular and other vulnerable witnesses and vulnerable victims, and that we do not again have the situation that was particularly brought to my attention that I referred to earlier.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (17:14): I also rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Bill 2015. I will be supporting the bill. As we have heard, the bill was introduced by the Attorney on 6 May and what it actually does is amend the Evidence Act 1929, which consolidates the rules regarding presentation and admissibility of evidence in our courts. This is very important.

Obviously there are a number of things at play when you instigate these kinds of laws: making sure that you protect the integrity of evidence, making sure that you protect the vulnerability of witnesses, and making sure you protect the vulnerability of witnesses in the context of the evidence they give as well. This is what this bill does. It goes to the heart of these sorts of issues, and what we have here are related amendments to acts covering the Supreme Court, District Court and Magistrates Court acts as well as many others.

As a background to this, we know that the government published the Disability Justice Plan back in 2011, and it is welcome that it is trying to fulfil some of these election commitments to progress what have been some of the highest priorities of that report. The government claims that the bill will improve the position of vulnerable parties, including children and people with disability, whether they are victims, witnesses, suspects, plaintiffs or defendants.

However, one of the things the government has failed to take up is the courts precinct, and I need not remind the government that it does have an obligation to upgrade these facilities. We know that the court infrastructure in South Australia is not where it needs to be; the IT software in the courts in South Australia is not where it needs to be. Time and time again judges, magistrates, members of the legal fraternity have called for upgrades to this. It seems to be a fundamental element that the government continually fails to address, and I would like to point that out and seek sight of that in the budget that is coming up. We need to get these things right, and for too long the profession has had to operate in an environment with substandard facilities. It is not good enough, and the government needs to do better.

However, back to the bill. The bill provides for the definition of cognitive impairment and defines what that is. It also defines 'vulnerable witness', and that has actually changed to accommodate more recent developments. The definition of 'young child' is increased from age 12 to age 14. It also talks about admission into evidence of audiovisual records. Regulations will require that an interview be conducted by a specially trained person while the court retains discretion in respect of admissibility. Specialist training for interviewers is proposed to support these changes.

The bill also talks about special hearings for the pre-trial taking of evidence from children 14 years and under with disability, or persons with a disability who are victims or witnesses in trials involving sexual or violent offences. This will allow evidence to be taken as close as possible in time to the charges as they are laid, to assist memory and also to avoid what may be a reliving of the experience suffered months later. It also provides for the extension of priority of sexual assault trials where the complainant is a child to those where the complainant has a disability. It also amends the Evidence Act.

I compliment the drafters of the bill. This is not an easy task; it is a very tricky bill to get your head around. I spent many weeks toiling over the Evidence Act in my law school days and I think the drafters of the bill have done quite a good job, initially, in getting this right. The bill aims to amend the Evidence Act to give people with complex communication needs the right to a general entitlement to have a communication assistant present for contact within the criminal justice system, both in and out of court, and the model expands on the existing rights to an interpreter.

The bill also amends the Evidence Act to clarify an increase in access to appropriate persons to provide emotional support, both in and out of court, and to broaden special arrangements that are available in the giving of evidence. I note that the court could regulate the manner, the topics and also the timing of questions. It also goes to the heart of what inappropriate questions are and clarifies the definition of inappropriate questions, including those 'too complicated for a witness to understand'.

Additionally, the bill repeals section 34CA of the Evidence Act to allow admissibility as a limited exception to the hearsay rule. There are claims that new section 34LA will resolve this, and I look forward to hearing the Attorney explain how that will be done. The bill also clarifies criteria for the determining of the competence of a witness and, furthermore, clarifies the operation of the law that governs exemptions to close relatives from giving evidence against the accused.

In addition, the bill clarifies the rules in relation to the initial complaint of sexual conduct by an alleged victim allowing it to demonstrate a consistency of conduct. In this bill, the weight is still left to the judge or jury. This bill tightens the restrictions on access to audiovisual records and transcript, expands the meaning of 'sensitive material' and allows regulations to provide a procedure so that interviews can be reviewed for training purposes.

