Bills
Evidence Bill 2025
Second reading
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
Mr Dan Bull (Maylands) (2:47 pm): I rise to make remarks with respect to the Evidence Bill 2025. I think it is important to acknowledge, firstly, the importance of this reform and the enormity of it. It is a key fundamental reform that replaces the Evidence Act 1906. While the 1906 act has served the justice system and the profession for around 119 years, the 1906 act has not been substantially reformed up until now, and so it is right to reform and modernise the regime in 2025.
What this bill does is bold and necessary. It embraces the benefits of adopting the uniform evidence law, bringing clarity and structure to evidence law principles, and, most importantly, reflects a profound shift in how we understand and support vulnerability in the courtroom. This is especially crucial for children and victim-survivors of family and sexual violence. In doing so, the bill affirms that evidence law cannot remain frozen in time; it must evolve. It needs to be responsive to not only to legal and professional standards but also the expectations of the public and the moral imperative to make justice acceptable, accessible, fair and humane for all, which is something that this bill seeks to achieve.
What does an evidence act do? Generally, an evidence act seeks to determine what information or evidence can be admitted into legal proceedings, what is relevant, reliable and fair. It lays down the rules for admitting or excluding evidence based on principles such as relevance, hearsay, opinion, privilege and prejudice versus probative value. It seeks to provide fairness and consistency. It helps to guide judges and the legal professionals in what evidence is allowed and helps lawyers prepare cases and examine witnesses. In modern times, an evidence act supports vulnerable participants in the legal process, and it should protect vulnerable witnesses, reduce re-traumatisation and promote access to justice.
I think it is interesting to look back at what the Evidence Act 1906 sought to achieve at that time, and in one way there are parallels to the aims of the new bill. One of the purposes of the 1906 act was that of a consolidation exercise. At the time there were 21 WA pieces of legislation, two Commonwealth acts and numerous imperial acts. There was an attempt to consolidate these into one single piece of legislation and repeal the majority of the WA acts. Over time, though, the law became more complex as the rules of evidence were determined in accordance with the act as well as common law. As a consequence of that, the act effectively has become a series of rules that is supplemented by case law and assumes case law. Interestingly, when the 1906 bill was being introduced, there was discussion around the deletion of a provision due to a recent court decision, which meant that that provision was not needed. That basically set up the need to consider the 1906 act and common law together almost from the beginning; therefore, the legislation was difficult to use from the get-go.
I have some background to what we have before us. In 1987, the Australian Law Reform Commission produced a report that identified the need for uniform laws of evidence in all jurisdictions in Australia. In 1995, the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments passed their own evidence acts, which were based on the commission's report. So what are we doing? This bill seeks to effectively consolidate the laws of evidence in WA into a single piece of legislation. This is being done through moving to adopt, in large part, the uniform evidence law. The bill will bring WA in line with the Commonwealth, the ACT, New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria, but it is being done in a way that ensures it works for the Western Australian jurisdiction so it is not just a cut-and-paste job. Instead, the bill will incorporate specific provisions that reflect our local jurisdictional differences and will keep parts of the existing act that are considered best practice and not inconsistent with the uniform law. However, in a general sense, these reforms will decrease the complexity of the law to allow for a better understanding of the regime, placing almost all the rules of evidence in one place so there is no need to have regard to common-law principles in the way that is currently required. The guiding principle for this is for WA to be a uniform law jurisdiction.
Introducing these reforms now also means that WA has the benefit of the uniform laws operating in other jurisdictions, and WA will have access to law resources that have been developed for the uniform law in those other jurisdictions. I will also mention that I suspect there will be law students in Western Australia potentially breathing a sigh of relief knowing that the structure of their evidence course in local law schools will be significantly less complex than has been to date. As someone who struggled with evidence at university, I understand that future legal professionals, particularly those coming through the university system throughout WA, will find their experience potentially much more straightforward.
Dr Tony Buti: Agreed.
Mr Dan Bull: Thank you, Attorney General.
I would also like to acknowledge that large reforms like this can create a level of trepidation within the profession. It will take a bit of time to come up to speed, given that it is an entirely new act, and this can create a level of uncertainty, but it is far from the first time that significant fundamental legal reforms have resulted in the profession needing to adapt, and it has a good track record of doing so. An example that comes to mind, in a completely different area of law, is the Personal Property Securities Act, which is a Commonwealth piece of legislation. Although it is different—
Mr Dave Kelly: Tell us about that.
Mr Dan Bull: Does the member for Bassendean want to hear about the Personal Property Securities Act?
Mr Dave Kelly: Yes, I think so.
Mr Dan Bull: I have a maximum of only 30 minutes, so I am happy to spend some time with the member over a cuppa at another time. Whether he wants to be entertained or, on the other hand, whether he is struggling to sleep, the member can just tell me which one it is! But I will tell the member for Bassendean that we saw the profession adapt in a significant way under those reforms. The act replaced over 70 registers across Australia and fundamentally changed the way in which that regime operated. We will see, in this instance, the Western Australian profession adapt as well, for the better. I appreciate the member for Bassendean taking such a keen interest in personal property securities law. Thank you.
Mr Dave Kelly: Thank you very much.
Mr Dan Bull: Thank you for your support, member.
At this point I want to take note of some other reforms that are in the act. Introducing an entire new bill gives us the opportunity to update, modernise and restructure the current regime. The bill will introduce witness assistance measures, which will assist witnesses in giving evidence in proceedings, noting that there are no equivalent provisions in the Commonwealth act. Many of the WA provisions have been in place since 1992; however, they are reorganised in the new legislation into a more logical and coherent structure, and some of the terminology is updated as well. Witness assistance measures that will be introduced will include witness intermediary services to support certain witnesses to give evidence. Recorded statements may be able to be used as evidence-in-chief if certain requirements are met. These measures will enable police to take statements of adult family violence complainants using body-worn cameras and other technology. These recordings may be able to be admitted as the complainants evidence-in-chief in family violence prosecutions. It will be easier for courts to require evidence to be prerecorded, and the use of support animals for witnesses will be available.
As mentioned, the legislation will create a witness intermediary service, which is new for Western Australia and is based on legislation in other jurisdictions. Witness intermediaries will be a special category of personal communications experts who will help facilitate communications to and by a witness to ensure the evidence is complete, accurate and as coherent as possible. They will also be able to advise the court on how to communicate with certain witnesses. Importantly, the witness assistance measures will be beneficial to victims of sexual offences, including child victims. The legislation will also codify impermissibility of the cross-examination of witnesses when, for example, the questioning is harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive or humiliating. These reforms improve fairness and access to justice.
Part 8 of the bill, as has been mentioned a few times already and will no doubt continue to be mentioned, introduces provisions on standards of proof and the giving of warnings to juries, effectively seeking to deal with what is known as Longman directions. Longman directions were a specific type of warning that a trial judge would potentially give a jury, particularly in sexual offence cases, that suggested that a long delay in reporting a sexual offence could prejudice the fairness of a trial for the accused for various reasons and that, therefore, there was a need to scrutinise a complainant's evidence with care.
The new legislation will prohibit the use of Longman directions. Delaying these kinds of cases is common for all sorts of complex reasons, such as trauma and/or fear. Accordingly, these warnings were really unfair, prejudicing the jury against the complainant based on a misunderstanding of victim behaviour. Removing the ability for a judge to give a Longman direction reflects a better understanding of trauma and removes the potential source of unfair prejudice. Again, this promotes fairness and access to justice, reflecting a modern approach to evidence rules and therefore the judicial system.
To sum up, the bill is a significant milestone in the development of evidence law in Western Australia. It is monumental. It seeks to replace an old act that has not had a significant review since its inception and that forms part of an exceedingly complex framework—that being the rules of evidence. This is done through driving a big idea of uniform law and modernising, and a profound shift in understanding, adapting, accommodating and supporting the vulnerable, especially children and victims of family and sexual violence. It will introduce clear modern evidence rules and fairness for the accused but also a stronger and more informed way to support vulnerable witnesses and victims. In making these reforms, we are showing the importance of evidence law not remaining static but evolving to meet the modern needs of the profession and the judiciary, and also importantly the need of the public for access to justice. It acknowledges the expectation of the community to ensure fairness to all people who are involved in the judicial system and, most particularly, the most vulnerable people. I look forward to seeing this bill become law and the reforms being implemented.
Ms Colleen Egan (Thornlie) (3:01 pm): I rise to make a contribution to debate on the Evidence Bill 2025, which is proof positive that we are here for a reason as members of this place—to pass laws that make a real difference to real people who need Parliament to refresh the statute book to reflect society's values and to help deliver justice. It is a great honour and privilege to speak on this bill and to have a voice in this chamber that I can use to speak for those who deserved better from the justice system in the past and whose stories demonstrate the value of this new legislation for the future.
I would like to begin with a thankyou to victim-survivor witnesses all over Western Australia who go to court to testify. You play an essential role in the justice process. Your bravery and commitment to public duty is often the difference between an offender being held to account or not. As a journalist, I spent a lot of time in hearing rooms—criminal trials, civil cases, royal commissions and Corruption and Crime Commission and other inquiries—all of which rely on witnesses to expose themselves to the stress and often discomfort of being publicly questioned having given an oath to tell the truth. I have sat in court as people have relived some of the most traumatic moments of their lives in front of strangers, not knowing what questions might be asked and what consequences might flow if they do not get it right. They deserve our gratitude for their public service, and I am pleased to speak on a bill that codifies measures to improve the experiences of and support for witnesses. No legislation will make the system perfect, but these measures will help.
The bill is wideranging and, as the Attorney General said in his second reading speech, contains some reforms that will greatly assist prosecutions in cases of family and domestic violence. Of particular note is the new provision for using police officers' body-worn camera video for prosecutions. That is a potential game changer in this space. I am sure the house will hear more details on that, and we have already heard some.
Over my career, I have taken an interest in many cases involving sexual abuse, and I was in the media room in 2014 for the Perth hearings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I remember the first emotional day of hearings in Perth. There were elderly men in their 70s testifying about horrific abuse by Christian Brothers and places of misery like the Bindoon, Clontarf and Castledare children's homes. They were elderly, but as they recounted the cruelty and depravity from long before, it was like we could hear the voices of the frightened little boys whose nightmares they were reliving. Journos get cynical and hardened, but several of us were weeping as we typed our copy for the next day's news. The men had mostly kept their sexual abuse secret for decades. They did not tell their wives and children, let alone a police officer or a judge and a jury.
That royal commission has resulted in a better understanding of child sexual abuse and that is reflected in the reforms contained in this important bill, including the abolition of what is known as the Longman direction or the Longman warning, the protection of witnesses from belittling cross-examination by lawyers for the accused, and a suite of other reforms that have been outlined to help vulnerable witnesses give their evidence.
Child sexual abuse is insidious and it can only be tackled if perpetrators are convicted and dealt with, but the adversarial system that we have and the hidden nature of abuse means there is often no corroborating evidence such as CCTV or independent witnesses. It is often a matter of he-said, she-said or he-said, he-said so the defence tactic becomes one of ruining a complainant's credibility. Some victims emerge feeling that they themselves have suffered cruel punishment in the justice system.
During this contribution, I will give voice to the experiences of two women who I have come to know, respect and admire. These women do not know each other, but can attest to similar experiences. They are honest, brave and of the utmost integrity. Both cases involve the insidious behaviour of men in authority grooming minors for their own sexual gratification, leaving the victims confused and psychologically scarred. One of the women describes being 14 years old when a middle-aged man in authority started grooming her, and 16 when he stole her virginity. She was not protected by the man's employers, and decades later she went through the court process, which resulted in an acquittal.
The other woman is the mother of a brave young man who was abused in primary school by a popular teacher. He made a complaint to police 10 years later only to find that there were many other victims and that the school had been warned about the man but protected their reputation instead of protecting children. This prosecution resulted in the teacher being found guilty—twice. There was relief after a gruelling District Court trial that the offender was convicted of abusing five boys and sent to jail, but the offender appealed and they had to go through it all over again. The cross-examinations by defence counsel, which I watched while I covered the retrial, were brutal. Again, the former teacher was convicted, and in the process the witnesses were again re-traumatised. Through the dogged determination of this mother to hold the school and the system to account, this case, too, became a featured case during the royal commission's hearings in Perth. Both of these women can talk of the impact of the Longman warning on their cases, and both can speak of the trauma of the process, particularly the manner in which defence counsel can re-traumatise and psychologically damage witnesses. With their permission, I will read some of their words later in this speech.
Acting Speaker, as we have heard, Western Australia is an outlier in keeping the practice of the Longman warning, which is often given to juries in sexual offence trials. As members would know, it comes from the case of Longman v The Queen back in 1989, more than 30 years ago. The rule requires a judge to instruct the jury that if the victim had delayed in making a complaint and the accused may have suffered a forensic disadvantage as a result, it would be dangerous to convict the accused solely on the basis of the complainant's evidence and that the jury must scrutinise the complainant's evidence with great care. Can you imagine being a victim of abuse, finally getting up the courage to go forward with a complaint, mustering the bravery to take the witness box and be cross-examined, only to hear, at the end of it, the judge tell the jury that it would be dangerous for the jury to believe you and to convict your offender?
Through the work of the royal commission and many other sources, it is now known and it is an accepted fact that many sexual offence victims do not make a complaint immediately and some victims do not make an official complaint at all, like with those men in their 70s we heard from in the royal commission who had never even told their wives.
We now understand the process of grooming, the shame, the blame, the stigma, the fear and anxiety, the effects, sometimes, of substance abuse, PTSD, the lack of support and the lack of belief in the justice system to meet victim-survivors' needs. Overwhelmingly, the victim-survivors I have encountered decided to go through with the process for reasons that are selfless and for the public good. The first reason, and usually the most important reason, is to stop the offender from doing it to someone else—or it is to support other victims by corroborating their statements or to hold the perpetrator to account and place on record what they have done. With this bill, judges will not be permitted to give the Longman warning and potentially prejudice the complainant's evidence when we know that such a delay is a normal feature of these kinds of matters. But, importantly, the bill reflects the need for accused people to be able to properly defend themselves, and that is important. It acknowledges that in some cases, depending on the facts of the individual case, juries may need to be warned about disadvantages to the accused. Defence counsel will still be able to request the judge to give warnings about disadvantage, but they can no longer tell the jury that the fact that the claimant delayed in making the complaint affects their credibility. Some victims do not make complaints because they fear the process itself and the way that being a witness can further traumatise them. This is something that this bill is moving to address.
Clause 50 of the bill expands the definition of improper questioning of witnesses. As I said, lawyers must be able to represent their clients, test the evidence before the court and ensure that only the guilty are convicted. Defence lawyers do a very good job and an important job, and I am not criticising them as a whole. Most of them do it professionally, but, unfortunately, I have been in court and watched the belittling of witnesses by defence counsel in sexual abuse cases such that it made my blood boil. I am very happy to see this being legislated. The current Evidence Act defines improper questions as those that are misleading or unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive or repetitive. This bill expands the definition of "improper questions" to include those asked in a belittling, insulting or inappropriate manner or tone, such as I have witnessed, and those with no basis other than stereotype. These rules will be extended to witnesses in civil proceedings and will restrict the humiliating practice of witnesses being cross-examined about their sexual histories. I am advised that these restrictions have been in force in criminal trials since the 1980s. It is good to see that they have been extended to civil matters in this bill. Very importantly, the bill will also create an explicit positive duty for the court to intervene to disallow all improper questions, so there will be a requirement for stricter compliance. I hope that the judges and magistrates heed this message by the Parliament that witnesses should not be subjected to such traumatising cross-examination.
This reform is one of the many improvements in the way that witnesses will be treated and supported in future criminal cases and civil matters, measures that have been discussed and that we will further discuss during the detailed examination of this bill. They include the introduction of witness intermediaries, which was another recommendation of the royal commission. They are independent court-appointed experts such as psychologists, speech therapists and occupational therapists, and they assist the court to understand and accommodate the witness's communications needs so that their evidence is as complete, accurate and coherent as possible—and, hopefully, less traumatic.
Earlier in this speech I told members about a woman who had been a 14-year-old when a middle-aged man employed in a position of trust began preying on her. This lasted several years and deeply affected her. It took decades before she made a complaint to the police, which came about because she wanted to support other women who had also been abused at this institution. A successful professional who is respected by her peers for her work in service to the public, she was left feeling a sense of injustice and betrayal when her trial resulted in an acquittal. Like many complainants, her evidence was subject to the Longman warning to the jury, who heard that direction not just during the judge's general summary but again at a crucial time during its deliberations. The jury came back with a question that was something like: If they believe the witness, can they convict? The judge, in answering the question, reminded the jury of the Longman direction, and soon after the jury came back with a verdict of not guilty. It felt like a kick in the guts to someone who had prided herself on honesty and integrity and had endured a public cross-examination in which she was accused of making up allegations to make money from compensation. It felt even more unfair because the Longman warning is based on the forensic disadvantage to the accused because of the time that lapsed between the events and the trial, but that delay sometimes also causes forensic disadvantage to the complainant. These are the words that she has given me to say:
Had I been supported and been in a culture to come forward at the time, I would have had access to evidence that the prosecution could have used at trial… like receipts and phone records and freshness of memories.
