Sexual Violence Legislation Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 18 to 27 in Part 2 of the Schedule Amendments to Victims’ Rights Act 2002. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think it’s always a significant matter when we are considering ways that we can make the lives of victims easier, and so it’s commendable that Amendments to Victims’ Rights Act 2002 are contemplated by Part 2. So I just wonder if the Minister can give us some explanation, for the sake of the record, in relation the victim impact statements. So we see in new clause 22A, as it will be within that Act, to do with the presentation of such statements to accord in some other manner. So if the Minister can give the House some kind of explanation about the thinking behind that, and the way that he believes that that will be helpful I would greatly appreciate it.

Can I thank the member for the question, because I think this is something that the whole House will agree on, in terms of victims being able to have the right to use the same methods in which they would give evidence at a trial to make the victim impact statement post trial, usually at the sentencing point of the process. They can use video recordings. Again, if they want to be in court but not to see the defendant—or the person who’s been prosecuted, at this stage, if they’re giving a victim impact statement—they can also use that means. I guess this is giving the right of flexibility for victims to be able to give their victim impact statement in a way that suits them, and I think the ability to do that, again, will give some safety to the victim and a sense of closure and the ability to bring closure in a way that they would like to happen, as opposed to in an open court with a defendant present looking at them directly. So I think, again, this is a good thing as part of the process for victims.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Can I acknowledge the Minister for taking the trouble to set out that philosophy behind the victim impact statement method of presentation being alternative.

I have a question in relation to a new section 28D—“D” for delta as it will be—which is headed “Court may be cleared when victim impact statement read or otherwise presented to court”. I just wonder if the Minister can explain whether it’s his understanding that that is already able to be the case under the current law, and whether this bill is really, essentially, affirming that or providing a bit of a guideline, or if it’s more in the fact of it being something that creates a new right that isn’t, you know, essentially on the statute book or by way of case law or perhaps practise of various court jurisdictions.

Clarifying that it is not a right for that to happen in that manner at this stage. If the judge declares that doing it in that manner would cause undue stress to the person giving the victim impact statement, they can ask for that to be done. My understanding, I believe, although I might need to be clarified of this, is that while you can clear the court, I think the media might be able to be present in the court at the same time.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the chair to report progress.

Progress to be reported.