When you look at what other jurisdictions have done, it is interesting to put what we are suggesting here in context. I note that Victoria has an Independent Third Person scheme as part of the Office of the Public Advocate. In the Northern Territory, I believe they have drafted legislation to allow exceptions to the hearsay rule being considered. Overseas, it is the case, especially in Canada and England, that wide general exemptions to the rule are allowed. I note that SA, WA and Queensland are not party to the uniform evidence act.

I note that the bill has been put out for consultation. The Law Society especially has provided a draft submission to the Disability Justice Plan, and has expressed the concerns that I raised just a short time ago in regard to the budgetary resources of our courts. The courts are already overloaded and there are concerns in regard to greater delay in other criminal cases and civil trials.

However, if this does result in more prosecutions, if this does result in more evidence being able to be used for good purpose and benefit, that is certainly a good thing. At the same time, I note that we are still waiting for certain stakeholders to provide their feedback, so it may be that, in another place, this bill will be subject to further scrutiny, as is the case for many laws.

Overall, I support the intent of the bill. I applaud the writers of the bill. I understand that it is a tricky part of law and I think this is a good attempt to get right an area that has probably been not where it needs to be for a long time. With those few words, I commend the bill to the house.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:24): I rise to support this legislation and look forward to it coming into force. People who have been around here a little while will know that this is an issue that has been raised a number of times in this place: questions have been asked, reports have been prepared and committees have been set up. All sorts of attitudes and opinions have been voiced about what we should be doing to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and particularly people with disabilities.

I have been personally involved in one of the cases that has been talked about a lot in this place, and that is the St Ann's Special School case. The son of some very good friends of mine was at St Ann's Special School and he was one of the victims of the bus driver. I know the impact that it had not only on the son of my friends but also on them, and they are still suffering. Unfortunately, their son died from an unrelated medical condition, but they are still suffering from the effects of not being able to protect their son from an evil predator.

We need to do everything we possibly can to protect people who are not aware of their surroundings. We in this place are lucky enough to be completely cognisant of what is going on, the consequences of actions and the way people try to manipulate outcomes in certain circumstances. The failure to communicate is a problem in many areas, but in particular—and I am not a lawyer; I keep saying in this place that I am just a humble veterinarian—we need to make sure that we do have a justice system and not just a legal system. That is something I am very keen to see.

I think we should have the ability to change the law and to broaden the scope of legislation so that evidence can be admitted into a court of law. I should say that I trust the wisdom of our judges to determine whether that evidence is admissible, the veracity of that evidence and the weight that is put on that evidence. Whether it is evidence being given by a defendant, a victim or a witness, I think that evidence should be weighed by a judge, and I do not think it is a black and white issue in these particular circumstances. There has to be some opportunity for people who cannot express themselves as well as we can in this place to tell what has happened to them, their circumstances or the trauma that they may have undergone.

We need to make sure that there is a place in our law and a place in our justice system for people to be heard and protected, and for people to be punished if they have done the wrong thing. Whether it is the horrendous serial acts of the bus driver in the St Ann's case or a one-off offence, it does not matter, we have to make sure that the whole process is gone through and that the people involved—particularly the victims who are unable to express themselves in a manner that you and I might easily understand—are given that opportunity. This is where the use of communication assistants and witness assistants is a really good move. To be able to admit hearsay evidence and to allow the judge to weigh that is another good move, because sometimes these victims will communicate with trusted members of the family or trusted carers and give evidence of things that have gone on.

We need to make sure that our society is able to assist victims and assist the whole of that disability sector, and others who are unable to communicate as well that might be included in this area, with not such strict letter of the law but rather an understanding and an interpretation of the intent of the legislation that we are putting through this place. Sometimes it is frustrating for me to see that the intent of the legislation is not exactly what is happening in the application of the legislation. If this legislation goes anywhere towards assisting an outcome of fairness, equity and justice, it will be a good piece of legislation. I understand there are still some questions about the nuances and that there are certain submissions still being reviewed and possible amendments may have to be looked at. If that serves to make sure that this legislation is doing what is intended by all of us, that is a very good thing.