The forensic disadvantage is not limited to the defence, it is a real disadvantage for victims, too.
Reasons for not coming forward include shame and blame.
The nature of of grooming, particularly by someone in authority, is an abuse of trust.
For a very long time I thought that I had done something bad and would be in trouble because I went along with it. It wasn't until I was over the age of 30 that I stopped blaming myself and seeing myself as the person who'd done the terrible thing, a really bad person.
By then I was a professional. I didn't want people to know what had happened to me.
But eventually I did come forward to support my friend, who had also been abused.
It felt like I was finally going forward … with support from the police and the prosecution … the process was unblocking that shame, having the feeling that I didn't do anything wrong and I shouldn't be ashamed.
But then, when the Longman direction was given and he was acquitted, it's like I went backwards.
Everything had been opened up to heal—then the process stopped.
What I did supported other women to hold the institution to account, so I'm glad I did that.
But if I knew what would happen, I wouldn't do it again.
While the Longman direction is being used, I'd say that unless you've complained quickly, it's not worth it to go through with a trial.
After the acquittal, I was overwhelmed with the feeling of unfairness and injustice.
The second woman I mentioned earlier in this speech made a submission to the royal commission and, as I mentioned, her case became one of the major cases in the royal commission hearings here in Perth in 2014. She has given me part of that submission to read to you today just to describe the experience of her and her son:
My son was sexually assaulted by a male teacher when he was 9-10 years of age at a … school. He disclosed to me when he was 19 …
…
That same day, my son and I reported by phone to the police and attended the police station to support my son to make his police statement. My son and I were separated. Both of us were interviewed by separate police officers and this was tape-recorded. We had to travel all the way into the city to attend the specialised sex abuse police unit.
I found reporting and being interviewed extremely stressful, trying to tell everything that I knew that I thought might be relevant, recall names of people, dates and events. Much of that information I gave I had never disclosed to my son. I felt a lot of pressure to get details and names right in case I got people into trouble or other people, who didn't deserve it, into trouble.
I was frightened about what my son was going through in the other room, worried about my other son who was still at the school.
(Member's time extended.)
Ms Colleen Egan: The testimony continues:
I was very scared, angry and in shock.
…
Approaching the police was extremely stressful and frightening. We felt overwhelmed. The officers at the child sexual assault unit were supportive and they believed us. However, they told us the chances of getting convictions were extremely low in child sexual assault cases …
…
During the investigation, further victims in relation to the same offender were identified and then made complaints.
…
One of the most difficult aspects of the process for complaints and their families is that, although the accuser is legally represented, the complainants themselves are not.
I know that this is a very common experience that a lot of victims have; that is, there is no-one in the courtroom who is their lawyer in the way that there would be were they in a civil matter.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, although it does its very best to protect the victims, is really there on behalf of the state to try the person. She said:
This leaves victims and their families feeling very disempowered and unprotected.
…
We found the conduct of the defence team to be very intimidating, menacing and distracting, including in the way they looked at the complainants and their families, the questions asked of witnesses, and the manner of their conduct …
The manner in which children were ruthlessly and aggressively intimidated – and that this was allowed by the court – was disgusting. In relation to my son, for example, defence counsel again and again kept calling him a "liar" … this occurred in the first trial, almost resulted in the parents of one of their two primary school sons, both complainants, not allowing their second child to give evidence and face cross-examination.
Remember that this is a case in which the offender was found guilty not once but twice, so there is no question.
Further, the jury were told that we were simply pressing charges for the money and "there was a pot of gold waiting for us" at the end of the re-trial. This was insulting and whether we later pursued our rights to civil settlement from the school is irrelevant to the criminal conduct of the accused.
…
The trial was conducted in open court. This meant that members of the public, strangers, attended the public gallery to watch proceedings.
Anyone who has sat through a sexual assault trial will know that the kinds of questions asked by even the DPP can be deeply embarrassing. They are asked to use the correct anatomy. They are asked to give very explicit descriptions of the things that happened to them. These trials are almost always held in an open court that people can walk in and out of. This mother said that she was very grateful that the witness people made sure that a school group that was going through was asked to not go into that courtroom.
The result of the first trial was successfully appealed and there was a re-trial. The basis for the appeal was the original judicial officer's mis-statement of the Longman Direction.
…
In order for the re-trial to proceed, all three complainants whose charges it related to—
I think he successfully appealed on three charges but not on the other two—
had to agree to give evidence for a second time. One of the complainant's evidence had been previously recorded via CCTV during the original trial. This meant he did not have to take the stand again.
This is another good measure in this bill. I think it keeps some of the good provisions that we already have in Western Australia.
This meant it was left to my son and the other complainant to participate in the retrial.
About her overall impression, she said this in her submission to the royal commission:
Sadly … child sexual abuse trials seem largely dependant on the ability of lawyers for the defendant to destroy the credibility of the victims of abuse, and the ability of already abused, traumatised and vulnerable victims to withstand this re-abuse.
Our trial and what we were put through in the legal process was so traumatising that a number of our close friends who witnessed it have told us that they would now never report to the police if their child disclosed to them they had been raped or sexually abused. This should shock the legal fraternity into taking action to re-balance the system.
Acting Speaker, I am very pleased to be standing here and speaking about a bill that goes some way to doing that.
I will also read something that is more positive in which she told the royal commission about the witness support services that already exist. We are talking about new supports for witnesses, but some still do exist and they did at the time. She describes them as an "excellent and an important service", saying, "They made themselves available to us from early on." She says that they organised counselling for her son, provided him with information and helped him with his victim impact statement. Also, the Victim Notification Register was "very supportive and helpful". After hearing a fairly bleak description of their experience, we can still be thankful that really good people are already in the system and they will be joined by more people to support victims and witnesses in these cases. I thank the author of those words, a woman whom I know is watching at the moment and who worked with the royal commission and others to use her son's and her own experiences to help make changes in the system for the better.
I thank the Attorney General for bringing this to the 42nd Parliament. I also acknowledge the former Attorney General John Quigley, who worked for many years on this bill to make it a reality. I know that he was particularly keen for this legislation. It took time, but it is nuanced and complex, and it was well worth the time. I also thank the former Director of Public Prosecutions Amanda Forrester SC, who is now a Supreme Court judge. She put an awful lot of work into this when she was at the DPP. There are wonderfully talented staff at the Department of Justice in the legislation team; they are incredible and have worked assiduously, as have the drafters at the Parliamentary Counsel's Office and the officers who worked in the former and current Attorney Generals' offices. I thank them for their assistance with this speech.
It is essential that these reforms are also reviewed by those who represent accused people to ensure that the presumptions of innocence and guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt are upheld. It is still important. The 50-odd stakeholders that were consulted included Legal Aid, the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia and the Criminal Lawyers' Association, who do that important work.
I would also like to acknowledge the child sexual abuse squad of the Western Australia Police Force. Their work was highlighted just a couple of weeks ago by Ben Harvey in his column in The Sunday Times. He wrote about the squad's development of a new technology to assist with their inquiries:
Safe2Say allows the victimsurvivor to report when they are ready and negates the need to attend at a police station or call police …
Which can be daunting for some. It gives them:
The ability to ask follow-up questions gives them a chance to understand what occurs during an investigation, what their rights are and what to expect if an investigation is commenced.
It is great to see that not only are we improving our statute book, but also the police are using ways to make it easier for people to come forward and, hopefully, receive better outcomes in their investigations.
Ben is on the board of Crime Stoppers. It is great to see him using his column space to promote the public interest. He quoted statistics that the sexual assault squad had received more than 2,000 complaints about sex crimes in the past few months and arrested 40 people, charging them with 170 offences. That gives just a hint of the size and scope of this challenge, and the imperative to enact the best laws possible to address it.
Before I conclude today, it is fitting that I acknowledge members of the stolen generations and their families, many of whom have been impacted and continue to be impacted by the institutional sexual abuse by clergy and others in authority when they were taken from their families and placed in institutions. We talked about those elderly men whom I watched testify at the royal commission. The damage caused by this insidious abuse cannot be underestimated.
I began this contribution with a thankyou to all the witnesses who have served the public by testifying in court under difficult circumstances, and I repeat that. I hope that after the passage of this bill more victim-survivors will be willing to go through the process and that it will bring them a better quality of justice than those who came before had. I also send a message to victim-survivors who do not feel ready or able to come forward at this point. We understand the complex reasons for that, and we support them. I also offer a tribute to those who never reported and have been lost to the world—whether through post-traumatic substance addiction or trauma-related causes from child sex abuse. May they rest in peace. I commend the bill to the house.
Ms Libby Mettam (Vasse—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3:29 pm): I rise to also speak on behalf of the opposition, not as the lead speaker but in support of the Evidence Bill 2025. It was introduced into Parliament in the government’s last term. Unfortunately, despite its significance and what it represents, it was not made a priority to pass. Even at that time, the former members of the opposition stated we were willing to accommodate parliamentary time to allow it to pass. We certainly support what had been presented, as the Legislative Council and opposition had previously in the 41st Parliament.
What the legislation represents has had broad support amongst the legal profession. I have spoken to many frontline workers in the family and domestic violence space and others with a keen interest in this area and, of course, people who have gone through experiences themselves. There has been report after report about victims of domestic violence going through a gruelling legal process. They have come out the other end not only without an outcome that is deserved, particularly in relation to the perpetrator, but the process has been something they would not recommend to family members because of a range of factors with the judiciary process and the process of providing evidence.
A key feature of the Evidence Bill is the holding of ground rules hearings at which the court will set directions about the way in which children and other witnesses with specific communication needs give evidence. There are also new provisions that allow specially trained police officers to take a statement from family violence victims at the scene shortly after a family violence incident, which is also very important. There are increased opportunities for family violence victims to access other witness assistance measures such as requiring that courts automatically treat family violence complainants and prosecutions in superior courts as special witnesses. That means a court may allow the witness to access measures such as the use of a support person, support animal or communicator. We cannot begin to understand what it takes to speak up in such circumstances. We are still learning about how we can make this experience better so that when a victim does bravely speak up, they are in an environment that supports speaking up when others do not want them to be heard. The new provisions will allow civil courts to treat any family violence direction matters upon which a jury could be directed in a criminal trial as matters for which proof is not required. These provisions prohibit the inclusion of evidence relating to the sexual reputation or disposition of complainants in criminal proceedings for a sexual offence or of witnesses in civil proceedings when the witness is a victim of sexual abuse or sexual harassment. We are certainly aware of many cases in which a victim has been deliberately humiliated through a court system, indicating the importance of this provision as well.
We heard from the new member for Thornlie, who gave a really impressive contribution to this debate on a number of these provisions and what she has witnessed in her former life as a reporter, in her role working for the Attorney General and through the court system as well, particularly as it relates to the Longman direction. We understand that delaying these cases happens for a range of reasons. We are talking about individuals who have suffered significant trauma and the reasons for such delays can be very complex. As a former Chair of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, we heard of cases that had taken years for some people to speak out about their trauma. At the same time, family members and those closest to the victim or the individual were none the wiser or not aware of the experience that they had suffered.
The obligation of the Longman direction will be abolished. To further explain that, a Longman direction is a warning that instructs the jury to scrutinise the complainant’s evidence with great care due to the delay in reporting an alleged sexual offence on the basis that such a delay may cause forensic disadvantage to the accused. This obligation will be replaced with a more limited case-specific direction whereby an accused may apply for a direction when they can establish they have suffered a significant forensic disadvantage. This means a judge will not have to provide such a direction if they are satisfied there is a good reason for not doing so. As I have stated, there are often very good reasons that there may be such significant delays.
As I have stated, we support this legislation. In fact, we support any measure that will ensure women or children and victims are better supported to enable them to provide evidence. Too often we hear of cases not attaining successful prosecution because of the challenges of giving evidence, which this bill hopes to address. It again raises the question about why it is in the 42nd Parliament and not the 41st Parliament that this bill was enabled to pass, but we on this side of the house certainly support the passage of this bill.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of our frontline officers across a range of areas, including police and family and domestic violence. I have spoken to a number of people who are certainly looking forward to seeing this piece of legislation pass. They talk about the need to ensure that they are best resourced to deal with individuals and victims, whether they are of sexual violence, assaults or family and domestic violence. Can I also take the opportunity to acknowledge those individuals who are brave enough to speak up and the work that they do, on not only their own behalf, but also on behalf of future victims or past victims. I cannot imagine what it would take to not only go through such trauma, but also have to relive that through the legal process and the court system. These individuals are often not just undertaking the process for themselves, but to ensure a safer future for others.
With those comments, I commend the bill to the house. I would like to acknowledge and thank other members of this place for supporting the passage of this legislation. As I stated from the outset, the opposition stands in support of the government's measures and any measure that it can undertake to keep our community safe, and ensure that victims feel comfortable about speaking up and supporting the legal process.
Mrs Jessica Stojkovski (Kingsley—Minister for Child Protection) (3:39 pm): I want to start by acknowledging the number of contributions I have heard from members in this place this afternoon. The member for Vasse made a very dignified and respectful contribution, and I thank her for that. Although the Evidence Bill is the Attorney General's bill, not mine, as Minister for Child Protection; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence, it also has some very impactful and important changes that will affect those who come under my portfolio areas. I want to thank the member for Vasse for her contribution and the opposition for its support for this bill. In particular, I want to thank the member for Thornlie for her heartfelt contribution and for giving a voice to those who do not have a voice in this place, or who have not had a voice in our society previously. I thank you for that. Also, thanks to the member for Maylands, who gave a very succinct overview of the bill and was quite passionate in his support for it.
I stand here not just as the Minister for Child Protection; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence, but also as a woman in Western Australia who strives every day, in this privileged position that we have as legislators in Western Australia, to make change and to make Western Australia safer for women and children. I am very proud that the Cook Labor government has a longstanding history of supporting victim-survivors of family and domestic violence, through record investment and law reform. We established the ministry for the prevention of family and domestic violence and have since invested over half a billion dollars in support and prevention efforts in the family and domestic violence space. The introduction of the Evidence Bill is another practical action of the Cook government to support victim-survivors of family and domestic violence. The Evidence Bill will ensure that victim-survivors are protected and supported. That is another measure that we are taking to create a safe space and a culture in our community that encourages and makes it appropriate for victim-survivors to report.
Having met with numerous victim-survivors and their advocates across the state in my short time in this role, I know how challenging it can be for them to share their stories, and how daunting and demoralising it can be when they share their stories, go through a trial and do not get the result that they have worked so hard to achieve. That is why it is important for our systems to be designed to prioritise the safety of victim-survivors. I saw this bill come through this place last year, in August, but it unfortunately lapsed in the upper house. One of the first things I did in this portfolio was to request a meeting with and a briefing from the new Attorney General about this bill because, like him, I believe this is so important for our state, for victims of family and domestic violence, and for victims of child sexual abuse and other types of abuse perpetrated on children.
I refer to the bill itself. One of the important parts of the bill I would like to highlight is improper questioning. We have seen, time and again, many trials in which questions have been used to unduly humiliate, belittle or insult complainants. We have also seen trials in which complainants have been asked questions in an inappropriate manner or tone, in an effort to put the victim off, to scare them into not providing the full story, or to intimidate them. This is a really important change, and it is being expanded in this bill. Expert evidence on family violence is admissible. This has been expanded from criminal cases to civil cases.
The exclusion of evidence is the matter that really caught my eye. That is captured under clause 206 and it specifically relates to a complainant's sexual reputation or disposition. For those of us who do not have legal speak, I actually got permission from the Speaker to use the following terminology. This actually refers to what we know colloquially in our community as "slut-shaming". It is using a person's background, their previous sexual history, or the number of people who they have had sexual relations with, as evidence for their claim not standing up, or as evidence to show that they should not be believed. I will stand here and say—I know a number of others will stand with me—that if a woman chooses to sleep with 100 men, to have sex with 100 men, that is her choice. If she is raped, it is still rape. The fact that she has chosen a path that led her to have sexual relations with 100 men is irrelevant in cases of sexual assault, sexual misconduct or rape. I want that to sit with everyone, because we have been in those conversations. We have heard conversations in which people say, "Oh, did you see what she was wearing? She was asking for it. She has such a reputation. She's slept with this number of guys. No wonder somebody assaulted her." That is not appropriate. To say that someone is asking to be sexually assaulted because of what they wear, or because of their own behaviour and their own choices, is not appropriate. It is not appropriate in our society in Western Australia, and I am really proud that this bill will actually address that issue.
I move on now to witness assistance measures. This is a really important part for family and domestic violence complainants, and for victims of child sexual abuse, who I understand already have some special provisions. I want everyone to think back. Certainly, I know that when I get pulled over by the police or I go through the booze bus, for want of better terminology, I can feel my heart rate going up, even when I have not been drinking. I know I have not done anything wrong; I know I do not have alcohol on my breath and that I have not been drinking, but even in that situation, my heart rate goes up and my palms get sweaty, particularly when I have the kids in the car. I am always like, "This is why we don't drink and drive, kids!" That is a very small, very unconfrontational situation. Now, place yourselves in a situation where you are giving evidence against somebody who you are accusing of committing family and domestic violence against you. If your heart rate goes up when you get pulled over to do a breath test, can you imagine how you would feel if you had to give evidence against the person who has abused you? I fully support the special witnesses and witness assistance measures.
