Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

LIDDLE () (): The amendments are, of course, important. They ensure further measures to protect adult complainants. Imagine that you've been violated in such a way as a woman who's had a partial or even a total removal of external genitalia and been stitched up, closed up or cut for non-medical reasons. There are no health benefits nor medical justifications for that practice, yet about 53,000 girls and women born elsewhere but living in Australia in 2017 had undergone that in their lifetime. That's 53,000 too many girls and women who have endured bodily mutilation that they will live with their entire life. While the number of prosecutions has been minimal since Australia's first case, in 2019, the estimated number indicates it's not a small issue.

Imagine, though, that this is your reality and you are one of those few thousand women who have been trafficked or are slavery victims in Australia each year. In 2022-23, the Australian Federal Police received more reports of modern slavery than in any other reporting period. That's about 340 reports, and they included forced marriage and domestic servitude. Since becoming a criminal offence in 2013, forced marriage has been consistently the most reported form of modern slavery in the nation. We've read reports about the reality of exploited foreign women being moved around Australia like cattle to licensed brothels, motels and other sites by organised crime syndicates.

In addressing this terrible issue, opposition leader Peter Dutton was pivotal in implementing the National Action Plan to Combat Modern Slavery 2020-25. It was an important move because these women are made even more vulnerable because they don't speak our language. They have no control over the work they're doing and no control over clients or their health and safety. They have no understanding of their rights in this country.

After the trauma, imagine you're a victim-survivor who faces giving evidence in court. Again, English may not be your first language. The courthouse may be something that is completely foreign to you. You are faced with the fear of interacting with a perpetrator again, and your past experiences of institutions and authority have been negative. The process of justice can be as confronting as it is isolating. This is why the coalition's amendments are important. We should be doing all we can to minimise the ongoing impact the court process has on victims and to ensure it doesn't add to the burden. The inquiry into this bill received strong submissions and support of a prohibition on an unrepresented accused questioning complainants in sexual violence cases of any type. The coalition is seeking an amendment to prohibit unrepresented defendants from being able to cross-examine complainants in sexual violence cases, with appropriate provision made for defendants to be represented by a lawyer for the purpose of any such cross-examination.

Facing the alleged perpetrator directly and having the cross-examination done by the same person who caused your trauma is unimaginable. The treatment of victims-survivors during court proceedings, as well as minimising risk and acting in the best interests of vulnerable people, should be paramount to improvements of the Crimes Act. The treatment of victims-survivors during court proceedings is even more important. In its submission to the inquiry, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia stated:

Victim-survivors find the process of the criminal justice system distressing, humiliating and traumatising.

In fact, others have described victims-survivors as mere passengers in the legal system.

We should always seek to improve our federal, state and territory legal systems. In the landmark NT coroner's report released on Monday, the cases of the deaths of four Indigenous women and 68 others examined in the report describe persistent abuse. If the victims went back to their abusers, coercive control was a factor in almost all of those cases. These serious cases highlight an ongoing problem in the criminal justice response to sexual violence. All such violence can be preventable. Victims-survivors are, in many cases, too beholden to coercive control that's stopping them from escaping the violence they are facing. The coalition's amendments limiting the interactions between the victim-survivor and perpetrator in court will help reduce the impact of this problem.

Turning back to this federal crimes amendment act, an Adelaide barrister with nearly four decades of experience says the adversarial nature of court cases means there's never going to be a perfect solution in sexual violence cases. However, he describes improvements in Adelaide courts, with witnesses giving evidence remotely and courtrooms closed at that time. Affording enhanced protections to those victims-survivors involved in court proceedings as complainants or witnesses is important. Sexual violence is a denial of an individual to actively and independently make their own choices, to shape their own life and to control their behaviours and actions.

The amendment allows victims-survivors to represent legal representation—something that goes a long way to better outcomes for those who have been violated. Victims-survivors should have more protections than the prosecutors or judicial officers in sexual violence cases. Not only will legal representation provide protections; other information or advice for those individuals is considered and included.