I will leave the technical discussion to my good friend and colleague the deputy leader, the member for Bragg. I enjoy listening to her contributions, her dissecting of the facts and the legislation, and then splicing it all back together again to make sure that we get what we intend. With that, I will finish my contribution and just say that I hope beyond all that we get the legislation that we require in this place so that I do not have to come back into this place, as I did in questions to former premier Rann and in grieves, and ask eight times for reports on sexual abuse of victims to be released before any action is taken. It should not come to that. It should not come to a massive revelation of a horrendous series of events. Let us hope that, even if there is a one-off event, this legislation does something towards improving the outcomes for those victims.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:31): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Bill 2015. This bill was tabled on 6 May by the Attorney-General and it has been listed for progress today. I have appreciated the availability of Ms Amelia Cairney, Mr Stephen Brock and Fiona Snodgrass in two separate briefings on this matter, one to outline the legal amendments and the second to look at the implementation arrangements, particularly the tenders for specialty training for the new initiative in this bill, which, of course, is the establishment of communication assistance. I thank them for that, but we are being asked to progress this bill in the absence of hearing from some of the usual stakeholders.

I will qualify that by saying that, whilst we have not yet received any commentary from the Law Society or the Bar Association, two parties that are not only familiar and experienced with the Evidence Act 1929 and its application, which has been substantially amended in this bill, I do value their opinion; however, I have read the submission that they presented to the government, during the course of their consultation on the criminal justice system reforms, and the comments they made about amendments that might help support people with a disability. They raised a number of concerns at the time.

Secondly, there are parties who are well known in the field of disability advocacy, people such as John Brayley, who is the Public Advocate, and people such as the former chief executive of the Julia Farr Centre and, I think, Julia Farr Housing SA—

Mr Gardner: Robbi Williams.

Ms CHAPMAN: Mr Robbi Williams, thank you, member for Morialta. They are well known advocates in this field. We are assured that they have given support to the legislation before us. I also commend the extraordinary work and continued advocacy of the Hon. Kelly Vincent MLC, who represents the Dignity for Disability party in the other place. These are tireless performers and they are demonstrably successful in their advocacy for those with a disability, so their opinions I do value. I thank also the member for Hartley and the member for Morphett, the latter of whom is the representative on disability matters in the opposition. He keeps us constantly reminded of the importance to take into account matters that will affect people with a disability in all of the areas of policy and legislation that we deal with.

So, although we are without some of the contributions that would ordinarily be expected to be received, I have had those briefings. I have the benefit of the confirmation of support that has been indicated, and I have the benefit of some material that has been provided by the Attorney in his letter late last week to answer a number of the questions on this bill.

I also recognise that the government published the Disability Justice Plan back in 2011. It formed the basis of a strategy document which was presented to cover what was also called a Disability Justice Plan for 2014-17, setting out a number of priorities that they hope to achieve for reform in this area, but in the disability justice area, specifically to uphold and protect and promote the rights of people with a disability, to support vulnerable victims and witnesses in the giving of evidence, to support people with disability accused or convicted of a crime, and continuously monitor and improve performance.

It should also be noted and I do acknowledge the work of the select committee of this parliament, which reported on 25 July 2013 on access to and interaction with the South Australian justice system for people with disabilities. I do not have in front of me the full membership of the committee, and of course they have moved off the Notice Paper as a result of concluding their work, but I do know the Hon. Stephen Wade was also a member of that committee. He has also been very active. Formerly a board member of the Julia Farr Centre prior to coming into the parliament here for our side of politics, he has also been a strong advocate for the recognition of those with disability.

The one thing that would temper my enthusiasm for the reforms in this area is that, when I met with Mr Stephen Brock, it seemed quite clear that, whilst there was going to be a period of tender process for the purposes of contracting a party to provide training to some communication assistants, the total budget for these initiatives is something like $3½ million over four years. The reality is, as he confirmed, we are only going to have a few trained up, it is going to take a very long time, and the piloting, whether that is going to be geographical or to a small group of lucky winners who get a chance to have these communication systems, is clearly going to start very small.

I remember saying this about the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme and at the time that we were being asked to do reforms for people who had catastrophic injuries arising out of motor vehicle accidents. All around the time of that debate, my greatest concern was that we were receiving, in that instance, Productivity Commission reports saying that there needed to be billions of dollars put on the table to actually support these initiatives, even without that very expensive component of housing for people with disability.