I was at the Family Court recently and met some of the assistance dogs, which do a wonderful job there, particularly with children in family court matters, but also with other people in that confrontational space. I commend the bill for including that, because although it may seem a fluffy add-on—may the dogs be fluffy!—the actual impact of having a support animal, support person or an interpreter there to ensure that people can clearly, concisely and accurately give their evidence is so vital.
The inclusion of body-worn cameras is also really important to me, for a number of reasons. It can potentially capture some of the events, but it can also capture direct evidence as soon as an event has happened. That is not the only reason I think this is a really important part of the bill. In a conversation with a friend of mine who is a lawyer—actually, I had this conversation with three different lawyers—they all supported it but all had different opinions about why it was important. One said it captures the evidence as it happens. Another said that, particularly in family and domestic violence situations captured by a body worn camera, it can still be some time between the event or incident and a trial. If a person has chosen to undertake therapy to work through their own grief about a situation or if they have engaged in support services and they are starting to process what happened, that can on occasion lead to their evidence seeming dispassionate or disconnected from the events or incident, which can potentially be used in defence to argue that this event, incident, violence or sexual abuse did not have such a bad impact on the complainant. I think it is really important to understand that victim-survivors should not be penalised for looking after their own mental health and their own lives and actually processing what happened to them. We encourage them to do that. We provide the support for them to do that. They should not be penalised for not appearing as upset as people might expect. I really want to really back in this particular clause, or this particular change to the bill, because I think it will be such an impactful change to the way that we look at family and domestic violence trials.
Lastly, I just wanted to touch on the Longman warning. This is one that, as a fiery redhead, really got my blood boiling. For people who are unaware, the Longman warning is a warning that is given by judges to say that evidence of a complainant that has happened after some time has lapsed should be treated carefully because it disadvantages the defence because of a lack of physical or forensic evidence. I thank the member for Thornlie for pointing out that that evidence disadvantage actually goes both ways. But what the Longman warning failed to contemplate is that many victims of family and domestic violence and child sexual abuse will not disclose, come forward or report for a number of reasons for many years. I know the member for Vasse headed up, or chaired, this committee in our previous Parliament about sexual assault and harassment in our mining industries. They could be scared to lose their job. Particularly in family and domestic violence situations, they could be scared to leave their home. At the moment, in our community, or society, finding another home is not necessarily the easiest thing to do. Maybe there is a lack of houses that are appropriate for them to move into. It could be that they do not have a credit history, do not have bank accounts, do not have an employment history or any of those things that people are required to tick the box on when they apply for a lease, for example. They could be scared to leave because they have children or pets. There are so many reasons that this Longman warning does not contemplate. I think the removal of this warning will contemporise our legislative system and understands that there are many reasons somebody will not bring a complaint forward. I and other members have highlighted a few.
To summarise, the really important thing for me is that this bill will allow police officers to record family violence victim-survivors giving their account at the scene or very shortly afterwards. That recording can then be used as evidence-in-chief in subsequent prosecutions of family violence offences. This will reduce the need for victim-survivors to recount their stories. We know the retelling of stories over and over again can retraumatise a victim-survivor. This is a really important change. It will be less traumatic for victim-survivors. A victim of family and domestic violence is often the only witness, and, as we heard, in these situations, it is often, "He-said, she-said" or, "He-said, he-said". Being required to give very personal and distressing evidence over and over again retraumatises them.
Importantly, these reforms will also support family violence and sexual abuse victims by increasing the opportunities for them to access other witness assistance measures, as I outlined. The legislation ensures that they will be afforded greater protections and support during the criminal justice process and makes it easier for FDV evidence to be introduced in trials.
I think it goes without saying that I am proud to be part of a government that ensures our laws are reflective of the community understanding of family violence. We will continue to show leadership when it comes to family and domestic violence. We will continue to provide support to victims and to hold perpetrators to account. I thank the Attorney General and the previous Attorney General, who did a substantial amount of work on this prior to leaving this place.
I commend the bill to the house.
Mr Shane Love (Mid-West—Leader of the Nationals WA) (3:56 pm): I would just like to make a relatively brief contribution on this very large and important piece of legislation. I think 492 clauses are contained within it. As we have heard from a variety of speakers, it a complete rewrite and replacement of an act that dates back to 1906.
As the Minister for Child Protection was saying, there was an iteration of this bill in the 41st Parliament, which was introduced into the Legislative Council and then went to the Uniform Legislation Committee for review because it does, of course, contain elements of uniform legislation, and that is the function of that committee. At that stage, it sat in the Legislative Council, did not progress through that place and consequently lapsed at the end of that Parliament. That is despite the fact that we had in this house the introduction of the Evidence Amendment Bill 2024, which was in fact a money bill designed to pay for the establishment of witness intermediary services that required finance, and that was in response to the need recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
In addition to that purpose, clause 11 of that bill provided for witnesses who are required to attend as witness, including employed persons as employer, must continue to pay them their expected payment and claim back from the state or local government or statutory body that had commenced the prosecution. That was a requirement and the reason that bill was introduced into this house. As the member for Vasse said, it is one of those pieces of legislation that the then opposition indicated to government it was very willing to progress and to see pass through both houses. We had a discussion and a matter of public interest around this very matter on Tuesday 22 November 2024 about the many pieces of legislation that had not passed through the Parliament despite the fact that we had indicated willingness for them to do so and support for them. In introducing the Evidence Bill 2024, the one that went into the Council and went through that review with the committee, the Attorney General said about the Evidence Bill and the Evidence Amendment Bill:
These are important additions to the Evidence Bill, which contains a host of other measures to assist witnesses to give coherent, complete and accurate evidence, which is crucial to achieving just outcomes.
He went on to say:
… the Evidence Bill represent the most significant reform in West Australian law in over 100 years.
It is a pity that the legislation did not progress at that stage and we are now having to deal with it, but it is an important piece of legislation that will address numerous matters, some of which have just been outlined by the Minister for Child Protection. It will bring Western Australian law somewhat into line with that in the rest of Australia, and we will retain certain elements that are wholly existing provisions of the Evidence Act 1906.
New witness assistance measures contained in part 7 of the bill will be coming forward. The bill will largely implement uniform evidence law in line with the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), which will bring us into line with many other jurisdictions. The bill has important provisions around the issue of family violence, including provisions for specially trained police officers to take statements. There will be increased opportunities for family violence victims to access other witness measures that may be available to them. The bill is about modernising some of the processes in the court as well as making sure that there is more support for victims and complainants, especially in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I have spoken of the history of the legislation. I am the Leader of the Nationals WA, and I put on record, as we did in 2024, our support for these changes and the need for them to be enacted.
The Minister for Child Protection also spoke of a number of matters to do with sexual assault, including about women who have been assaulted. Obviously, we are as concerned as she is to ensure that women are treated well by the state and its institutions in those circumstances. In that regard, I want to highlight some disturbing reports that came to light at the end of last year. A report, carried in The West Australian and written by Caitlyn Rintoul on 4 December, was headlined, "WA rape victims left to wait in soiled clothes and made to drive hours due to State's dire forensic services". The report highlighted the plight of regional women who may have been victims of sexual assault. The report outlined:
… a review … found many women are left humiliated and further traumatised, with little privacy as they sit for hours in emergency departments waiting for a simple DNA examination.
The Centre … looked at WA's five community-based sexual assault support servics based in Bunbury, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie, Mandurah and Port Hedland.
It discovered there are no services for people raped in WA’s Great Southern, Wheatbelt and most of the north of the State remains inaccessible.
The closest support service for any victims in Esperance is 390km north in Kalgoorlie.
When talking about a women being forced to wait eight hours at the Karratha Health Campus, the Premier himself said that he found that "disturbing and distressing". We need to see that there is action in the state budget to make sure that these matters are addressed.
The report continues:
The report paints a horrifying picture of the State’s forensic medicine system, with the services not seeing a funding increase in seven years despite a 30 per cent rise in sexual assault cases over the same period.
Review author Jessica Murray, who leads the centre’s sexual violence response, said WA had just six adult support services in contrast to Victoria’s 17, Queensland’s 23, and NSW’s 62.
“We’ve got major gaps across the State in terms of access to sexual assault support services and it’s really critical that victim survivors are able to access services where they are and when they need them …
As we are debating the matters that the Minister for Child Protection raised, I think it is important that the government shows it is listening and that it addresses this situation going forward. Regional women deserve to be treated with respect, to have the same access to services as women who live in the metropolitan area and to not think that just because they live in Karratha, let alone Marble Bar or somewhere else, they have to put up with this situation. It is not good enough. It is a disgrace, and it needs to change.
I will wrap-up the contribution for my part on this. I do not want to take up too much time. I know the bill has 492 clauses and we have a number of other speakers to come. The chamber needs to delve into some of the details of this legislation, and I want to leave time for that to occur. I will finish by reiterating the National Party's support for this legislation, as has the entire opposition.
I commend the bill to the house.
Mr Dave Kelly (Bassendean) (4:06 pm): I rise in support of the Evidence Bill 2025, which will modernise the evidence laws in this state. Broadly speaking, the bill tries to make the Evidence Act 1906 easier for victims of domestic violence and victims of child sexual assault to navigate.
I want to commend some of the earlier speakers. The member for Maylands, as someone who is legally trained, is clearly very excited about some aspects of this bill. My contribution will not be as legally sound as his, but I want to congratulate him for that contribution. I do not come to this debate as a lawyer. I have spent a bit of time as an advocate in the trade union movement, and one of the best things about the Industrial Relations Commission is that the rules of evidence do not apply. My best days in that jurisdiction would be when an employer came to the commission with the best lawyer they could afford, and the lawyer would jump up and start carrying on as though he were in a court of law, and I would explain to him or her that the rules of evidence did not apply and that this was a much different jurisdiction. To see the look on the employer's face when they realised they had spent a lot of money on the wrong advocate was really quite entertaining.
I come to this debate largely from my experience of supporting victims of child sexual abuse. I went to a school in Fremantle called Christian Brothers College, run by the Christian Brothers, obviously. It was not the best school. There were some good teachers and some not so good. One brother there was clearly a bully. He was the headmaster of the primary school when I got there in grade 4, and even though he was the headmaster, he taught religion to the grade 4 students. I do not think we ever talked about God or anything in that class. Clearly, he was a gentleman who should not have been in charge of children in any way shape or form, but he was not alone in that school in that regard.
After I left school, I followed his career a little bit because he progressed through the ranks of the Christian Brothers. Stories about child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church started to appear, in my eyes, in the 1990s, but it was not until a few months after I was elected to this place in 2013 that I opened The West Australian—I am one of the few people who still gets the paper edition of The West Australian—and there was a double-page spread by Angela Pownall, who had written a story exposing Brother Danny McMahon as a paedophile.
It was a story about a number of students he had abused at, I think, Aquinas, Trinity and there might have been another school; it might have been Highgate as well. It was a shock that a guy who had taught me and others was clearly a serial paedophile. He had died in recent years, and I assumed that was why The West Australian was happy to run the story. That was shocking but what was even more shocking was that Danny McMahon had ceased to be a Christian Brother in about 1990 and moved to Tasmania to become a Catholic priest. He lived out the rest of his days as a Catholic priest in Tasmania without ever being brought to justice for what he had done. It seems to fit a pattern of someone who has abused people, children, within the Catholic Church being moved around rather than being held to account.
I sat on the information for probably a couple of months and thought about what I should do with it. Then I decided I would write to the school. I wrote, "Look, this guy's has been exposed as a paedophile and he taught at Christian Brothers College Fremantle. What are you going to do to let former students know that Brother McMahon was a paedophile in case they too had been abused by him?" I thought that if they had that information, they had to share it with people. Even at that stage, I knew that one of the things that stops people coming forward is the fear that they are not going to be believed. I thought that if the Christian Brothers knew that Danny McMahon was a paedophile, surely they would have an obligation to tell former students so they might come forward with some confidence that they would be believed. I wrote to the school and sent it a copy of the article. I suggested that it write to former students, and I waited for a reply.
A couple of months went by and I got a letter back from the then principal, Shaun Kenny. It was a one-paragraph response. If it had been an English essay, it would have failed; it was barely understandable. It made references to there being a potential federal royal commission, said my issue had been referred to the office of professional standards and that was about it. When I read it, I thought, "What the hell does that mean? Well, it's been referred to the office of professional standards. Presumably they'll contact me." I never heard anything from the office of professional standards, which is the organisation that the Catholic Church said it established to deal with these complaints. I heard nothing.
I then sat on it. Probably almost a year later, out of the blue, I got an email from a guy called Tony Shanahan, who was a Christian Brother. He also taught me, and then he went on to be the provincial head of the Christian Brothers in Western Australia and South Australia. The email said, "I'm Tony Shanahan. You may remember me. I taught you." He said he had been carrying a burden for many, many years. I thought, "Oh, yeah; where's this going?" He said, "You may recall, I slapped you across the face when I was your teacher." And I did remember it. He was the last Christian Brother to actually lay a hand on me. I think it was in year 11. Me and a mate were mucking about outside his classroom. The door flew open, and Tony Shanahan was there. Me and my mate legged it down the hall. I was the only one he could reach. He slapped me across the face. When you go to a Christian Brothers school, that is something that is memorable, but it is not remarkable, and so I have often told that story. I call it "the Slap". He was the last person to hit me. Tony Shanahan said in the email, "I've felt really bad about it for all these years, and I just wanted to tell you that."
I emailed him back. He was in Africa by that stage, doing whatever in Africa. I said, "Look, you really don't have to worry about that incident." I said that it is a funny anecdote I now tell, but he should be ashamed about the way the Christian Brothers deal with issues of child sexual abuse. I told him in the email about what had happened with Brother McMahon and that I had written to CBC Fremantle, and it had basically blown me away. I said, "You were a senior person in the brothers; that's what you should feel ashamed about." He sent me an email back saying that he was now in Africa and not a senior person anymore. He said that I should talk to the leadership of the Christian Brothers and that he would arrange a meeting. I thought, "Okay, I will do that."
Sure enough, the head of the Christian Brothers, Brother Clinch, and his offsider, whose name I cannot remember, came and had a meeting here in Parliament House. The member for Morley came with me to that meeting. I retold the story of Brother McMahon and writing to the school asking what it was going to do. It was a very bizarre meeting. They sort of acknowledged that the response was not good. They said they would get a better response, but I never heard from them after that meeting. Things about that meeting were really off-putting. I said to them, "Why don't you contact students who may have come in contact with Brother McMahon?" Brother Clinch's offsider said, ''How would we do that?" That was really odd because I still get the old boys newsletter. I said that that would be a good start. I said to them that they knew Danny McMahon was a paedophile when he died in Tasmania, but Christian Brothers went over to Tasmania and spoke and gave his eulogy. Brother McAppion, who taught me in year 9, went to Tasmania and the eulogy was actually on the Christian Brothers website in 2014, when they knew he was a paedophile, saying what a lovely bloke Danny McMahon was. The response as to why that happened, that poor old Brother McAppion had gone to Tasmania to give this eulogy, was that maybe Brother McAppion did not know. I said, "Well, doesn't that just prove the secrecy that you go on with?" It was a very unsatisfactory meeting. I never heard from them again. They took no action. Yes, it was a very strange meeting indeed.
At that point, I thought the royal commission was underway and I would just put in a little submission. The main thing that I wanted to put in to the royal commission was that there was this bloke Danny McMahon. In Tony Shanahan's email from Africa he said, "We knew Danny McMahon was a paedophile in the early 1990s, but at that stage he'd already gone to Tasmania. So what could we do?" You can think of a few things—call the police and warn them. In my letter to the royal commission, I said that Danny McMahon was a paedophile and that there was an admission from a senior member of the brothers at the time that they knew he was a paedophile back in the 1990s but it appears as though they did nothing. I sent that off to the royal commission and thought that was that and I was done with the issue.
I did not do anything else until COVID. George Pell was in the news; I forget which stage of his prosecutions it was. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth put out a statement saying, "Look, you've seen the Pell stuff. I just want you to be assured that there were no cover-ups of these sorts of activities in the archdiocese of Perth." Knowing what I knew about Brother McMahon and how they had known he was a paedophile for decades and done nothing, I thought I would ring up 6PR. I ended up doing an interview on 6PR during COVID. I went through the story that I have just gone through, and as a result of that, a whole bunch of former Christian Brothers students got in touch with me, one of whom was mentioned in the original article in The West Australian. They started calling me with their own stories. For the last couple of years, I have been supporting a group of victims of child sexual abuse mainly, but not exclusively, at the hands of the Christian Brothers or Catholic priests, as some are Anglican and some were in other institutions.