At the moment, under the Crimes Act, victims-survivors don't have any free legal representation. This bill will, hopefully, allow those victims-survivors to get that representation they need. As the shadow minister for child protection and prevention of family violence, I understand the need for cultural change and unpacking the complex contributors to the prevalence of family and domestic violence not only for those who are Australians but for those who are in Australia. The amendments by the coalition to this bill will go only part of the way to improving outcomes for victims-survivors of sexual violence, human trafficking and slavery in Australia. How many people will this actually help?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, that was a question to you. Senator Liddle, would you like to repeat the question for the minister.

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given what I've just described, how many people will this bill actually assist?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Liddle. I was listening intently to your contribution. I caught the substance of your contribution but not the question at the end.

With these sorts of legal matters, whilst I am not an expert as such, I think it is hard to predict how impactful they will be. As your contribution said, and as Minister McCarthy, who did the summing-up for me in my absence, indicated, we think they are important reforms. I understand there is support across the parliament for them because they will be impactful. The work that's gone on in preparing this—and I acknowledge the committee work at the same time—has been important. I understand there are a number of amendments in regard to enhancing the bill.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend everyone who was involved in the committee process that looked into this legislation. As I stated very emphatically in the additional comments I provided in the committee report, I strongly support the intention underlying the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024.

One of the disturbing things, to be frank, about this process was that the committee received very strong submissions from one of Australia's leading experts in relation to criminal law, Professor Jeremy Gans, with respect to the initial draft of the bill that was introduced to parliament. I note that, following Professor Gans's submissions and submissions by the Law Council of Australia—both Professor Gans and the Law Council of Australia had provided their submissions, and, at the time of the preparation of the report of the committee, the issues raised by Professor Gans and the Law Council of Australia had not been satisfactorily resolved in responses by the Attorney-General's Department in a timely fashion to enable the committee to reflect on those responses and whether or not those responses adequately addressed the material issues raised by Professor Gans. The committee was left in a position where, in the report of the committee in paragraph 2.142, it said:

The committee received evidence that demonstrated that the proposal to increase limitations on the admissibility of evidence related to sexual experience could have adverse effects on federal sexual violence proceedings.

That was one of the paragraphs contained in the report of the committee and one of the observations made by the committee. From my perspective, these are very serious matters. The fact that we received such strong testimony and evidence from leaders in the field that the initial draft of the bill did not satisfactorily deal with the interplay of very complicated provisions in the criminal law raised considerable doubts as to the technical efficacy of the bill. I'd like to ask you, Minister, whether or not the government is satisfied and can provide comfort to the Senate that those technical issues from the government's perspective have now been satisfactorily resolved.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Scarr. I know that you take these matters very seriously and thoroughly in the process in your role on the committee as well. The government is committed to supporting vulnerable people who are complainants or witnesses in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. The bill builds on the extensive work of the Australian government leading a national discussion on strengthening criminal justice responses to sexual violence. The bill implements trauma informed measures that better support vulnerable persons when appearing as complainants and/or witnesses in Commonwealth criminal proceedings whilst maintaining appropriate criminal procedure safeguards.

I'd like to thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for their detailed consideration of the bill and the range of academics, legal experts, advocacy organisations and others who have dedicated their time and expertise to providing feedback through that process. The committee tabled its report in April of this year. It made four recommendations. The committee recommendations are that government undertake further consultation on the provisions in the bill concerning the admissibility of sexual experience evidence, broaden the right to an interpreter to include vulnerable persons with intellectual disabilities or other communication difficulties and clarify the interaction of and different protections available to vulnerable adult complainants and child complainants. The committee also recommended recommendation 4, that the bill be passed subject to the first three recommendations.