So, what ends up happening is that we pass laws, everyone is gleeful at the prospect of there being reform and that there will be initiatives outlaid, but then we find that it drip-feeds out and that only a select few get access to this for quite some time. That has come true of the NDIS arrangements, which are sort of ballooning out in time before people got access to it. I, for one, do not want to raise expectations for a parent, sitting out there waiting for the progress of this bill, to think that their child who might be a witness, victim or potentially defendant in court proceedings is going to be assured of having the protection of these measures and the support of a communication assistant. That may be a very long time coming, and I do not want there to be an unrealistic expectation of that. Certainly, the government will be singing the praises of this reform. One stark omission from this reform is in their own document when they say, and I quote at page 7 of the Disability Justice Plan:

Ensure that new infrastructure developments across the justice system including the courts precinct are accessible and disability friendly.

Well, we all know what happened to that plan. That has bitten the dust. The courts precinct project, which has been on the drawing board for years, which has had funding for its development, which has even been out to tender, was recently aborted by announcement of the Attorney-General. The courts precinct project had been developed with I suspect hundreds of thousands of dollars already spent, if not millions. Certainly, if one added all the parties other than the taxpayers, it would probably be millions that have been spent in developing courts precinct project preliminary documents, and it has all gone pear-shaped. The government has announced that it is not value for money, whatever that is. Presumably, it is too expensive for the scope they have got.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Madam Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have a point of order, do you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —at the risk of interrupting the member for Bragg on what no doubt for her is an interesting sideline, it really does not have any particular pertinence to the situation of vulnerable witnesses. I would be very happy to have a chat with her after about anything she thinks about courts.

Ms CHAPMAN: I speak to the objection because, at page 7 of the government's Disability Justice Plan, which lists its priority actions, some of which have been incorporated in this bill and some of which have not, I am highlighting 1.6 which specifically says:

Ensure that new infrastructure developments across the justice system including the courts precinct are accessible and disability friendly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to give a ruling in Latin, once I find the word for 'okay'. Perhaps just continue with your contribution.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will. I do not intend to spend a lot of time on this, but let me say this: last year at estimates, I asked the Chief Justice whether he was aware of a mattress at the end of the stairway that was there to help people in case they slipped down the stairs and banged into it, as an illustration of how bad the state of the Supreme Court house was. He could not recall it, actually.

I was amazed to view it on television just recently in a segment I think on the Today Tonight program, in which there were various people espousing how appalled they were that the government had abandoned this project. They had filmed various areas of shocking salt damp, rickety staircases, etc., and there before me on the screen was the mattress, so I know that it exists—that is how bad it is.

That is for able-bodied people who are ambulant to get up and down stairs, but what is worse is our former chief justice, chief justice Doyle, could not even get into his own courtroom when he was in a wheelchair as a result of having an accident whilst overseas. The highest judicial officer of the state was denied access during his period of infirmity. I was gleeful to see in the justice plan, when my attention was diverted to it as a result of this bill, that this was there, but of course it is finished, it is dead, we do not have a court precinct project at this point.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: No, it's not dead. It's just not very well.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is just sick. It is terminal. It has actually been terminated. The government have announced that they are now working on another idea, which presumably is the skinny version where we are going to get one tower instead of two towers, it might not be as high, it is going to have less in it. We might have smaller courts, we might have mini pews, I do not know what is going to be in it. The jury boxes might be tinier, I do not know.

However, it is just incredible how the government will say, 'We will fix this up.' We recognise there is a major accessibility issue in our courts. The former chief justice could not even get into our most senior court in the state. I am disappointed. With that rider, I am indicating that the opposition will be supporting this bill.

Can I say, however, when I get back to the select committee of which the Hon. Mr Wade was a member, and I was commending his great contribution of service to this area of advocacy, both before and in the parliament, that its chief recommendation has not been taken up. The chief recommendation is that we have disability justice advocates. During the course of briefing on this, I was advised that Victoria has developed quite a sophisticated advocacy model where they have trained up volunteers. They call it their Independent Third Persons scheme. It is part of their Office of Public Advocate. It has been operating 25 years or so. It was considered by the committee to have merit and that it was something that needed to be followed up.