I just want to commend the member for Thornlie for her contribution. It is quite remarkable—not remarkable; it is incredible. The group that I was supporting would advertise gatherings at the State Library of Western Australia. Men would come along to those meetings, and sometimes it would be the first time, sometimes it would take a couple of meetings, and they would speak. We never encouraged people to go into too much detail because we were not professionals, but men in their 50s and 60s would start talking about what had happened to them at school and the tears would just appear as if it had happened yesterday. It stays with people: the frustration and the guilt that, somehow, they had done something wrong.
With Danny McMahon, one guy told the story that he went home and told his mother about what had happened and his parents would not believe him. At school, he was being abused by the principal, and at home, his parents did not believe what had happened to him. So not only was he sexually abused at school, but he lost all trust and faith in his family and his parents. The perpetrator was later exposed, but by that stage this guy's father had died, so he lost that relationship with his father, as well as having gone through a terrible experience. Anything that we can do as a Parliament to make it easier for those people to seek justice, we should do.
One of the really good things that we did early on was remove the statute of limitations for people who want to sue at common law. Up until 2018 when we changed the law, to sue at common law, someone needed to do it within six years of becoming an adult. I think that terminology is right. On average, people do not disclose this stuff for over 20 years. That was what the royal commission found. By the time a lot of these victims feel comfortable to disclose, the statute of limitations is long gone, so we got rid of that in 2018.
Up until that point, the Catholic Church and the other churches had been staring down victim-survivors in this country by saying, "You can take us to court, but you are going to get nothing because we will hold the court to the statute of limitations." Victims were getting offered $10,000, $20,000, or maybe a bit more. Not only that, they were being asked to sign a deed that barred them from any further compensation. The Catholic Church always says, "We deal with this matter seriously. We're trying to do the best things for victims." Until this Parliament got rid of the statute of limitations, the Catholic Church used the statute of limitations to limit its liability rather than give justice to victims.
(Member's time extended.)
Mr Dave Kelly: We got rid of the statute of limitation in 2018. My understanding is that the first victim-survivor who got a piece of justice was a guy called Paul Bradshaw who was abused by the Christian Brothers. He was offered a million bucks by the Christian Brothers to settle his claim after the claim had been in process for months, if not years. What we did in this Parliament got Mr Bradshaw some justice. It just turns out that he was a constituent of mine and I had dealt with him on a few housing issues. I had no idea he had this other story going on. The sad thing for Mr Bradshaw is that by that stage, he was dying of cancer and had about six months to live. He said, "Well, at least I've now got some justice. I'm going to be able to set my family up for the future."
That is what these institutions had been doing, albeit for the actions we have taken in this place. Sadly, even though we got rid of the statute of limitations, which should have opened the floodgates, if you like, for people to seek justice, what has happened is that a lot more people have come forward, but the institutions have used the statute of limitations as defence one, then provided defence two, defence three and legal arguments.
Tim Hammond, who many people will know as the former federal member for Perth, is a barrister in this space. He describes their tactics as being similar to the tactics of the asbestos industry. Churches and other institutions still try to drag cases out for as long as they can, putting legal barrier after legal barrier up in the hope that victims will effectively give up or accept an amount of money that would be less than if they actually went to trial. Some of the things that they argue are quite extraordinary. At one point, the Christian Brothers ran an argument about a victim who they acknowledged had been sexually abused. They said because he was a child migrant, his life was effectively already stuffed, and so the court should discount the compensation payable because his life was already ruined. The fact he had been sexually abused was just something else in his life. They did not get very far with that argument.
They ran a whole series of cases seeking what is called a permanent stay, which argues that because these matters are so old, some of the relevant witnesses have died and it is an injustice to the organisation to have to defend it because the witnesses are no longer available. They hide these things and then drag them out, and when people finally come forward, they then argue that they are at a disadvantage because of the passage of time. That matter has now worked its way through to the High Court and the High Court has said that those permanent stays should only apply in exceptional circumstances. To a degree, the churches have failed. But in the meantime, it has taken a couple of years for that to work its way through the courts, which has made it more difficult.
Lo and behold, the churches had a recent win in the High Court with the Bird case. The churches argued that for a priest who has sexually abused someone in their line of work, for example, the person cannot sue the church because priests are not employees. I mean, fancy that. I thank the Attorney General for his efforts in this regard; the states will now have to legislate to get around that Bird decision to re-establish the right to sue in cases in which clergy are not considered employees. There is one thing I always found ironic about that case. We all remember JobKeeper during COVID. Originally, religious institutions could not access JobKeeper because priests were not employees. They lobbied the federal government to amend JobKeeper so that priests would be eligible even though they were not employees. Millions were paid to religious organisations for those positions as if they were employees and now when it comes to being responsible for their actions, they are trying to duck their responsibilities. Those are just some of the issues that people face.
In the last Parliament, I was part of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee. One of the things we did was we had an inquiry into the issue of the experience of victims now seeking justice with this Parliament having got rid of the statute of limitations. There were some things that we recommended. I will not go through them all, but one of the recommendations we made is that this Parliament go further and legislate. Unlike other states, in this state someone can sue only for sexual abuse. They cannot sue at common law for physical abuse. In every other state, people can, but we are restricted to sexual abuse here. That leads to the perverse outcome that if a victim comes forward who an organisation acknowledges has been sexually abused, the organisation can send the person off to a psychologist and if they have all also been physically abused, they mount the argument that, "Yes, this person's life has been ruined. The compensation might be worth $1 million, but from the psych report, we assess that 50% of this person's disability is because Brother so-and-so beat the living crap out of them. The fact that he was sexually abused only contributed to half of this person's misery, therefore, the compensation payable should be discounted by half." That is the law as it stands here in Western Australia, and it is quite bizarre. The committee I was on recommended that we remedy that, and I understand that the government is still working through the responses to that.
In the time I have left, the other thing the committee recommended is that we stop calling these cases "historical cases of child sexual abuse". Why is that? Some of them happened a long time ago? Some of the cases may have happened 30, 40 or 50 years ago, but even in those cases the victims are still alive, the organisations within which those crimes were committed still function and some of the people who hid those crimes are still alive. To say to a victim that a case is a historical matter implies that it is a thing of the past. For the victim it is not a thing of the past; it is very much a current issue. For that reason, it should not be considered historical. Secondly, it is a cop-out for some of those organisations. When, for example, the Catholic Church says that these are historical cases, it implies that they are thing of the past, that it does not do that anymore and that it has changed. In my view, that is a matter of branding, messaging and media spin as a way of hiding the facts. If so-and-so was sexually abused in 1960 by Brother McMahon, why not say he was abused in 1960 Brother McMahon? Why put the extra tag of "historical"? The current Bishop of Broome was recently reported as being charged with cases of historical sexual abuse. Some of it happened this century, which is not that long ago. It gives the organisation an ability on the one hand to fight the victims of abuse in the courts today and on the other to say they are matters of historical sexual abuse. They are not; they are matters being dealt with today. One of the recommendations of the committee was that we stop referring to these things as historical cases of sexual abuse because they are still very much alive.
There are people who are far more qualified than I, but this bill is another step to making some of these cases easier to bring before the courts. It is terrible for victims to have to give evidence, and one of the things that organisations play on in the negotiations is that if the claim is sent to trial, the organisation will use every legal organisation available to it to defeat the claim so the victim is better off accepting the package on the table. Anything we can do to make it easier for victims to feel that if they want to go all the way to a court proceeding and have their day in court, they can, and to make that experience as easy as possible, is something we should do.
I thank the Attorney General for the work that he has done. I thank the previous Attorney General. I know that removing the statute of limitations was one of the things he was really proud of during his time in this place. I thank the previous Attorney General and the current Attorney General for this work, and I look forward to future legislation in this area coming before Parliament.
Mrs Magenta Marshall (Rockingham) (4:33 pm): I am proud to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this historic legislation before us, the Evidence Bill 2025. In fact, it is the most significant and wideranging overhaul of Western Australia's evidence law in more than a century. These sweeping reforms include enhanced protections for victims of crime and vulnerable people, including victim-survivors of family violence, child abuse and sexual assault. Some of my colleagues have already done a great job of outlining what the bill will achieve and why it is important, and I particularly recognise the brilliant contribution of the member for Thornlie, as well as those of the member for Bassendean and the member for Mindarie, who has a unique perspective as a former police officer.
Today, I too will speak in support of this bill and how it will improve and enhance the experiences of victims and make the justice system fairer and more humane, while also enhancing the prospects for prosecution of offenders. As the Attorney General outlined in his introduction of the bill, this is one of the foundational pieces of legislation that sets out how victim-survivors are treated in the criminal justice system. All communities across Western Australia expect that our system prioritises accountability, dignity and safety. Our communities also expect our legislation to reflect evidence-based best practices, rather than reactive policymaking, which is what the bill will achieve by implementing recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse as well as those of the State Coroner and the Australian Law Reform Commission.
As the house is aware, the Evidence Bill 2025 will replace the Evidence Act 1906 and bring Western Australia into line with most other state jurisdictions by moving to Australian uniform evidence law. This is one of the most profound improvements brought by this legislation and will improve consistency and accessibility in court proceedings. Having a more uniform and predictable set of legal standards will increase efficiency for courts, lawyers and police who may work or operate across jurisdictions. It will also ensure that rights and protections available to witnesses and victims in other parts of the country are equally accessible in Western Australia, which will improve community trust in the justice system. Consistency in applying evidence law is vital not only to procedural fairness but also for ensuring robust and effective prosecutions, which will ultimately deter future crime. These proposed reforms will directly enhance our community safety by improving victim support, enabling more reliable prosecutions and reducing re-traumatisation of vulnerable witnesses.
Like all members of the Rockingham community, I want our community to be a safe place, and I want our laws and court procedures to protect victims. This bill is centred on supporting vulnerable witnesses, particularly victims of sexual offences and family violence. These individuals often face substantial barriers in participating in the justice system or process and the reforms in the bill, such as the mandatory special witness status for victims in sexual offence cases, gang crime proceedings and family domestic violence cases, will introduce practical supports that minimise trauma and improve the reliability of testimony. The special witness status will allow vulnerable complainants to give evidence via video link or prerecorded statements, which, importantly, will reduce the stress of facing their abuser in court. This status will also allow for these victims to have support people or comfort animals present during testimony and it will disallow questions in cross-examination that are harassing, humiliating, offensive or intimidating without impeding the defence's ability to test evidence fairly. This is an essential balance in maintaining due process, ensuring public confidence in the justice system is not eroded while still prioritising victim welfare. It is expected that these provisions will make it more likely that vulnerable individuals will come forward and participate in prosecutions, which is key to reducing impunity for offenders and will lead to stronger and safer communities for all.
I have a great appreciation for the officer in charge and all the incredible men and women in blue at the Rockingham police station. I know from conversations with these officers that they have previously felt hamstrung when they have been called out to attend cases of family and domestic violence and provided support and assistance to victims in the moment, yet after the fact the victims were unable to press charges due to fear or lack of evidence. In this bill a landmark provision will be introduced that will allow body-worn camera or smartphone footage recorded by police to be admissible as the complainant's evidence-in-chief. This reform will enable early and accurate recording of a victim's account by capturing the emotional state and environmental context shortly after the incident. This will also reduce opportunities for intimidation or coercion by perpetrators to silence victims and will minimise the risk of memory deterioration, which can occur between when an incident occurs and the court proceedings begin. By streamlining how evidence is collected and reviewed, the reform will support more effective prosecutions and will protect the community by facilitating early interventions against repeat offenders.
The bill also aims to eliminate harmful judicial directions with a critical change to ban the Longman direction, which is a judicial instruction used to caution juries to be wary of a complainant's testimony if their report of sexual abuse was not made promptly following the incident. Although this instruction was originally intended to protect against potential unreliability, it has proven to have the ability to undermine the victim's credibility, particularly in historical sexual abuse cases.
I am sure that we are all aware that delayed disclosures are a common and understandable feature of sexual abuse trauma. Removing this outdated direction recognises that fact and restores confidence in complainants' accounts, which will increase the likelihood of successful prosecutions. I believe this is a really important reform and that there will be a great flow-on effect from the implementation of this ban, which will enhance community safety through holding perpetrators accountable regardless of when the crime is reported.
Another key aspect of this bill is the introduction of a witness intermediary scheme, which will enable specially trained witness intermediaries to assist vulnerable witnesses in giving evidence, including children and people with specific communication needs. This represents another crucial community safety enhancement. This service will ensure that children and individuals with communication disabilities can understand court proceedings and give evidence effectively. The witness intermediaries will be able to simplify legal language for these witnesses, ensure that questioning is conducted in a developmentally or cognitively appropriate manner, and interpret or rephrase questions to the witness to ensure their comprehension. This improvement will not only empower vulnerable groups, but also enhance the accuracy of the evidence presented in court. As we all know, reliable evidence increases the chance of convicting guilty parties and therefore reduces the risk to the community from undetected repeat offenders. As has already been evident, the bill carefully balances the rights of the accused with the need to protect victims and witnesses.
Another important provision in the bill is preventing religious leaders from refusing to give evidence in child sexual abuse cases on the basis of confession confidentiality. This change rectifies a longstanding loophole and signals that community safety and justice for victims supersedes the institutional or doctrinal secrecy.
There are also broader legislative enhancements in the bill that go beyond victim protections, including a host of technical reforms that improve legal clarity and application. These include accurate terminology changes for better scientific position—for example, the use of forensic biology certificates, which will replace DNA profile certificates; higher penalties for protected recording offences to deter breaches and misuse of sensitive materials; and consequential amendments to other acts such as the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 to preserve key procedural rules. Each of these enhancements contribute to a better functioning justice system, which in turn will support safer communities.
Our government continues to work tirelessly to improve community safety, address family and domestic violence, and provide support to victim-survivors while holding perpetrators to account, and the bill is an important part of our efforts. Our government's record speaks for itself. We introduced nation-leading firearm reforms—the toughest in Australia—to reduce the number of guns in the community. Under the legislation, there are sensible limits on how many guns an individual can own and police officers are able to take existing firearm licences away from someone who has committed a serious offence, including domestic violence. Imposing these firearm limits and providing stronger tests on licence holders strikes a fair balance that keeps Western Australians safe and the most vulnerable people in our community protected. In this term of government, we have also introduced laws to mandate GPS tracking of family and domestic violence perpetrators, as well as the new offences of non-fatal strangulation and persistent family violence. We have also made changes to the Restraining Orders Act to introduce a definition of "coercive control".
Across the state, we have opened additional refuges and expanded and increased the number of crisis accommodation units by 30%. At the recent state election, we made a commitment to invest a further $27.1 million to expand capacity at refuges across Western Australia, including in my electorate. The Lucy Saw Centre women's refuge in Rockingham is a communal residential facility that currently offers short-term crisis accommodation for up to six women and their children at immediate risk of harm due to family and domestic violence. It is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Lucy Saw Centre also offers a high-risk referral program in the South West metropolitan area, which supports clients to find long-term and safe accommodation. It also operates outreach programs, as well as the Safe at Home program, which prevents homelessness by supporting women and children to remain safely in their home after their perpetrators have been removed. As part of our election commitment to strengthen family and domestic violence responses, the Safe at Home program will receive an additional $11.5 million boost. I take this opportunity to shout-out and applaud the Lucy Saw Centre chief executive officer, Anne Moore, for her advocacy and support for victims of family and domestic violence. Anne has been at Lucy Saw for more than three decades, helping women and children, and fighting for justice. She is a truly remarkable woman who does everything in her power to support and protect these vulnerable people. Thank you, Anne.
Another key part of our election commitment to end the scourge of family and domestic violence is our plan to make significant trauma-informed changes to the Restraining Orders Act, which includes increasing the maximum penalty of the existing breach of a family violence restraining order offence and introducing two new breaches of FVRO offences with higher penalties. Our reforms will also reduce the number of interactions a victim-survivor is required to have with the justice system and make it easier for them to obtain an FVRO, including a lifetime FVRO. Our government is the first to meaningfully invest in primary prevention and early intervention, and we continue to listen to the experienced voices of the sector, most notably through the historic Family and Domestic Violence Taskforce that was convened between 2023 and 2024, which developed a five-year system reform plan that our government is implementing. It is only right to mention the former Ministers for the Prevention of Family Domestic Violence, Hon Simone McGurk and Hon Sabine Winton, for their leadership in this space. I thank the current minister, Hon Jessica Stojkovski, for her commitment to furthering our agenda and strengthening protection for vulnerable women and children.
Some of the other key reforms we introduced in the last term of Parliament to seek to improve community safety include the nation's toughest laws to fight serious and organised crime, including criminalising the display of bike insignia and the establishment of protected entertainment precincts to ban violent thugs from entertainment hotspots. We enacted the nation's toughest laws to fight against serious and organised crime, as well as tough new knife laws to get these violent weapons off our streets.
Locally in Rockingham, we have expanded the operating hours of Rockingham Police Station and doubled the recruit programs that it runs, which has resulted in more officers on our streets. In the coming months, the new Baldivis Police Station will open, meaning that a significant geographic area of patrol will be removed from the responsibility of Rockingham, resulting in even more officers concentrated locally in Rockingham.