The government accepts all of the committee's recommendations and is progressing amendments to give effect to those recommendations. Senator Scarr made two further recommendations of amendments to the bill, which are that the bill prohibit unrepresented defendants from being able to cross-examine complainants and provide additional safeguards around the use of audio-only recordings as evidence. The government accepts these recommendations from Senator Scarr. These are also addressed through amendments the government is bringing forward. Senator Scarr made three further recommendations that go to the information to be provided to the Attorney-General's Department, which the department has responded to, and further matters that could be considered by the Australian Law Reform Commission and how the government should respond.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the government has addressed a number of recommendations which I made in my additional comments, which I should say were made on the basis of submissions from technical experts in this area. I am very pleased about that. One issue that was raised during the committee hearing was the potential standing of a complainant to make submissions in relation to the admissibility of sexual experience evidence. There was quite an exchange of perspectives in that regard with respect to the agency, in particular, of a complainant, of a victim-survivor, to make submissions themselves or through a representative as opposed to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the prosecuting authority making submissions.

There was very strong evidence that was received from a number of organisations with particular expertise in this area. For example, Full Stop Australia submitted:

The Bill should require witnesses and complainants to be given notice of applications by the defence to admit 'sexual experience' evidence and legal standing to challenge such applications.

Women's Legal Services Australia, in the context of ground rules hearings, submitted:

In our experience, there is often a conflict between the interests of the prosecutor and the victim-survivor, and there is a need for the victim-survivor to have their own independent advocate who can act on their behalf in ground rules hearings.

Also, the National Women's Safety Alliance submitted:

… we noted how many survivors feel sidelined by the judicial process and the delegation of the prosecutorial service. Our members have collectively raised the need for Independent Legal Representation (ILR) to be made available to complainants.

I go on, and I do this because of the number of organisations who made very strong submissions in this regard. The Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy organisation, RASARA, stated:

While RASARA does not condone the admissibility of sexual experience evidence in any form, should proposed s15YCB be enacted, RASARA recommends that the Act should also be amended to include a provision which requires vulnerable adult complainants and children to be immediately granted access to free independent legal representation to represent their interests in the proceedings where an application for leave to admit sexual experience evidence is filed with the court.

Also, I should say, especially as a Queensland senator—and I note Senator Waters would agree with me in this respect—it's important to quote Ms Angela Lynch from the Executive Officer of the Queensland Sexual Assault Network, who said, when I raised this with her:

Yes; it would have to be explicit because the usual practice over hundreds of years is that victims-survivors have no standing. It's the prosecution and defence. It would be a similar approach to counselling records and the protection of counselling records. There's legislation in Queensland and also in New South Wales that specifically allows the standing of victims to have legal representation and standing—it specifically says 'has to have legal standing for the judge to hear that perspective'.

The Law Council of Australia for the record, in response to questions on notice put to them by committee members, stated:

The Law Council supports consideration of reforms to permit representation of complainants in procedural hearings, in the absence of the jury, in relation to the admissibility of certain types of evidence about the complainant. However, attention should be paid to the impact of reforms on all parties to the proceedings…

In response to this evidence, I note that the Attorney General's Department's officers were quite helpful in providing their perspective, and I would, for the record, like to quote the Attorney-General's Department's officers:

We felt it was a significant issue that would require more time and consultation before we would be able to formalise recommendations on that issue…The department is separately conducting a scoping survey with respect to a potential Commonwealth intermediary scheme. In addition, the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry in relation to justice responses to sexual violence has also been announced. The position on this occasion was that those questions would be better addressed through those separate processes.