They have a pool of about 90, apparently, operating over there now. I think that it is disappointing that that had not been taken up, particularly, as on the information from Mr Brock, that it is going to be months, if not years, before we actually have a significant pool of communication assistants (without wishing to be disrespectful to this other program), which is the most novel aspect of this bill, who are to have a more professional role, if I can say, as extended, trained interpreters particularly able to provide reliable information to a sister court in the expressions that are made by the person with a cognitive disability or who is 14 years or younger.

I just think that we will be some time away because remember the two aspects of this bill, which are perhaps the most controversial: one is how the application of these communications assistants is going to work. What we understand is that the amendments will give people with the complex communication needs the right to have one of these communication assistants. The whole process of their being allowed and under what terms, and the like, will be under the management of a judge.

It essentially is claimed to be an extension of the role of an interpreter, as we frequently use in courts. They have to be sworn in. They have to swear that they are going to give a correct translation—in that case of a language. Here it is going to be a more extended role. There will be explicit powers allowing for the use of a communication assistant. It will also provide for the use of a communication device.

Apparently there are regulations as to who can provide the communication assistant in court and during an interview and will provide for two classes of persons to give assistance to the court: one a communication partner as approved by the minister, and that maybe on a volunteer basis; and, two, a person appointed by the court to act as a communication assistant in the court.

The other perhaps more controversial area of reform is the proposed amendments to the Evidence Act to repeal section 34C and replace provision to allow the admissibility in a limited exception to the hearsay rule. In the time I have been here in the parliament we have had a number of attempts to try to change these exemptions to the hearsay rule for often very meritorious reasons. The Court of Criminal Appeal had some concerns about how we have done that and has sent us back a few times. It has more recently raised concerns as to the interpretation by the courts and its application because it has been so problematic.

The Attorney has claimed in his contribution that the new section 34LA will resolve this. It certainly goes to extending the admissibility of evidence, including to prove the truth of the facts which is the most controversial aspect of this bill. There has to be some level of understanding, but it will be allowing for the admissibility of out-of-court statements of a young child or witness with a disability in sexual cases where the witness is unavailable to be called to testify about the events in question owing to age or the disability.

So, we are yet to see whether this is going to work. We have to rely on the indications of the government that this will help to remedy some of the defects that have been highlighted. It is a complicated and controversial area of the law. We have a general rule which says that hearsay evidence should not be admitted, it is not reliable, it is not in the first person. We have some statutory provided exceptions to it for reasons that have been added over the years, and this is one to which it is going to be extended a little and we hope it works. Our reassurance comes in the supervision of that by the judge who is hearing the case.

I will just quickly summarise that the bill otherwise provides for the definition of 'cognitive impairment' and essentially we are talking about vulnerable persons as a result of their having an intellectual developmental or acquired disability or mental illness or, indeed, because of their age. Historically, we have provided for 12 years and under, apparently to be consistent with other jurisdictions; that is now going to be 14 years or under.

Secondly, there is allowing for the admission into evidence of audiovisual records of interviews as the evidence of victims or vulnerable witnesses—hopefully that situation will assist—and special hearings for pre-trial taking of evidence from children 14 years and under with a disability or persons with a disability who are victims or witnesses in trials involving sexual or violent offences. That, we understand, will allow evidence to be taken as near as possible to the laying of charges to assist memory and avoid reliving the experience months later. However, members should be aware that this does not mean that it will be without some pain to the victims particularly, or witnesses, because they still will be interviewed and it will still be transcribed or videoed.

Also, there is to be a priority of sexual assault trials where the complainant is a child or where the complainant has a disability, and we have no objection to this. For children this is already in the courts act. We do not have any objection to this, but we have raised this concern along with the Law Society and others and that, if you are going to fast track these cases through the courts, we have no idea of how many there might be that come out of the woodwork that think this might help to progress the successful prosecution of the case and, therefore, what had otherwise been a barrier to proceeding via the DPP's office, for example, will be relieved. So, whether these come thick and fast we are yet to see but at present our courts, particularly the District Court, are under enormous pressure having already had child sexual abuse cases, and the law which reformed the pre-1982 complaints which have been given priority, taking up a lot of court time.