In conclusion, these reforms back in our strong stance on improving community safety and strengthening protections and support for victims. The Evidence Bill 2025 is more than a legislative update; it is a really significant piece of legislation that will have a meaningful impact on victim-survivors and broader community safety. The transformative reforms resulting from the bill will create a safer, more responsive and more compassionate justice system. By focusing on victim support, evidentiary reliability and alignment with national best practices, the bill enhances the capacity of the justice system to prevent crime, protect the vulnerable and uphold public trust. The impact of these reforms will be far reaching, from the child survivor finally able to speak in court with the help of an intermediary, to the domestic violence victim whose police-recorded statement shields them from re-traumatisation. This legislation will translate abstract legal protections into tangible improvements in people's lives. The improved experience of victims as a result of these reforms will not only increase reporting rates, but also strengthen community cohesion, as citizens are more likely to engage with and trust legal institutions.
Again, I thank the Attorney General for introducing the bill and congratulate him on his first piece of legislation in this role. In doing so, I also acknowledge and thank the former Attorney General, Hon John Quigley, who introduced an earlier form of this bill in the previous Parliament. I am really pleased to be a member of this government that, in less than three months post the state election, has demonstrated its commitment to community safety and legal reform. I think this legislation stands as a declaration of our values. It is a commitment to justice, dignity and protection for all and, in particular, the most vulnerable members of our society. The work does not end here, but our community is safer thanks to our government and will be more so with the provisions of the bill. I commend the bill to the house.
Ms Divina D'Anna (Kimberley—Parliamentary Secretary) (4:48 pm): Today, I would like to speak on the Evidence Bill 2025, a reform that will bring evidence law in Western Australia into line with best practice. I would specifically like to take this opportunity to speak on the impact that the new laws will have on evidence gathering and court proceedings in the Kimberley. As the member representing the region with the highest rate of family and domestic violence offences in the state, I am in full support of the Evidence Bill reform. Police statistics released last year show that there is an average of 19 incidents of family and domestic violence reported in the Kimberley each day.
Sadly, it is likely that there are many more than that, but many incidents may never be disclosed to law enforcement. There are many sad reasons that victims of crime choose not to report incidents, whether it is shame, embarrassment, self blame, a desire for privacy and protection of family members, or fear. There is fear of repercussions, of not being believed and of the justice and legal system. Currently, systematic processes in court and legal proceedings potentially put the safety of family and domestic violence victim-survivors and their children at risk. The century-old evidence laws currently in place do not offer adequate levels of support for vulnerable people who are required to give evidence in court.
The reform of the Evidence Act provides us with the important opportunity to offer vulnerable witnesses and victims greater protection to potentially break through some of the fear that prevents them coming forward to report violent crime. One of the most humane changes to the evidence law is disallowing questions directed at witnesses that are offensive, oppressive or intimidating, and disallowing questions about a complainant's sexual reputation. Our government acknowledges that these aspects of a court hearing are terrifying for vulnerable witnesses and alleged victims of crime. Already-traumatised people are being further traumatised. Another important change to this legislation will be making audio and visual recorded statements, such as police body-worn camera recordings, admissible as evidence. This will reduce the need for complainants to stand in court and relive the alleged violent attacks against them. This again reduces possible trauma.
I am pleased to see that the reform will automatically allocate special witness status to complainants in sexual offence and FDV cases. This will enable vulnerable complainants to be able to receive the additional support that comes with that status. There are many valuable support options for FDV victim-survivors in the Kimberley, including the Marnin Bowa Dumbara Family Healing Centre in Derby, the Marninwarntikura women’s refuge in Fitzroy Crossing, Ngaringga Ngurra Safe House in Halls Creek, the Ngnowar Aerwah Safe House in Wyndham, the Kununurra Women's Refuge and the Broome Family and Domestic Violence Refuge that is now run by MercyCare. The refuges are doing amazing frontline work in the support space, offering crisis accommodation and providing a safe space with personalised case management. They also help victims find longer-term accommodation and refer them to essential services tailored to their individual needs. These support services and refuges help victims to regain a sense of control over their lives—a sense of control that can often be lost after being a victim of a violent crime.
Recently, a constituent from my electorate described to me the fear she held for her safety and for the safety of her son. This young woman had been the subject of ongoing violent crime, threats and intimidation by her ex-partner, from whom she has been separated for over six years. When this person initially left her abusive partner, she presented at the Broome Family and Domestic Violence Refuge, where she was offered safe crisis accommodation, personal support and, most importantly, hope. She was further assisted to relocate from the Kimberley where she was rehomed into long-term safe accommodation. Following a recent application to the Magistrates Court for a violence restraining order against her ex-partner—this being her fifth such application—she was referred to specialised FDV services funded by the WA Labor government. These services provided on-ground one on one support with valuable tools offered, such as personal inspection of her property, where potential safety issues were discussed and addressed. In the event that her ex-partner breached court orders and attended her property, she was given two free wi-fi cameras, which included a set-up service, free counselling service and ongoing personal support.
I am proud that our government recognises the importance of supporting FDV refuges and support services, as demonstrated by the $86 million funding package recently provided to support refuge service providers and victims of FDV across WA. However, we also have to remember the need for preventative and educational work. I say often in this place that the Kimberley is unique and a very strong region. To achieve best outcomes, it is always best if they are led by local people and organisations. That is why it was great to see the new community-focused "US Without Abuse" campaign created by the Kimberley Community Legal Services in partnership with Marninwarntikura Women's Resource Centre. This initiative represents a unified commitment from those two local organisations to debunk the normalisation of violence and foster a safer, more supportive community for all. The campaign, produced by Wunan Media, incorporates powerful storytelling, tailored to resonate deeply with local audiences. By amplifying the voices and experiences of Kimberley people, the campaign seeks to challenge harmful behaviours, promote accountability and empower individuals to stand against abuse.
The campaign spans online platforms, television, radio and community spaces, and is designed to create widespread awareness and drive behavioural change. Christine Robinson, CEO of the Kimberley Community Legal Service, highlighted the campaign’s focus. She said:
The Kimberley is a region of strength and resilience. By anchoring this campaign in the stories and landscapes of our people, we hope to inspire every individual to reject violence and embrace positive change for themselves and future generations,
KCLS has taken the campaign on the road to remote communities across the West Kimberley region. Using the campaign materials to run community legal education workshops, the campaign has had success in face-to-face engagement alongside its media outreach. Recently, the campaign was officially launched in Fitzroy Crossing. The launch event was a joint effort between Marninwarntikura Women's Resource Centre, Kimberley Community Legal Services and Legal Aid WA. It aimed to amplify the campaign's message and formally bring it to the Fitzroy Valley. The day began with a community march led by Gurama Yani U Men’s Shed to the Fitzroy oval, where the community gathered to enjoy lunch, live music by locals—including Olive Knight, Ethan Hoade and Andrew Shandley—as well as fun activities like face painting and a slip and slide. Fitzroy Valley leaders Emily Carter and Peter Murray delivered powerful speeches, urging the community to come together to end family violence and elder abuse and support happy, healthy, thriving families. With an estimated 400 people in attendance, the event was a strong display of unity across generations, sending a clear message: Abuse is not welcome in our community. Emily Carter AM, CE of Marninwarntikura Women's Resource Centre, said:
This is not just a message—it's a movement. A call for accountability, healing and action. In the Fitzroy Valley, we don’t wait for solutions, we lead them.
The campaign was recently nominated for the Community Service Excellence Award and received a special commendation from the judges. I look forward to watching where this important local campaign goes. It is a much needed and powerful asset for the Kimberley. That being said, we all have our part to play in stopping the violence. This reform of evidence laws is an important part of this. If victims of crime feel safe and supported and they know the justice system will protect them through the court process, then they are more likely to come forward to report violent crimes. They are more likely to feel heard. Strong victim support can help build stronger communities and reduce the cycle of violence.
These compassionate reforms are a step towards removing some of the misconceptions about FDV, towards removing some of the fear victim-survivors feel about reporting crimes against them, and towards discouragement of violent crime offenders. They are a step towards reducing the devastating FDV statistics in this state and a step towards reducing the devastating FDV statistics in the Kimberley. This is a step towards everyone in our community feeling safer.
Community safety is a priority of every single person in this chamber; I know it is. It is certainly a priority of mine. I am proud that our government has identified the gaps and risks in the current laws, and has recognised that changes need to be made. This reform is further validation of our government's commitment to responding to increases in family violence and in acknowledging the need for protecting and supporting victims of violent crime.
Mrs Lorna Clarke (Butler) (5:00 pm): First of all, I would like to start by thanking the other members who have spoken so eloquently on this bill, particularly the member for Thornlie. This is a historic legislative reform. It is a once-in-a-generation rewrite of the Evidence Act in Western Australia. The Evidence Bill has been reintroduced into the state Parliament, replacing the Evidence Act 1906—let us just remember that: 1906—and the current act will be repealed in its entirety and replaced with a new Evidence Act through the Evidence Bill 2025. It will give victim-survivors of family violence, child abuse and sexual assault, and vulnerable people, more protections in extremely stressful court situations. Before I get into the rest of my speech, I want to recognise that we had National Sorry Day yesterday, and that it is Reconciliation Week.
I would like to welcome the redress scheme that was announced today by the Premier, in relation to all of this state's stolen generations. I worked on this project many years ago, in the office of the then Minister for Police, Michelle Roberts, when redress schemes were being introduced for the first time, I believe, around the country. I just think it is so important. Years ago, I read the Bringing them home report and I could not actually quite bring myself to read all of it because it was so upsetting. Then, years later, I stood out the front of the Australian Parliament House as the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said sorry. There were huge debates about whether and how the Prime Minister of the country should say sorry. One moment that I will never forget, and which brought me to tears, was as he said those words in the Australian Parliament, every person out the front of the Parliament let out this huge sigh—an audible sigh—because it was so important and the time had come. In fact, the time was quite belated, to say the very least.
The issues around the stolen generations were further brought home to me when I started as a law lecturer at Curtin University, here in Perth. I was warned on my induction that if I wanted to have particular meetings, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people wanted to come to those meetings, I should not hold them at the law school. It was explained to me that 57 Murray Street was the location of some of the departments that were responsible for policies that led to the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families. It also apparently at one point housed the office and officers of the Chief Protector of Aborigines. These things still resonate through our communities today.
I want to bring home today that what might seem like a very long and technical piece of legislation actually is part of a broader response from this Labor government to family violence and child abuse and protecting vulnerable people in our community—people who have experienced situations that I can sometimes barely imagine, and often do not want to imagine and want to turn my head away from quite quickly.
When I started out as a lawyer, I paralegaled in a family law firm. I think I may have just turned 18 and I was in my first year of law school at the Australian National University in Canberra. I had clients ringing me in great distress, and they often rang their family lawyer before they rang the police. I did not understand it, but of course, they trusted us. Whilst I did that work for, I think, only a year, I determined pretty quickly that it was very important legal work, but not work that I could personally do—not for a long period, anyway.
I suppose the way in which I want to frame my speech today is to complement the contributions that other members have made, rather than replicating them, and to look at this from the perspective of the lawyers who are involved in these often very difficult cases, on both the complainant and defendant side, and to emphasise that they are incredibly complex cases that take a lot of work to prepare, before they even enter the courtroom doors. Before I go much further, though, I do want to pay tribute to the former Attorney General and former member for Butler, John Quigley. In many ways, he described this bill as his baby, and we can see it from the history of the bill: the Evidence Bill 2024 and the amending legislation were merged together and introduced into the last Parliament before it was prorogued. I think the criticism that it should have come about more quickly is a little unfair. When I get to talking about the consultation and the law reform work that went into this legislation, members will be able to see the journey that it has been on. If we had pushed it more quickly, the criticism would just as easily have come from the other side that we had not consulted enough and had not prepared or done the background work to make this complex legislation work.
I will just recognise John Quigley. He was in the Speaker's gallery when this bill was introduced; I think he was waiting to listen to the member for Thornlie's inaugural speech. He said how odd it was to see the current Attorney General introducing this bill. So, thank you to John. Thank you also to all his former staff and all those from the department and the State Solicitor's Office who have worked on this legislation. I think at one point the SSO gave legal advice on absolutely every line of the Commonwealth legislation; that is an enormous task.
I turn now to the Commonwealth legislation. I thought I would bring along my old copy; I do not know why I have kept it, to be totally honest, but this was my textbook when I studied evidence law at an undergraduate level. In an effort to get through my law degree, I did it as a summer school subject at ANU in Canberra. That meant that I crammed about 10 to 12 weeks of legislation and case law study into four weeks. I am not sure it has made me a better litigator, but certainly some parts of it are actually seared into my memory. For the non-lawyers amongst us, this is the federal law that essentially applies in WA federal courts. I was a civil litigator for a while, and there was always a moment of pausing before entering the courtroom doors to double-check which legislation and case law I was about to apply. It was not until I started practising here in WA and had to learn the Western Australian evidence law, with all its case law from the 1906 act, that I read this textbook by Kate Offer who was—and, I believe, still is—an adjunct at the University of Western Australia. The Attorney General is informing me that she is very much still at UWA! But for the law practitioners amongst us, this textbook actually explained to me that, rather than being quite a dry subject, evidence law is actually about telling a story—and by "story", I do not mean making things up; do not get me wrong! It is about taking all of the hundreds of documents and witness statements and the thousands of different facts, points of view and perspectives, and somehow bringing them all together in an accurate and not misleading way for the court, to actually put forward your argument or your case theory—which is generally what it is called—as to how you meet the elements of either the civil tort or the criminal wrong and how you prove your case. But it is actually about storytelling, and it was not until I reconceptualised it that I prepared better cases as a result.
I recognise the lawyers who have worked with the two sets of evidence law. We do it very well; we sort of take our hats off and work out which courts we are in and which laws apply, but this will make it easier. This will make it much more streamlined and much clearer. The case law will get clearer. The materials that people can learn from as baby lawyers will be easier to use.
What I like about these reforms is that we have kept the best of the west. We have kept the bits that work well here. It is my view that those over east will end up looking to this legislation and probably taking the most up-to-date best practice reform into their courts. I caveat all of my comments by saying that I was never a criminal lawyer. There are some exceptional lawyers and barristers who can do both civil and criminal law in the courts. It was explained to me very early in my legal career that usually never the twain shall meet because they are particular types of legal work. I may disappoint some people. I think some people expected me to give a very detailed explanation of all of the intricacies of this law. It is over 300 pages, and it will be a process for the legal profession to sit down and do more continuing professional development training courses on these laws and apply them. That is recognised in the implementation period.
I thought I might take the opportunity to say thank you to some of the amazing lawyers who trained me and gave me an opportunity to appear in WA courts, in particular Chris Pearce of Blackwall Legal, who gave me a chance as a commercial litigator in insolvency law and enabled me to stand up in the Western Australian Wardens Court, the Federal Court and the District Court and do an enormous amount of pro bono work. I had such a wide array of cases—from unpaid wages claims in particular courts where on day one of receiving the case, I realised I was actually not allowed to appear in the court on behalf of my client. That was the first argument to make. We had unusual test cases for adverse possession, which very rarely comes up and is a bit of a historic point that lawyers learn about, applications on behalf of receivers about mines that were underwater and very unusual processes for charities, Aboriginal trusts and unincorporated associations. Lawyers such as Rob McKenzie, who always knew the right time to pop his head into my office to see whether I needed a hand with a file; and Hamish Taylor, Jamie Ogilvie, Patrick Spillane, Jonathan Shepherd, Lyle Swithenbank and Monica Hamid, who I believe is still in London; and the amazing Blackwall administration team, thank you.
Insolvency law obviously uses the rules of evidence but is far from some of the victim-related issues that we have touched upon here in this chamber. I also recognise some of the liquidators and receivers that I worked for such as Melanie Khoo, Shannon O'Connor and those at Restructuring and Insolvency Network Western Australia and Turnaround Management Association. It was incredibly difficult to prepare clients and directors of companies for being cross-examined in the witness box in court. We were just talking about nothing more emotional than company assets. Although it is emotional when it is a business someone has built up but it not really more emotional than that. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be, in the context of the abuse-related cases, to even walk into a courtroom. They are intimidating places. In some ways, they are designed to be intimidating to maintain their authority. It always struck me that in many ways, and some lawyers say this, if your client is in court, then you have failed them. You did not find a fix for them earlier and mediate the situation sooner and earlier. I think these reforms will make it much easier for victims to come forward.