So, Minister, given that context, given the number of stakeholders with particular experience providing wonderful services to victims-survivors, what is the current status of the consideration of that important issue, as to whether or not victims-survivors should be given standing, whether or not complainants should be given standing, to make representations to the court with respect to the admission of particular classifications of evidence?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Scarr, for that contribution. The ALRC inquiry forms part of the government's commitment to strengthen and harmonise sexual assault and consent laws and to improve outcomes and experiences for victims-survivors in the justice system. The ALRC has been asked to provide its final report to the Attorney-General on 22 June next year. Government will then consider the findings and any recommendations of the ALRC at that time. This bill, we believe, should proceed, as there are important reforms that will benefit vulnerable people interacting with the criminal justice system.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for that response. If it's possible, and I'm not sure whether you can be provided with more particularity by the officers who are assisting you in this regard—and I note that you haven't been intimately involved in this process. I note that. But I'm interested to know whether or not the ALRC is considering that specific issue of whether or not complainants should have standing to make representations with respect to categories of evidence to be admitted in proceedings of this type.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that that is within the scope of what the ALRC are looking at.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another issue, Minister, which was raised during the inquiry—and again I'm just seeking comfort that, from the government's perspective, this has been satisfactorily closed out by the proposed amendments to the bill—was the need to prohibit unrepresented defendants from being able to cross-examine complainants in sexual violence cases, with appropriate provision made for defendants to be represented by a lawyer for the purpose of any such cross-examination. With respect to the legitimate concerns about the potential for unrepresented defendants to cross-examine complainants, is it the government's position that that has now been closed out through the government's proposed amendments to the bill?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Scarr. Amendment (6), which I believe deals with this, will introduce a new section, 15YFA, which will prohibit defendants from being able to directly cross-examine vulnerable adult complainants in circumstances where the defendant is unrepresented. The new provision requires a court appointed person to ask questions of the vulnerable person on the defendant's behalf. This is an important amendment, as it will ensure vulnerable adults are not discouraged from reporting offences, due to the possibility that they may be questioned directly by the accused. It will support vulnerable adults to give the best evidence and limit instances of possible retraumatisation, by reducing interaction with the accused. This amendment is consistent with the existing prohibition against defendants cross-examining child complainants in section 15YF of the Crimes Act.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the response from the minister, and again I would like to acknowledge the fact that that is a very important issue and it's pleasing that the issue has been closed out, it appears, through that amendment. Deputy President, I haven't had an opportunity to talk to the shadow minister at the table, but there were some amendments proposed by the [inaudible].

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask for a clarification on a previous answer, Minister. You mentioned the ALRC inquiry into justice responses to sexual violence. You mentioned that it would report in June 2025. Was that incorrect?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe I said 22 January 2025. It is January next year.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to your query, Senator Scarr, there are government amendments which have been tabled, and then opposition amendments which are resisting those amendments, which means that I'll be putting four questions to the committee, so everyone knows what we're going to do—that government amendments (1) to (8), amendments (10) to (13), and amendment (15) and amendment (21) be agreed to. Once we vote on those, because of opposition amendments, for amendment (9), it will be that proposed item 24C be agreed to—because each question has to be put in the positive—and then that the remainder of amendment (9) be agreed to. And then, finally, it will be that amendment (14) be agreed to. Those four questions will be broken out because of the opposition amendments which will be subsequent to the government's amendments if people move them as tabled.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for foreshadowing what I was going to ask you to do. That's great. I want to cover off some key points from the opposition's point of view with regard to amendments. The coalition by and large supports these government amendments. We acknowledge that they're absolutely necessary to correct original drafting errors in the bill, and we absolutely acknowledge and welcome the changes to address Senator Scarr's concerns, as reflected in his additional comments on the report. We want to commend the work of the committee and, once again, commend Senator Scarr for his forensic work, which has led to detailed and specific recommendations which improve the bill. We welcome the changes that will also deal with the audio recordings and the cross-examination issues. They are material improvements to this bill.

We welcome, in particular, the amendments to items 23, 24 and 26 of the bill, which substantially repair the errors that were in the original legislation. They're not quite there yet, however, and that is why we're proposing further amendments. These changes go to an issue that is technical but important. We are happy to support the government amendments, which are necessary to correct those issues, but the coalition will be bringing forward amendments, on sheet 2990, that will make changes to the government amendments.

Our concerns, as I mentioned, are technical but very important. They relate specifically to item 24C in amendment (9) and to amendment (14). Both of these amendments, as drafted by government, are essentially for the same thing. Relevantly, they remove the court's ability to admit evidence that is relevant and probative, unless the evidence is of a sexual activity that forms part of a connected set of circumstances or, in the case of a defendant, relates to sexual activity in the recent past. The concern is that there are types of evidence that the court could be prohibited from admitting—evidence of non-recent sexual activity or subsequent activity which is not otherwise connected but which could be used to prove sexual offences against children and vulnerable adults. It's technical, yes, but serious. Our concerns relate to context evidence, tendency evidence and the admissibility of evidence about non-recent or subsequent offending.