We are concerned that the government understands that the passage of this legislation and the prioritising of these cases will mean inevitably further delay for all the other people who are waiting to have their cases heard—some criminal—and then the poor people who have civil litigation pending who are already years away from the opportunity to have a trial. That is years away from people getting their compensation, years away from people getting relief in respect of liability for something, years away from being able to get part of their mother's estate. There are all sorts of reasons why people go to court who are not criminals or witnesses or defendants.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: We are going to fix all that.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have heard that before. I just make the point—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we going to move to sit beyond 6 o'clock? We have messages and things, so just to be safe shall we move beyond 6 o'clock?

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay. I just ask the government to be mindful of the fact that there has to be money with this, otherwise it will not work. I will not traverse the other details, other than to thank those who have provided their support to this. I hope they will keep the government to account on this and make sure that it is implemented and works as promised.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (17:55): I rise today to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Bill because we need to ensure that no child goes without justice because our legal system is inaccessible to them, and no disabled person goes without justice because our legal system is inaccessible to them either.

I started my nursing career as a registered nurse in 1989, working at the Julia Farr Centre. For seven years I was a registered nurse working predominantly in the area of brain injury rehabilitation and assessment. Part of that included advocacy and support for many people who were admitted with speech impairments or a definite disability in terms of their ability to communicate with people. I found a great deal of sympathy for those people over the years, but I also gained a great deal of respect for them, watching their endeavours with communication devices and communicating through expert therapists, nurses, friends and relatives. So I have a definite understanding of what is required to support people with speech disabilities or impediments to communicate their needs, and we must respect that and support that.

The bill put forward seeks to make our courts a much easier place for these types of vulnerable people, whether it is due to a disability or being under the age of 14. Its provisions are applied whether the vulnerable person before the court is a witness, victim, suspect or defendant. It comes as a part of the government’s key policy commitment to deliver on the Disability Justice Plan. The government is providing $3.246 million to make this justice plan a reality. The plan has also been developed with close consultation with the disability sector.

The bill provides a number of tools to best assist vulnerable witnesses access our legal system. This is vitally important. The bill lays out provisions to allow children and disabled persons to testify remotely from the court, and for that interview to be provided to the court as evidence where it relates to an issue involving sexual or violent crimes.

The interview would need to be undertaken by a prescribed interviewer. Where further questioning of the witness is required after their audio-visual evidence has been submitted, that could only occur with approval of the court, based on the need to get the fairest trial for all parties. This will help to ensure that vulnerable members of our community are not additionally aggrieved by having to see their attackers again, which can be a quite harrowing event for vulnerable persons.

To help ensure that evidence is sought as quickly as possible, both for the best retelling of details and to ensure that the victims do not need to relive this experience years on, the bill allows for special pre-trial hearings, which mean that a child and a disabled witness can have their testimony taken as soon as possible.

The final point I wanted to speak to was this assistance that can be provided to vulnerable persons having to testify before the court—creating provisions around which regulations can be made to provide emotional assistance and, separately, those provisions which I alluded to in the opening of my speech, around allowance for communication assistants to be provided.

This will help people who cannot properly communicate for themselves to be able to have their voices heard and to ensure that justice is within their reach. I would urge any member who has not participated in, listened to or observed a person with a significant speech disability being assisted to communicate their needs, please endeavour to reach out to someone in your community who is having this problem and watch the strength and bravery as they express their needs to other people.

We need to ensure that our justice system is accessible to all who need to use it. Our name as a fair society depends on this, and this bill will go some of the way to help us achieve this goal. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (18:01): First of all, thank you to all those members who have spoken in relation to this matter. I think it is something that all of us can take some pride in. We are actually participating in the process of attempting to give voice to people who in the past have not had a voice.

It is a difficult balancing exercise, looking after people and giving a voice to people with a disability on the one hand and not providing a standard of proof that is so degraded that people can be at risk of being falsely accused and convicted of an offence. It is a very interesting and difficult problem, but I think we probably have the balance about right here.

I look forward to, hopefully, the speedy passage of the bill through the other place. I do think the disability sector is watching this to see whether the parliament does this quickly and I would like to think that we will please them. I would even like to think that those in another place might please them, but I know that sometimes—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're not going to reflect, are you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am not going to reflect. I might reflect internally, perhaps.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (18:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.