Particularly in WA, we have a very strong bar that specialises in appearing in these in these sorts of courts and these sorts of matters. I give particular recognition to Rachael Young SC—it depends on how old you are and when you were given senior counsel. I had the privilege to instruct Rachael on behalf of a client that I acted for in the City of Perth Royal Commission. She did an amazing thing that I have not seen a solicitor or barrister do since. She was simultaneously on her feet arguing the case whilst giving me post-it notes and training me up on how to how to run a royal commission case. There are amazing lawyers that do plaintiff litigation work, like Daniel Strojanoski from Slater and Gordon, Hugo Seymour and those in Perth and Melbourne at Maurice Blackburn. Obviously, I did not necessarily brief or work directly with some of these people, but they do absolutely amazing work. They are at the coalface of how this legislation will be implemented. I think they will be key in implementing how this law works in practise. I was reminded last year that, in an industrial relations context, we can change industrial relations law nationally, but it is actually the advocates within unions on the ground who day-by-day implement the law in their workplaces and on sites. Similarly, it is these lawyers and barristers like Bettina Mangan SC, Graham Droppert SC, Elspeth Hensler, Nick Van Hattem, Cheyne Beetham, Nick Ellery, Heather Millar, Alexander Mossop, Tessa Hermann, Pip Honey, Rex Vines, Joy Horwood, Rein Squires and Christopher Terren who will be on the frontline implementing many of these changes. Also, congratulations to Kim Lendich SC for being elected as the first woman to be the Chair of Francis Burt Chambers. I think that is an amazing accomplishment. Within the profession, we still have many ways to go in many contexts to reach gender equality. I was going to thank other organisations like the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Women Lawyers of WA and in particular the Community Legal Centres later in my speech but I have just noticed the time.
(Member's time extended.)
The Acting Speaker: Member for Butler, could you speak up a bit louder. You are very—
Mrs Lorna Clarke: Oh, am I too soft?
The Acting Speaker: No, I am deaf at the best of times, but your voice is very—
Mrs Lorna Clarke: Okay; I can speak up.
I move to those who were consulted. At least 50 organisations and individuals were consulted on this legislation. From the history of where this has come from, going back to 2018 and 2020, when feedback was sought from specific stakeholders and then detailed advice was sought from the State Solicitor's Office, we start to see the draft numbers—draft 7, draft 8—got consulted on. The organisations and institutions as part of our system, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Aboriginal Legal Service, do an amazing job—a huge shout-out to ALS. When I worked for Mark Dreyfus in Canberra, we fought really hard in 2013 to boost the funding for community legal centres, legal aid and, in particular, Aboriginal legal services across the country, because the work that they are doing out in remote and Aboriginal communities is like nothing else. They are going out providing legal advice. They have their laptop maybe, but they do not have a desk, and they are just out there taking instructions and appearing in court in some of the toughest environments. There is also Legal Aid Western Australia, the Western Australia Police Force and the Law Society of Western Australia. Many people do not realise that a lot of lawyers and barristers sit on Law Society committees. It can be quite competitive to get onto a committee. In their own time, unrelated to billable hours, they develop legal policy and basically look at the legislation they work with in the courts every day and say, "Look, this isn't working, we need to put this to government and change these laws." There is the Family Law Practitioners Association WA and in particular the Women's Legal Service in WA. I give a huge shout-out to Dr Jennie Gray, the CEO, and her team of lawyers, who do an amazing job, particularly in the space of family and domestic violence and providing advocacy on these issues. The courts and tribunal services, the University of Western Australia, the Department of Communities, Speech Pathology Australia, the Australian Association of Social Workers and the Western Australian Council of Social Service were, I believe, some of the people who made submissions over that time period.
That leads me to what I think will be one the defining features of this legislation in terms of social change within the courts. There are already some witness assistance measures, but we will introduce a witness intermediary service. As a lawyer, one has to be very careful to never coach one's client in their evidence, which has to be true and honest and their own. There is a practical moment when a lawyer must tell their witness that they will need to go into the witness box and tell the truth—that is the first thing. A witness might also need to know where the toilets are, what the layout of the room is, and that they can ask for a break or for water, and, particularly when they are under quite a stressful cross-examination, they can ask for time. If a complainant does not have a lawyer in the room to ask for those things, which obviously happens in a number of cases in context, to then have a witness intermediary who can get to know the complainant, understand their strengths and weaknesses, their trigger points and what they might need will be a game changer. Often in managing a court, the prosecutor or judge will not have even thought about these things or will not even realise.
The witness intermediary will have to make sure that the complainant's voice is always heard in all situations. Obviously, a lawyer does not ever want to speak for their client in a way that is not true, honest and helps them, so I think witness intermediaries will be beneficial to victims of sexual offences, particularly child victims, because, as I say, the formality of a court space is quite intimidating. I have never been cross-examined. I have seen many barristers do it. Those who are best at it do not intimidate; they very calmly take a witness through the facts and point out discrepancies. I have seen some pretty brutal cross-examinations and, even within the profession, one holds one's breath at the back of the room sometimes and thinks: that is pretty close to the wind on our ethics, because we do have ethical obligations. The barrister might have got an outcome, but how they went about it might not have been okay.
The key thing, given the extensive consultation that this bill has undertaken, is that there is a balance between stakeholders' competing needs and interests. There has been a lot of discussion about complainants, but it is about not only supporting and protecting victims but also the accused person's right to a fair trial. At the end of the day, we will have these rules and systems in place so that we can provide procedural fairness and grant people a fair trial. I think the balance is well and truly right and that the devil is very much in the detail in this legislation.
I am conscious of letting other people speak after me. In closing, the commencement of the act is on a day to be fixed by proclamation. There will be some time for implementation of the changes, so for those in the profession who are looking aghast at the scale of the changes, there will be time for training, time to establish the witness intermediary service and time to draft the regulations and rules of the court. I am sure the Attorney General will be doing that in consultation with the profession. In conclusion, this is a significant bill, a once-in-a-generation reform of evidence law, and it will help victims and complainants in the court system, and align WA with uniform evidence law.
Ms Kim Giddens (Bateman—Parliamentary Secretary) (5:23 pm): I rise to also contribute to the debate on the Evidence Bill 2025, which is comprehensive reform that will repeal and replace the Evidence Act 1906. As others have noted, this is a landmark piece of legislation that will modernise our laws. The laws of evidence contained in the two giant books that the member for Butler showed us from her law days are obviously very complex and detailed. In summary, the laws of evidence are very important to get right because they guide the way our judicial system functions. They guide the rights of people to have a fair hearing and the rights of victim-survivors and witnesses to present their evidence in a way that reflects their true lived experience. We know that the current legislation does not get that right.
The act is more than 100 years old, and it goes without saying that our justice system, our technology and our society have changed in that time. Other members have made really strong contributions around the detail of this bill, so in the interest of time I will not attempt to repeat it, plus there are others who also want to make a contribution. I will note, at a super high level, that amongst the substantive changes in this bill there are a few that I want to highlight as being important to me.
Some of the changes we have heard a lot about are the enhanced safeguards for vulnerable witnesses, including women and children; clearer guidance on the admissibility of recorded interviews and digital evidence—this is really important for our police to be able to introduce, for example, body-worn camera evidence—and the introduction of cultural considerations into evidentiary interpretation. We know that multicultural groups can be disadvantaged in our legal and criminal system, so these are very important changes.
As I said, I do not want to go into the technical detail of the bill, but I will talk about the impact of this bill on the experiences of people. The judicial system—I cannot get it right—the legal system is part of a broader ecosystem, and of course we are part of that broader ecosystem. As legislators in this place, we make the legislation to be enforced. Our law enforcement officers, our police, do the fantastic job of going out into our community to do the hard work to ensure that when people commit crimes or when things go wrong, they do their bit. Then, of course, we have the court system, and this Evidence Bill speaks to that.
The Acting Speaker: Excuse me, member for Bateman. Sorry, members, could you just take it outside? Thank you very much. Continue, member for Bateman.
Ms Kim Giddens: To have a really strong functioning system, each part of that system must be strong. It is incumbent on members in this place to make good, strong laws. It is incumbent on us that we have a police force that is well resourced, and it is really important that we give magistrates and the judiciary the tools that they need to enact justice. If any one of those elements is weak, whether it is outdated legislation, weak enforcement or inflexible court processes, the entire system is undermined. This is particularly true for women and children who are survivors of sexual assault or family violence. We know that a trauma-informed system not only is fairer, but also delivers better justice and better outcomes. That is one of the reasons I am really proud to be a part of a government that understands this whole ecosystem. It can put forward strong laws to address some of the concerns around community safety. I am also part of a government that supports our police and gives them the tools they need. The bill has a very extensive list of those tools, which have been referred to by other members, so in the interest of time, I will skip that part. We have also given magistrates the tools, like we did with the retail workers protection laws, to pass sentences that reflect community standards. That is part of the hard work that the Cook government has done over the last two terms. The bill is a really important piece of the puzzle to enable the justice system to operate most effectively.
One of the other pieces of legislation around community safety that the Cook government introduced and passed was the rewrite, for the first time in 50 years, of our Firearms Act. Together, these reforms, from the courtroom to the front line, demonstrate our commitment to keeping Western Australians safe. Despite the Cook government's gun reforms being focused on serious criminals—we are talking about organised crime, terrorists and serious family and domestic violence offenders—that work was not supported across the chamber. Whether we like it or not, and I do not, it is a sad reality that we live in a gendered society. Our legislation has historically been gendered, and the consequences of what we do in this chamber is gendered. In relation to firearms legislation, the key evidence is that women are far more likely to be killed by an intimate partner if there is a firearm in the home. International studies consistently show that access to a gun increases the risk of domestic violence homicide by five to seven times. In Australia, where we do not have the data or statistics, we still know that when we compare the use of firearms with other weapons there is a disproportionate association with fatal outcomes. The evidence on that is really clear. We know it is not only about the harm that might be registered in terms of an actual death versus being harmed; it is also about the coercive control that perpetrators have and the psychological risk to the women and children victims of domestic violence.
Some other research, which was shared with me by the former Minister for Police, notes really interesting outcomes in cases in the United States. Victim-survivors of perpetrators who had used a gun, showing but not necessarily discharging the weapon, had far more increased post-traumatic stress disorder outcomes than those of other types of abuse in these situations. We also know that when there is a firearm in the home, women fear reporting family and domestic violence even more. That is why it was really disappointing that last week the opposition moved a motion to disallow the Firearms Regulations that underpin the safety of everyone in our community, but particularly women and children.
I want to note a few things about the comment that we live in a gendered society in which the impact of our legislation is felt differently by different members of our community. The member for Warren–Blackwood mentioned the word "feral" three times in his contribution last week. This was a high-level check, so it might have been four or two and a half, you know. He said "feral" three times, "animal" 11 times, "wildlife" 11 times, "community safety" once but only in response to an interjection from this side, and "women" and "children" zero times. The shadow Minister for Women's Interests, the member for Cottesloe, did not contribute to that debate. I would have thought it was relevant. And even though we have heard lots of really good evidence in the contributions made to this bill about the strong positive impacts for women and children in particular, there has been no contribution from the shadow Minister for Women's Interests on this bill either. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Vasse, whose community has a horrific number of incidents of family and domestic violence, said nothing last week. Of course, we know that the Leader of the Liberal Party, in whose electorate we saw the most horrific and tragic circumstances only 12 months ago, made no contribution to the debate last week.
I talk about our firearms legislation in relation to this bill because it is a really excellent example of how all the pillars must work together to support and improve community safety—just ask the legislators, law enforcement and people in the judicial system. I want to use another example to highlight that. It is a real-life example. Forty-five years ago, a mum of two young children, including a new six-week-old baby, was in an abusive relationship. Her husband was a firearms owner. He had pulled a gun on this woman before and had threatened to kill himself. On this day, he did it while she was holding the six-week-old newborn. I asked this woman just this morning, "Did you tell anyone?" She said, "No. Why would I? No-one would have done anything. I told his parents a couple of times, but they didn't do anything." I asked, "Why didn't you go to the police?" She replied, "What would they have done? It wasn't a crime. He was allowed to own the gun, and they would have seen it as a private matter." Forty-five years ago, this woman and others like her had no legislative protection, much less an opportunity to go to court to give evidence.
If this real scenario had happened 12 months ago, I like to think that our legislative and community frameworks, recognising the harm of FDA, would have offered more support than they did to this woman 45 years ago, and that she could have even had the opportunity to perhaps provide evidence in court. Under Western Australia's previous firearms laws, FDV would not have been a reason in itself to warrant the removal of a firearm licence from a perpetrator of family and domestic violence. Under the Cook Labor government's gun legislation reform, FDV is absolutely cause for the removal of firearms from a perpetrator. But without the amendments in the Evidence Bill, victims can still face barriers to giving the evidence required. That is why this bill is so critical. It will provide greater support to victims and more flexibility in the ways in which evidence can be taken and used. Without that, a woman, like the one in the example I gave, may not have the confidence or trust in the judicial system to pursue her legal rights. We heard other examples from the member for Kimberley around how that kind of fear and loss of trust in the system applies to people from her community.
The intent of this bill, amongst other reforms, is to address that really crucial piece. It is an example of how the different arms of justice and our legal system can work to address something as serious as family and domestic violence. The sad fact is that the experience of the woman in my example is not remote nor rare nor consigned to the past; it is personal. This woman is my mother and the six-week-old baby was me. Members, the legislation we pass in this place should be personal to all of us, particularly when it relates to the rights of people, like women and children who have not been properly reflected historically in our thinking in this place and in how legislation applies outside in our community. It is for this reason that I am particularly proud to be part of the Cook Labor government and particularly pleased to speak in support of this legislation. I commend the bill to the house.
Mrs Michelle Maynard (Swan Hills) (5:35 pm): I rise today to speak in support of the Evidence Bill 2025, and I do so with a deep conviction because this legislation is not just about updating our legal frameworks; it is about changing the experience of justice for some of the most vulnerable members of our community. The bill is about modernising justice. It is about giving victim-survivors the dignity, support and safety they deserve. Quite frankly, that is what they should always have been afforded.
Relying on a system that is over 100 years old and that has been patched with amendment after amendment is not sufficient in this day and age. For decades, too many people, overwhelmingly women and children, have entered our courtrooms hoping for justice, only to find a system that re-traumatises them. Our system is one in which victim-survivors were doubted, disbelieved or silenced. Victim-survivors were questioned in ways that humiliated them. They were expected to perform their pain on cue, with composure and clarity, and with perfect recall sometimes years or even decades after the abuse had occurred. Victim-survivors were subjected to lines of questioning that were determined or designed to cast a shadow on their character, discredit their experience and diminish their pain, and still they showed up, gave evidence and tried to tell their story. This bill honours that courage.
The Evidence Bill 2025 is, as many have said, the most significant reform to evidence law in Western Australia in over 100 years. It will replace the outdated Evidence Act of 1906—just think how far we have come since 1906—and bring WA into line with most other jurisdictions through the adoption of the uniform evidence law. I am proud that we are nationalising our Evidence Act while not just blindly following what other states have done. We have reviewed and adjusted the legislation to ensure that the new Evidence Act will serve the people of Western Australia. More importantly, it will do what our justice system should have done a long time ago: it will put victim-survivors first.
This legislation is trauma informed, it is practical and it will be life changing for those who matter most. The Evidence Bill recognises that victims of family and domestic violence, child sexual abuse and sexual assault often stand alone in their pursuit of justice. They are frequently the only witnesses. They face scrutiny that would break most of us and do so while navigating grief, fear, shame and, too often, blame. The bill does not ask victim-survivors to do more; it asks the system to do better. There are serious moves in this bill to remove the traumatising of victim-survivors, and that will support them in their endeavours to seek justice and break free from abuse, trauma and assault.
The changes to the Evidence Act make it clear that victims will not have to face court alone. It will ensure that special witness protections are mandatory in cases of sexual offences and family violence, allowing victims to prerecord their evidence, give it remotely or be supported by a person, or even a support animal, in court. I wish I had one of those now. This means that victim-survivors will have a right—not a burden of requesting, but a right—to give evidence via video link, behind a screen or with a support person by their side. These are not luxuries; they are simple, humane adjustments that acknowledge the trauma that many witnesses carry. They are adjustments that help survivors speak clearly and safely without the terror of direct confrontation and without having to relive their pain in front of a public gallery.
This bill will allow them to use video and audio recordings made by police at the time of an incident, which can be used as evidence-in-chief. This means victims will not have to relive the trauma weeks or months later in a courtroom. This is revolutionary. It will allow victims to tell their story once, clearly, and while the incident is fresh, without the pressure of a courtroom weeks or months later. It will also prevent the kind of interference or intimidation that so often occurs in the time between the events and the trial.
Witness intermediaries will be available to help children, people with disability and those with communication needs to give their best evidence in a way that is clear, supported and safe. These trained professionals will help vulnerable witnesses such as children, people with cognitive impairment or those with communication needs to be able to understand and respond to questions in court. This is about enabling accurate evidence, not diminishing fairness. It is about giving people the tools they need to participate fully and safely in the justice process.
Under this bill, cross examination is going to be limited. No longer will we tolerate questioning that is degrading, harassing or humiliating. That is not justice; it is abuse in another form. This bill, rightly so, will shut the door on that. It will also end the ability of religious leaders to claim confessional seal in cases of child sexual abuse. No institution, no matter how sacred, should be above the safety of a child. This long-overdue change reflects recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
The legislation also removes outdated and unfair legal practices such as the so-called Longman direction: a mandatory warning to juries that delays in reporting might affect a participant's credibility. We must acknowledge the damage caused by this outdated judicial instruction. For years, juries have been told that if a complaint was not made promptly, it may cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant. But we know trauma does not follow a timeline. We know that fear, shame, confusion and power dynamics often delay disclosure. This warning has no place in a modern justice system, and I am proud that we are finally removing it.