In sexual assault cases, prosecutors will sometimes lead evidence about the relationship between the complainant and the accused for the non-tendency purpose of placing evidence of the specific act charged into its true and realistic context. This is done to assist the jury to appreciate the full significance of what would appear to be an isolated act occurring without any apparent reason and to establish a sexual relationship that makes the complainant's evidence of the specific act that is charged more likely to be true. If evidence about sexual abuse by a defendant is not part of a connected set of circumstances, the court would have no discretion to admit the evidence, unless it was in the recent past, and evidence about unconnected sexual activity which was not recent or which was subsequent to the offence would be inadmissible. In some cases, this could mean that a child could not contradict evidence given by their alleged abuser. We think that it is better to leave these decisions to the court rather than setting concrete rules down in law.

Similarly, in some cases, such as multiple-complainant sexual offence cases, prosecutors will sometimes lead evidence about offending which is not part of the connected set of circumstances in which the offence was committed but nevertheless shows an accused has a tendency to act in a particular way. The court should have the discretion to admit this type of evidence about abuse if it is probative and relevant.

Similarly, on occasion, courts will receive evidence about non-recent or subsequent sexual offending. This may happen in sentencing proceedings in the course of a victim impact statement. We do not want victims prohibited from giving that kind of statement. The amendments that we propose on sheet 2990 go to only those two provisions, and I commend them to the Senate.

I also quickly want to cover the amendment on sheet 2942. It provides for a basic review provision designed to ensure that this chamber has the opportunity to consider whether this bill is working as intended. As my colleague Senator Cash mentioned in the second reading debate, we support the intent of this bill. But the egregious mistakes and errors in the original draft legislation were found only because we went through a process of basic scrutiny through a committee, and that should be par for the course. What the amendment on sheet 2942 will do is require a further review after 12 months and that a report must then be tabled in parliament. It's a very simple, very straightforward measure which should be a no-brainer. I commend it to the Senate.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (21) on sheet TM121 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (before line 7), before subparagraph (ba)(i), insert:

(ia) genocide (within the meaning of that Code); or

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (before line 18), before subparagraph (ab)(i), insert:

(ia) genocide (within the meaning of that Code); or

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 26 to 31), omit paragraphs (ba) to (bc).

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 1 to 12), omit paragraphs (be) to (bh).

(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 10 to 17), omit the definition of child complainant, substitute:

child complainant has the meaning given by section 15YAC.

(6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (lines 20 to 25), omit the definition of child witness, substitute:

child witness has the meaning given by section 15YAD.

(7) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 13), after item 17, insert:

17A After section 15YAB

Insert:

15YAC Child complainants

(1) A child complainant, in relation to a child proceeding:

(a) is a child who is, or is alleged to be, a victim of an offence, of a kind referred to in subsection 15Y(1), to which the proceeding relates (whether or not the child is involved in the proceeding or was involved in the initiation of the proceeding); and

(b) includes a person who was such a child at the time the offence concerned was alleged to have been committed.

(2) However, a person who is 18 or over is not a child complainant if the person informs the court that the person does not wish to be treated as such a complainant.

15YAD Child witnesses

(1) A child witness, in relation to a child proceeding:

(a) is a child (including a child complainant) who is a witness in the proceeding; and

(b) includes a witness in the proceeding who was a child at the time the offence concerned was alleged to have been committed.

(2) However, a person who is 18 or over is not a child witness if the person informs the court that the person does not wish to be treated as such a witness.

(8) Schedule 1, items 23 and 24, page 7 (line 24) to page 8 (line 2), omit the items, substitute:

23 Subsection 15YC(1)

Omit "unless:", substitute "unless the court gives leave.".

