Evidence (Identification) Amendment Bill
20/02/2013
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (18:09): This is an extremely short bill, having only four short clauses, which deals with an area of significant complexity about which a range of different views abound. A great many issues have been raised and discussed by my colleagues both here and in the other place; however, I would like to draw the council’s attention to a matter that I do not feel has been given the consideration it is due. The council will no doubt be aware by now of the grave concerns I hold regarding the many ways in which our state’s justice system is currently inaccessible for many people with disability. Its inaccessible buildings, its impenetrable processes, and the manner and form in which information about it is presented—all of these factors act as substantial barriers to people with disability seeking access to justice.
This bill, as I have already mentioned, is a very short one and very light on detail. I am generally supportive of the principle of broadening the types of evidence that can be considered by the court in relation to the issue of identification and of removing what appears to be an unnecessary preference towards identity parade evidence. However, I feel compelled to mention that, while I support the thrust of the bill, I would have liked to see a greater level of detail on how these contemporary alternatives to identity parades would be conducted and what special arrangements and adjustments would be made available to people with disability in particular.
The presence of clear, unequivocal guidelines on how identification evidence should be collected from people with a range of different forms of disability would be of great assistance to police officers, the legal profession, the courts and people with disability themselves. In the absence of a clear statement of this kind, we are left with a one-size-fits-all approach, the modification of which will continue to be done on an ad hoc basis.
While it is encouraging that an identity parade will no longer be performed, without clear guidelines on alternative forms of evidence which reinforce the need for specific supports like an independent and appropriately qualified Auslan interpreter or an independent third person, for example, there remains an unacceptable risk that evidence will be collected improperly or wrongly considered to be unreliable.
I hope that in the future we will see a greater effort to address these issues when the Attorney-General’s Department has finalised the state’s Disability Justice Plan. However, I feel it important to point out that the barriers people with disability face will continue to exist as long as disability issues are considered separately. The best way to ensure that people with disability are included is to consider their interests and needs when considering issues that affect them, and you would be very hard pressed to find an issue that does not.
For this reason, I feel it of the utmost importance that we, as a parliament, incorporate the needs of people with disability when drafting legislation, particularly in areas such as this where individuals’ ability to access justice and protect their rights is affected.