Let me be clear: delay does not mean deceit. Survivors delay disclosing abuse for many reasons—because they are afraid, feel shame or are still processing what happened to them. We know this. The research tells us this. Survivors tell us this. I know this; 30 years may have passed, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I could not tell you the date, but I could tell you in detail what happened. I repeat; delay is not deceit. Should I ever gather the courage, I am so glad that this part of our legislation is gone.
Unfortunately, gut-wrenchingly, today I stand in this place with far too great an understanding about how this Evidence Bill will improve the lives of victims. Members of my family have had to deal with matters that are to be dealt with under this new Evidence Act. My family understands the trauma children and victim-survivors suffer through reliving their experiences after getting the courage to speak up about what has occurred to them. We understand deeply the complexities of the court system, how scary it is for those who seek justice and how traumatising it is to take the breath to speak up thinking it would be the end of your suffering, only to realise it is the start of a new type of suffering.
No-one should have to deal with this. Our court system should not be a place where trauma is compounded. Disclosing your abuse, unfortunately, is not the end of suffering. I pray that for victim-survivors it is the start of healing, but those who have experienced abuse would be well aware that it is a long and difficult path. By making changes to the Evidence Act, hopefully that painful path is not compounded by a justice system that is complex to navigate and gruelling to experience. I wish with every fibre of my being that this Evidence Bill was around decades ago when we needed it most.
This bill finally reflects reality and modern justice. This bill is more than a legal document; it is a promise to survivors, to children and to every person who has ever feared that speaking up would not be worth the pain. It says: we hear you, we believe you and we are making the system safer for the next person who walks through those courtroom doors.
It is also a bill that balances rights responsibly. Accused persons will still have access to a fair trial, but for far too long, fairness has not been extended to victims. This bill shifts that balance towards equity without compromising integrity. I want to acknowledge the work of our current Attorney General, Dr Tony Buti, and former Attorney General, John Quigley, who laid the groundwork for these reforms. I also want to thank every survivor, advocate, legal expert, police officer and frontline worker who contributed their voice to shaping this legislation. Their experience is woven through every clause.
As a mother, as a woman and as someone who has walked this path, I am proud to stand here today and support this bill, because a legal system that is truly just must do more than punish the guilty; it must also protect the vulnerable, centre the truth and allow victims to seek justice without being broken by the process. The Evidence Bill 2025 will help make that possible. I commend this bill to the house.
Mrs Lisa Munday (Dawesville) (5:47 pm): I acknowledge the member for Swan Hills. It was an amazing speech. It must have been very hard and difficult to do that. Before I start my speech, I just wanted to note the people who have come here to speak. We have had a police officer, a journalist, a witness, friends and survivors. It is a very emotional bill, and I will be adding my contribution to this debate. I thank the member for Swan Hills for standing up and having the courage to speak.
I also rise to support the Evidence Bill 2025. I thank the member for Bassendean for all the work he did on removing the statute of limitations for sexual abuse. Without his work and the work of previous Parliaments, we could not stand here today to do this, so thank you.
Our court system has been going for 100 years, and this bill is the first major overhaul in over a century. I do not think there is much legislation that has taken over 100 years to change. It is well and truly due. For too many people, especially family and domestic violence survivors, the court experience has remained confronting, confusing and, at times, retraumatising. This bill really changes that.
One of the most significant reforms is the introduction of prerecorded statements from the victims of family violence. Specially trained police officers will be empowered to take statements at the scene, or shortly after, using body-worn cameras. These recordings will become the victim's evidence-in-chief, reducing their need to retell their trauma months or sometimes years later in court. This will also limit the chance for intimidation or coercion by perpetrators. This is not only practical, it is also compassionate.
As a paramedic with nearly 20 years of service, I cannot overstate how vital these reforms are. I have seen the raw aftermath of family violence incidents. I have sat with victims, which is always hard, especially when I cannot fix what has happened, and they are always traumatised. Often, the offender is just as distressed because sometimes what has unfolded was not meant to happen. One of the jobs I remember from 15 or 16 years ago when I was a junior ambo involved a 60-year-old man with a 40-year-old brother with special needs. He had a lot of seizures and used to wear a helmet to protect his head. The 60-year-old brother had just been diagnosed with brain cancer. The job was called because the young brother had had a trauma. When we first got there, the older brother had said that the younger brother had had seizures and had not been wearing his helmet. He was really sorry and he was crying. We did what we could for the younger brother, but he passed away at the scene. While we were there, the police turned up and the scene became part of an inquiry. While we were there, I was talking to this man and he was telling us how he had been a carer for his mum and dad. His mum had passed away years earlier and his dad had only died more recently, leaving him with the sole responsibility for his 40-year-old brother. The more he talked and the police talked, it transpired that he had killed his younger brother with special needs because he had let the family dog out and the dog had been killed on the road. The older brother was so distressed and angry that he beat his younger brother to death. He did not mean to, and he was just so heartbroken. Sitting there as a paramedic, hearing that, trying to work it out and processing it was really difficult.
Fast forward two or three years later and I got a subpoena on the road for a court case that I needed to give evidence at. As ambos, we like to finish a job, tightly package it up and put it in the back of the memory, because memories that stay at the front of your brain and are not processed become very traumatic, and that is where PTSD comes from. There are jobs that you can tie off. You realise as ambos or police that you could not have done any more and that the young man had already passed away. You do the job, talk about it and process it, and it goes into the long-term memory. You tie it off and put it in a little box, in a little vault, and lock it away, never to be touched again. When you get a subpoena requiring you to pull it out and discuss it again, it is really, really difficult. As an ambo, if you go to court, sometimes you cannot remember the job and you have to read the case sheet. You feel guilt because that was somebody's life-defining moment, but for you it was just one job amongst 50 for the month or 1,000 jobs for the year. I cannot even remember how many there were over two years. A part of you wants to do the best you can in court. You read the case sheet and think to yourself, "I wish I had written down more; I wish I had done this and I wish I had done that." That is when trauma starts to get relived by emergency service workers, whether that is police officers, ambulance officers or firies.
Being able to capture the account of survivors, witnesses and the accused in the moment with a body-worn camera makes a huge difference for a lot of people, and not just the survivors, because they will not have to relive the trauma over and over again. It will go to the vault of long-term memory. A survivor definitely has a harder time processing it into the back of the mind. Within 14 days of an incident, a lot of people get acute stress disorder. It has the same symptoms as PTSD, with nightmares and vivid memories. It is like reliving the trauma every day. Having body-worn cameras and being able to record evidence so people can pass the trauma through and do not have to relive it is important. From an economic point of view, thinking about the government, there is the saving of not having to pay dollars out to people with PTSD. Police and ambulance officers not having to relive trauma makes a huge difference. This new legislation acknowledges that asking survivors to relive the worst moments of their lives over and over is not justice. This change is trauma informed. It is really human life justice in action. It is really important and cannot be overstated.
As the member for Dawesville, I see firsthand the outstanding work of local organisations like Ovis Community Services, Peel Says No to Violence and the Stronger Families' Caring Dads team as some examples. They provide critical on-the-ground support, and this bill complements their efforts by ensuring that our legal system does the same. Everyone in these community groups, not just in the Mandurah region but across WA, would welcome less red tape and more tangible supports through which they can help support their clients.
We will also mandate special witness status for complainants of sexual offences, gang-related cases and selected family and domestic violence matters, allowing for additional protections in court. Witness intermediaries will assist children and people with communication needs. There will be an end to outdated practices like the Longman warning, which we have all talked about today. I will be happy to see it scrapped as well. It is not something I ever understood or knew about because I have been lucky enough not to be involved in anything like that, but listening to the member for Thornlie's stories as a journalist and hearing the personal accounts of the two ladies and the young man was very sobering for me. I realised how impactful it is for someone to pour their heart out, tell the truth and give everything, only for the judge to say that he or she may not be telling the truth so the jury should maybe not believe them. To have that happen after they have just given everything they have to a judge and jury must just be heart-wrenching, and I cannot imagine what it would be like. To have the Longman warning disappear is a victory for fairness, understanding and modern best practices.
The current Evidence Act already contains strong provisions for expert testimony on family violence, including directions to dispel common myths such as the belief that the abuse must be physical or that victims flee and never return. These provisions have rightly been retained, but this new bill goes further. It allows civil courts, not just criminal ones, to treat these recognised truths about family violence as matters that do not need to be proven in every case. That is a major step forward. It removes unnecessary hurdles, makes proceedings more efficient and affirms what our community already knows to be true. This is all part of a broader commitment to make courtrooms less adversarial and more inclusive.
Listening to the member for Butler—thank you for taking my spot up there!—speak from a lawyer's perspective was really interesting as well. Understanding that every one of us plays a part and to be able to be a part of this change of a century is just incredible. Judges will now have the power to restrict questioning that is misleading, confusing and designed to annoy the survivor of the incident. I never knew that in the Family Court, the perpetrator could question the survivor. Having these things change is definitely a move forward to this century. It will protect families from being drawn into unnecessary proceedings.
The bill also includes key protections for counselling records for FDV survivors. As a psychologist, I think that is really of benefit when clients tell their story about their sexual, physical or mental abuse. I was a provisional psychologist. The principal psychologist was subpoenaed to go to court with information. That led to the boss of our business being very careful about what went on record. She was always mindful that when people were sharing their most vivid recollections and sensitive stories, they needed to be noted, but she did not want them used against them. It is really important to be able to protect people where possible. Survivors need to know their healing will not be used against them; it is a critical step in building trust.
The Evidence Bill also aligns with recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which the member for Bassendean was also part of. It is thorough. It considered the effects of a legal culture that is catching up with advocates and survivors, which has long been called for. A lot of what I have said and heard today is that this Evidence Act amendment cannot come soon enough. Listening to the member for Swan Hills was a stark reminder that it is something that needs to happen, and a century is far too long for a change in legislation.
I end on this note. Brené Brown reminds us that empathy has no script; there is no right or wrong way to do it. It is simply listening, holding space, withholding judgement and emotionally connecting. As a paramedic and psychologist, I like to think that is how I lived my life before I came into this place. Even in this place, it is quite interesting how our roles are very similar to those of paramedics, in that you do not know what you are going to get each day. When people come in and speak to us, you do not know how the day is going to unfold. This bill expresses our commitment to not only a better WA, but also the people who make this an amazing state. It is a step forward in healing, fairness and progress, and I commend the bill to the house.
Mr Frank Paolino (Mount Lawley) (6:01 pm): I take this opportunity to thank you, Acting Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the debate on the Evidence Bill 2025. It is my first time speaking on a bill in this chamber. I am told that I have only a few minutes before the Attorney General speaks.
Dr Tony Buti: Continue.
Mr Frank Paolino: Sure; okay!
Firstly, I acknowledge the deliveries of the member for Swan Hills and the member for Bateman and their tremendous courage in speaking on this bill. I am sure that it was not easy, and I want to say that it was, of course, important to get their perspectives. I also acknowledge the delivery of the members for Thornlie and Bassendean. I thank them very much for their contributions.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of this bill, from my perspective, I also acknowledge the Attorney General for his commitment to the bill, which expands further from the previous bill that was brought to the house by previous Attorney General John Quigley, whose contribution should also not go unrecognised. I add to that the contributions made by previous members.
In the deliveries by my colleagues, my colleague the member for Maylands earlier mentioned the enormity of this bill when he rose to discuss it. How right he is. It is hard to believe that we are here in 2025 reforming an act that has guided this state since 1906—enacted 118 years ago. Although the legal principles of evidence can be traced back to sections of the Magna Carta, I am sure that it is very fair to say that evidence and the evolution of evidence has expanded over time. I suppose it is a timely reminder to understand what evidence actually is. Evidence in law is the material items or assertions of fact that may be submitted to a competent tribunal as a means of asserting the truth of any alleged matter of fact under investigation before it. I suppose, as I said before, it extends something that now with the evolution of time is expanded. That process underpins the importance of due process and how that is presented. We know that evidence encompasses all parts of the law—employment, criminal and taxation amongst many. They all rely on the role of evidence.
We are today looking at a very important feature of our legal framework, which is the area of family and domestic violence and child sexual assault, on which we know this bill will be most impactful. I want to avoid repeating the commentary of my colleagues in this chamber, so I will somewhat generalise. Different, I suppose, to many other colleagues of mine, I am not coming to this from a legal perspective. I am not a lawyer. I am coming to this from the perspective of a father, as a person of the community and as a person who has grown up in a family. I wish to emphasise my emphatic support for these changes. In my lifetime, I have known of people who have been victims of abuses, such as sexual abuse and child abuse, women and men in family and domestic violence situations involving victimising, blaming and finger-pointing with he-said, she-said, they-said—all characteristics of these issues when they were raised and came to the fore. Some came to light many years after they occurred. In some cases, when they did come to light, it tore families apart.
When looking at this Evidence Bill, I will talk about one example of when these issues came out. One of the things that came out and I recall quite vividly was the credibility of the victim. The victim at the time was a child, and it took the victim 20 years to share their story and bring forward an action. Although there were outcomes, there never really was an appropriate outcome for her because it was like she was starting from a position of disadvantage. She was discredited, in large part, at the outset. In essence, that is what this bill in some ways is trying to change. All these emotions are real and raw. We know and have heard that the reality of re-traumatising people, as I have seen, compounds hurt and pain further. This bill brings a justice that supports women, families and children through the acknowledgement of the technology that has evolved, as I said at the outset, over time, and the provision of evidence via other technological means. It will disallow questions—I think this is very important—that are harassing, intimidating or offensive. Imagine how someone would feel after such a long period, when everything has been brought back to the forefront of their mind. It would be a moment of great vulnerability, yet there is not a supportive framework in place to provide support at this time.
Without going too much further, this bill is balanced, efficient and supportive and reflects the community's expectations in the 21st century. Again, I acknowledge all those contributions. I acknowledge the advisers and all those who have contributed to the bill, as well as the former Attorney General, whom I mentioned before. I want to conclude on this note. I conclude that with this bill, I am very proud to be part of the Cook Labor government that has introduced important key reforms in Western Australia. This incredible bill reforms a law that was presented 118 years ago and that will now be brought in line with other jurisdictions in the country but in a much more efficient, effective way for Western Australians. I therefore take the opportunity to commend the bill to the house.
Dr Tony Buti (Armadale—Attorney General) (6:12 pm) in reply: The Evidence Bill 2025 is all about law reform. We know that law reform is crucial to a just and functional society. The bill will allow our laws to take into account modern values, changes in technology, changes in economic reality and changes in community expectations.
The member for Mount Lawley concluded his speech by saying that the emotions are real and raw. This afternoon, the contributions that I listened to by members of my side of government were real and raw. I thank every single member who contributed to the debate for their incredible courage and also their eloquence and articulation of why this bill is so important and why it is necessary to pass this bill. I also thank the three members from the opposition who spoke on the Evidence Bill 2025.
As was mentioned by many speakers, this is the most comprehensive rewrite of the evidence laws of Western Australia since the enactment of the Evidence Act 1906. The bill has many positive outcomes, including creating a more comprehensive legislation around evidence law and making the law more accessible; streamlining and structuring evidence legislation to make it more comprehensible; adopting improvements to the law of evidence that have been refined and tested in other jurisdictions; retaining best practice Western Australian evidence provisions; retaining existing witness assistance measures, with improvements and often expanded eligibility; and introducing new witness assistance measures to improve courts' abilities to take evidence from victims of crime and witnesses while reducing re-traumatisation where possible. These witness assistance measures are aimed to improve outcomes for children and victims of sexual violence and family domestic violence and contain broad court discretions. They will allow the court to use measures when they are most needed.
I will now go through many of the contributions by members of both sides of the house and I once again thank all members for their contributions.
I thank the member for Carine for his contribution, commencing the second reading debate for the opposition. The member mentioned, as I said, that this act will repeal the Evidence Act 1906. He is supportive of this bill, as are all members of the opposition, and he acknowledged that it follows the recommendations of the previous Law Reform Commission of Western Australia report, which recommended that WA adopt uniform evidence law. The member also noted that the bill makes Western Australian–specific modifications to reflect local needs and circumstances, so it does not purport to pick up uniform national laws just for the sake of it. We have picked up the laws where it made sense, but where particular clauses in the 1906 act were relevant and useful for Western Australia, we have retained them.
I think that every member mentioned that one thing this bill will do is improve the process of giving evidence for children and victims. It implements the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia's report. Some of the changes include the holding of ground rules hearings, permitting statements made by police officers, further improvements to allow family and domestic violence witnesses to access measures available to special witnesses, prohibiting sexual experience evidence in civil cases and prohibiting Longman directions. As the member for Carine said, these measures are welcome and necessary.
The member also noted that the bill is an amalgamation of two bills put forward in 2024, but there have been some changes to those bills in the bill that we have introduced before the house. It is a consolidation of the two bills that were introduced last year. I thank—I have in my notes "the member for Staltari"!—the member for Carine for his indication that the opposition will be supporting the bill and for his contribution to the debate. As I said, he noted the amalgamation of the two bills from last year.
Mr Paul Papalia: We might have to rename the seat!
Dr Tony Buti: That is right; we might rename the seat! You never know.