24 Paragraphs 15YC(1)(a) and (b)

Repeal the paragraphs.

(9) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 2), after item 24, insert:

24A Paragraph 15YC(2)(a)

Omit "or", substitute "and".

24B Paragraph 15YC(2)(b)

Omit "if the evidence relates to the credibility of a child witness and is to be adduced in cross-examination of the child—".

24C At the end of subsection 15YC(2)(b)

Add:

; and (c) either:

(i) the evidence is of sexual activity that is alleged to form part of a connected set of circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed; or

(ii) if the evidence is of sexual activities with a defendant in the proceeding—the evidence relates to sexual activity that occurred or was recent at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

24D Subsection 15YC(3)

Omit "The", substitute "For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), the".

24E Subsection 15YC(4)

After "value", insert "for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b)".

(10) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (line 19), omit "unless:", substitute "unless the court gives leave.".

(11) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (lines 20 to 24), omit paragraphs 15YCB(1)(a) to (c).

(12) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (line 27), omit "or", substitute "and".

(13) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (lines 28 to 30), omit "if the evidence relates to the credibility of the vulnerable adult complainant and is to be adduced in cross-examination of the complainant—".

(14) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (line 31), at the end of subsection 15YCB(2), add:

; and (c) either:

(i) the evidence is of sexual activity that is alleged to form part of a connected set of circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed; or

(ii) if the evidence is of sexual activities with a defendant in the proceeding—the evidence relates to sexual activity that occurred or was recent at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

(15) Schedule 1, item 26, page 9 (line 1), omit "The", substitute "For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), the".

(16) Schedule 1, item 26, page 9 (line 5), after "value", insert "for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b)".

(17) Schedule 1, item 27, page 11 (lines 16 and 17), omit subsection 15YDD(1), substitute:

(1) A recording must be made of the evidence given by the vulnerable person at the evidence recording hearing.

(1A) The recording must be a video recording unless the court is satisfied that extraordinary circumstances require the use of audio recording only.

(18) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 27), after item 27, insert:

27A After section 15YF

Insert:

15YFA Unrepresented defendants — cross-examination of vulnerable adult complainants

(1) A defendant in a vulnerable adult proceeding who is not represented by counsel is not to cross-examine a vulnerable adult complainant.

Note: A person is not to cross-examine certain persons at committal proceedings or proceedings of a similar kind—see section 15YHA.

(2) A person appointed by the court is to ask the vulnerable adult complainant any questions that the defendant requests the person to ask the complainant.

27B Paragraph 15YG(1A)(b)

Repeal the paragraph.

(19) Schedule 1, item 36, page 15 (before line 7), before subsection 15YM(4), insert:

(2) However, a recording that is an audio recording only must not be admitted under subsection (1) unless the court is satisfied that extraordinary circumstances require the use of audio recording only.

(20) Schedule 1, item 50, page 17 (line 6), omit "physical".

(21) Schedule 1, item 55, page 19 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph 15YR(2B)(c), substitute:

(c) include the following details:

(i) the name, qualification and business address of the practitioner;

(ii) the nature and duration of the professional relationship between the practitioner and the vulnerable person; and

The Australian government is committed to improving criminal justice responses to sexual assault and strengthening protections for vulnerable persons involved in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. The government amendments to the bill follow the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. The amendments, which were developed through targeted, confidential consultation with government and non-government stakeholders, seek to address the recommendations of the committee and address stakeholder feedback raised in submissions. The original policy intention of the bill has not changed. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the bill gives full effect to that intention.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to check. I thought I heard the minister say he wants to move (1) to (21) together. I thought the original—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I was laying out the pathway, I was talking about the questions that come out of it. You can move (1) and (2) on 2990, but it will lead to the same questions.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask that the question be divided with respect to amendment (14) and the proposed item 24C in amendment (9), to give effect to the amendments on sheet 2990.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (8), (10) to (13), and (15) to (21) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that proposed item 24C in amendment (9) be agreed to.