There were other comments made by the member and, if need be, we can consider them in the consideration in detail stage.
The member for Mindarie has had extensive experience, as he stated, in the application of evidence law. He was a police officer for a long duration and he has seen the laws in action. He also mentioned that the bill is long overdue and necessary and will bring us in line with uniform evidence laws that operate in the majority of Australian jurisdictions. He talked about the bill codifying comprehensive rules regarding the omission and exclusion of evidence, and only evidence that is relevant may be admissible. That is so important. The bill also outlaws hearsay evidence and allows expert witnesses to give opinion evidence.
The member mentioned that the police can continue to conduct interviews with children and people with mental impairments and play those interviews as evidence-in-chief. The bill maintains the current act's provisions for pre-recordings to allow vulnerable witnesses to give evidence in advance of trial. That is such an important measure not only for the reliability of the evidence, but also to ensure that we do not traumatise vulnerable witnesses. The witness protection measures are grounded in an understanding of the reality of trauma and the need to reduce re-traumatisation. This is so important, and it all goes to also improving the quality of evidence that is obtained by the court.
Many members talked about reforming the Longman warning, which dates back to a 1989 decision. Back then, juries were warned that it was dangerous to convict based solely on the complainant's evidence, especially if there was a long delay. We know that that is unfair because for many children in child abuse environments, it takes a long time for them to come forward with those complaints—a long, long time.
I will just relate a story. Today we made a significant announcement with regard to the stolen generations. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is in the chamber, outlined the scheme in a very articulate and meaningful way during question time. I used to work at the Aboriginal Legal Service and I interviewed the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Legal Service at the time, in the mid-1990s. He had been sexually abused as an eight or nine-year-old when he was at Sister Kate's children's home. I was the first person to whom he relayed the fact that he had been raped. That would have been about 40 years later, and there is the shame that some people feel about what happened to them when they were children. The fact that that Longman warning has now been removed is something that I think we should all celebrate, so I thank the member for Carine.
I also mentioned the member for Mindarie. I thank him for his contribution and for always relaying the experience that he had as a police officer. He talked about the improvements in the bill. The member for Maylands is one of the few lawyers to have spoken on the bill; I could count only two, maybe? I can assure him that all law students in Western Australia will be very, very delighted when the Evidence Bill is passed. People who have been law students know that evidence is actually a pretty heavy course in the law degree. Like the member for Butler, I also did my degree at the Australian National University. Does the member remember who her evidence lecturer was? I think mine was Professor Baines, if I remember. But it is a heavy course—not that that was the main reason or even any motivation for us to bring this significant bill to the house! But it obviously has those consequences. The member for Maylands went through the fact that this bill largely adopts the uniform evidence laws. He talked about new measures such as the witness intermediary service, recorded statements, evidence-in-chief, support animals, codification of impermissible questions and, as I said, the changes to the Longman warning, which is so important. He talked about how the bill will replace a very old act and will provide significant improvements to that act. The bill will repeal the act, but of course some of the provisions will remain. I thank very much the member for Maylands.
I now move on to the member for Thornlie. The member for Thornlie has a long history of observing the court system in her former role as a journalist. She also mentioned witnessing the evidence of elderly men in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. She talked about how some witnesses were put through such stress and relived nightmares due to the questioning from defence lawyers. If there is anyone in this house who can talk about the trauma that many witnesses face when they come to court, it is the member for Thornlie. Her contribution was very well received by the chamber. I welcomed listening to her recollection of her time in the courtroom because it just reinforces the need for the bill before the house. She went through many reasons why the bill is important, but particularly talked about how it will be important in sexual abuse cases—cases involving adults who have been subject to sexual abuse, but more so for child sexual abuse complaints that come from children. I thank the member for her contribution.
If I have my order right, I think it was then the member for Vasse, who also relayed that she supports the bill. She talked about the fact that this bill has many good parts to it and referred to the amendments to the Longman warning, and the measures that will be introduced to better support women and child victims. I thank the member for Vasse for her contribution.
We also look forward to this bill progressing through this house and the other house, so that the many very good measures in it can be put into place, after a period of time. It is a very complicated bill; so many other things have to happen before it can become operational, but the first thing is that we have to pass it through this chamber and then the other chamber.
The member for Kingsley came to this debate as the Minister for Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence, so of course she has a particular interest in the measures in this bill that go towards reducing the trauma of complainants who are witnesses in family domestic violence situations, and also victims of sexual offences. She commented on clause 206, which contains very important protections for victims of sexual offences. Parts of those protections are drawn from the 1906 act, in that in criminal sexual offence cases, they will prevent evidence being led about the complainant's sexual reputation and disposition. She talked about how important it is that a person's sexual history is not relevant to the credibility of their complaint. I thank her for her insights and for the fact that she comes to this from a particular portfolio responsibility.
I thank the member for Mid-West for his contribution. He also talked about the 4 December 2024 article regarding rape victims in the regions. It is not acceptable for people who have been subjected to sexual abuse or sexual offences to not be treated in a way that we would expect them to be treated, so we need to look at what services need to be improved to ensure that everyone in that terrible position can be provided with the support they need. I thank the member for his contribution. He also mentioned the need for forensic services, particularly in the regions. Although the issue of forensic services or examination services is incredibly important, it is not within the scope of this bill, but it is, of course, something that is important.
We then had an incredibly important and powerful contribution from the member for Bassendean. Those who have been in this chamber for some time—and, I am sure, even those who have joined since the March 2025 election—will know the advocacy that the member for Bassendean has brought to try to afford justice for victims of child sexual abuse. I would like to congratulate the member for Bassendean for all the work that he has done and for his contribution to the debate today. He made a very important point about the use of the word "historic". We talk about historic child sexual abuse, but those victims are still living that trauma as we speak today. He relayed the story about his time at Christian Brothers College Fremantle and those he has assisted since leaving that school. I thank the member for Bassendean for his contribution and for his support for the bill.
I thank the member for Rockingham for her contribution. She gave a general exposé of many of the features of the bill and talked about things such as special witness status, body-worn camera provisions, new witness intermediary services, and the fact that the bill will prevent religious professionals from refusing to give evidence on the basis that they are breaching confessional confidentiality. I know this has been an incredibly big debate in the Catholic Church, but surely, in the end, justice is the most important thing. In respect of adherence to social justice within the Catholic philosophy, I am sure that most, if not all, people would agree that victims of child sexual abuse or any sexual abuse deserve justice in the court system. If that requires confessions that have been made in the religious setting to be divulged, that is what should happen. I thank the member for Rockingham.
Then we had the member for Kimberley, who always brings a special and unique contribution to this house because of the region that she represents. She is an outstanding local member who represents an incredibly demanding part of Western Australia. I thank her for her contribution. She understands the trauma to victims and the effect that family and domestic violence has on societies. She relayed how important this bill is to not only assisting victims of family and domestic violence or sexual abuse, but also the administration of justice in Western Australia because it helps with the admissibility, credibility and quality of evidence.
I now turn to another lawyer, the member for Butler. Her contribution was from a position of someone who knows a fair amount about the law. The thing that stuck with me was she started by saying that evidence law was about telling the true story. I think that is a good way of putting it. It is about gathering evidence and presenting a story to the court. I had never thought about it that way, but I think that is really important. The member mentioned the contribution made by many organisations and individuals, and those that will be important in the forward administration of the law. I thank the member for Butler.
Then we had the member for Bateman. It was an incredibly raw and emotional contribution from the member. Her focus was on family and domestic violence and the protection of women. She talked about how important the firearms legislation is to reduce family and domestic violence in Western Australia, which is a fact. There is no doubt about it. When we look at the statistics, we can see that the amount of family and domestic violence that occurs by people who are in possession of a gun is irrefutable. I thank the member for Bateman for her contribution and also for opening herself up to relaying part of her personal experiences from many years ago, but which are not historic. Thank you very much.
Talking about emotional and raw, we had the contribution of the member for Swan Hills, who is a new member to this house. Wow, what a contribution! Thank you very much for relaying what you and your family have been through. You made that contribution to this chamber, I believe, to contribute to the debate in a way that brings to focus the need for this bill to be passed. It highlights the magnificent reforms in this bill that are not due to the Attorney General standing on his feet, but to the former Attorney General, who used to occupy this position, Hon John Quigley. I will have more to say about that in the third reading reply. These are incredibly important reforms. The member for Swan Hills reiterated the need for these reforms. I thank the member ever so much. The member talked about the need to ensure that we believe the victims. I wrote down the things the member talked about. The member talked about this bill being a promise to survivors—that we hear them, we believe them, the system is safe and that delay is not deceit. They are incredibly powerful words. Thank you.
The member for Dawesville also comes to this place with a particular work history that always brings a focus on many things that many of us would never experience, having been a paramedic. She spoke about the removal of the Longman warning. She spoke about her experience as a paramedic and the traumas that many people experience. I thank the member for the opportunity she provided us to hear some of her insights from her experience in her former workplace.
Another new member rounded off the debate—the member for Mount Lawley. Thank you very much for your contribution. He is not even a lawyer and he talked about the Magna Carta. That is pretty impressive! But he is the member for Mount Lawley and I am sure that is what many people in Mount Lawley would expect. Thank you very much, member for Mount Lawley. He talked about the need for us to believe the credibility of victims. By providing special measures for the protection of special witnesses, this bill improves the quality of evidence and tells the victims and witnesses that we believe them and support them. The member said that the emotions are real and raw. That has been a major contribution in this debate by many speakers.
I thank all members for their contributions to this very important piece of law reform. This was a debate when we saw the finest of Parliament in action.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading.
Consideration in detail
Clauses 1 to 34 put and passed
Clause 35: Court's control over questioning of witnesses
Mr Liam Staltari: I thank the Attorney General and his advisers. I am sure that during the third reading debate we will have an opportunity to recognise the speakers again for their contributions. Forgive me, but I am not a lawyer, so I would like to understand this. How will clause 35 interact with other clauses that contain protections for special witnesses and witnesses who will be treated as special witnesses, noting that it allows courts to make the directions that they deem just?
Dr Tony Buti: It is really just a statutory reproduction of the common law. Common law basically allows the court to remain in control of the flow of evidence and witnesses.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 36 to 114 put and passed
Clause 115: Coincidence rule
Mr Liam Staltari: How does the coincidence rule ensure the court supplies a consistent threshold when determining what constitutes "significant probative value"?
Dr Tony Buti: Clause 115 introduces the uniform evidence rules for coincidence rules and tendency rules. The test in clause 115 creates a new provision in Western Australia as a result of the uniform laws, which is accessible to parties other than the prosecution, which was not the case under the previous WA laws. The bill will require the court to undertake a weighing exercise in regard to the general exclusion rules that the evidence must have significant prohibitive value. The party seeking to adduce the evidence must give reasonable written notice of their intention to do so.
That was not in our 1906 law. It is an adoption of what was under the law reform laws. It is also a version of the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. Basically, it is a weighing up of the probative value to see whether it should be admissible.
Clause put and passed.
Clause 116: Requirements for notices
Mr Liam Staltari: Are there consequences for parties that fail to comply with clause 116?
Dr Tony Buti: There are none currently in the bill. They may be part of the regulations, or it could be part of the discretion of the court. It is more likely to be at the discretion of the court.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 117 to 141 put and passed
Clause 142: Request for direction on family violence: general
Mr Liam Staltari: Will directions be developed to ensure consistency across the courts? Has the government considered whether any training or guidance would be necessary beyond the previous expertise of judges and practitioners?
Dr Tony Buti: Good question, member. This provision is actually already within our system. We already have it. It was requested by the lawyers. There is always ongoing training done by the legal profession and the judiciary.
Mr Liam Staltari: Forgive me again for not being a lawyer. On the same clause, which elements of the direction will be mandatory versus subject to the discretion of the judge?
Dr Tony Buti: Clause 144 is about the contents of a direction. It states:
In a direction under section 141 or 142, the judge may inform the jury of all or any of the following matters —
Then there is a list of matters.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 143 to 205 put and passed
Clause 206: Exclusion of certain evidence relating to complainant or witness
Mr Liam Staltari: This is obviously a significant part of the bill and has featured in much of the contributions. Is there a pathway for a complainant or witness to challenge a ruling that deems evidence not to relate to their sexual disposition or otherwise? Is there an avenue available to them?
Dr Tony Buti: There is no avenue under the act. The judge would have to make a ruling that would be contrary to the act.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 207 to 228 put and passed
Clause 229: Witnesses who must be treated as special witness
Mr Liam Staltari: Are witnesses able to make an appeal to not be treated as special witnesses, or would they simply, if they so chose, not take up the additional supports that would be made available under that category?
Dr Tony Buti: The witness can express a desire to the prosecutor that they do not want to be a special witness. In the end, the court will make a decision, but the court does not actually have to do anything. If the person does not want to be a special witness, the prosecutor probably will not put in place those measures. Obviously, the judge could be concerned that someone does not want to be a special witness and may discuss the issue with the witness. Under the legislation, it stands as it is.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 230 to 294 put and passed
Clause 295: Ground rules hearing
Mr Liam Staltari: How will ground rules hearings be operationalised in WA courts? Is it anticipated there will be standardised procedures or will they be conducted entirely at the discretion of the court?
Dr Tony Buti: At the moment, member, they are already being practised in the District Court for a direction from the court or the judge, but this clause codifies it within the legislation.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 296 to 383 put and passed
Clause 384: Review of Act
Mr Liam Staltari: With regard to the review of the act, this might be an opportunity to ask about recommendation 4 of the review provided by a committee in the other place. Perhaps I could ask the Attorney General why the government opted not to take up that recommendation when bringing the two bills from the last Parliament together for discussion here.
Dr Tony Buti: I will just read out this answer because I think it is probably easier for me to do so. The bill has been drafted with the intention of coming into operation on a single date. The commencement by proclamation is a safety measure to allow time to undertake significant work, such as preparing regulations, establishing the witness intermediary service and providing training to those involved in the justice system regarding the new act. Despite the government's intention that all the bill's clauses will commence on a single date, clause 2(d) leaves open the possibility of different clauses commencing on different dates, thereby providing flexibility in the case of unforeseen events. The government has signalled its clear intention to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the amendments by the inclusion of two statutory review provisions: one will review the new initiative around recorded statements as evidence in chief of domestic violence complainants and the other will review the act as a whole. Given that it is possible that different provisions will commence on different dates, if the date the review is required to commence were tied to a particular substantive clause, the effectiveness of the review could be undermined if the clock started before the amendments did, as it would reduce the duration period of operation of the provisions before the review would need to be commenced.
As members will be aware, despite the best efforts of successive governments, court processes are not quick. The loss of a period of 18 months may significantly impact the utility of the review. Basically, it is guarding against any unforeseen circumstances. It is a large bill, and that is why that is being put in place.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 385 to 411 put and passed
Clause 412: Transitional regulations
Mr Liam Staltari: What time limits are imposed on the government's ability to introduce transitional regulations that modify provisions of the bill?
Dr Tony Buti: This has been reviewed and looked at by the review committee. There is no time stipulation.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 413 to 465 put and passed
Clause 466: Sections 109A to 109E inserted
Dr Tony Butiby leave:
Page 334, line 2 — To insert after "proceeding":
on an application
Page 337, line 15 — To insert after "proceeding":
on an application
I will now explain why these minor amendments are necessary. Clause 466 of the Evidence Bill will insert new provisions into the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These provisions set out special rules for using business records as evidence in matters under the act. Once the new provisions are amended, they will preserve the effect of the current Evidence Act 1906 business record rules in CPC act confiscation proceedings. As currently drafted, the business record rules we are inserting into the CPC act will also apply in other proceedings under it, which is not our intention.
By way of background, section 79C(4) of the Evidence Act 1906 states that the business record rules do not apply to certain documents in criminal proceedings. However, there are several criminal offences in the CPC act that have been inadvertently captured under the current drafting of clause 466. It was never intended that the business record rules apply to CPC act offence proceedings. The intention has always been for the business record rules to apply only to CPC act confiscation proceedings.
Let me try to give an explanation of the two proposed sections we are dealing with. Proposed section 109B(1) of the CPC act generally outlines when business records can be used as evidence. Proposed section 109E(1) of the CPC act outlines when business records can be used to try to prove that something did not happen. As currently drafted, neither provision specifies that the rules do not apply in criminal proceedings. This means that amendments to clarify the application of the business record rules are necessary to achieve the policy intent. The amendments to clause 466 will amend both proposed sections of the CPC act in identical terms to ensure that the business record rules apply only in relation to applications and not to offence proceedings under the act.
Basically, the amendments are seeking to ensure that we narrow the application of the business record rules with regard to proceedings under that act.
Mr Liam Staltari: I thank the Attorney General for answering the first of my questions about the intended effect of the amendments. I have only one other question, which is a genuine question about the circumstances that led to the amendments being brought forward later than the bill itself. Was it ongoing consultation or drafting?
Dr Tony Buti: It was basically an oversight and the Parliamentary Counsel's Office notified us of that.
Amendment put and passed.
Clause, as amended, put and passed.
Clauses 467 to 492 put and passed
Title put and passed
