Bill
Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024
passed, as at 2024-12-10. Attorney-General portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Attorney-General
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2024-02-07
- second reading — 2024-02-07
- second reading — 2024-02-13
- other — 2024-02-13
- second reading — 2024-02-15
- second reading — 2024-02-15
- other — 2024-02-15
- third reading — 2024-02-15
- introduced — 2024-02-26
- second reading — 2024-02-26
- second reading — 2024-11-27
- second reading — 2024-11-27
- committee — 2024-11-27
- third reading — 2024-11-28
- other — 2024-11-29
- passed — 2024-11-29
- royal assent — 2024-12-10
Divisions
- The same number of senators voted for and against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-11-27.25.3) introduced by West Australian Senator [Michaelia Cash](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/michaelia_cash) (Liberal), which means it failed. The amendment would have added the text below to the usual second reading motion "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > >> *(a) notes with concern the unintended consequences associated with the first draft of this bill, which would have adversely impacted the ability to prosecute certain Commonwealth sexual offences; and* >> >> *(b) notes that these issues were only identified and fixed as a result of the inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee".* — 2024-11-27, Senate: negative, ayes 31, noes 31
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-11-27.29.1) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed. It would have added the text below to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Motion text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:* > > *(a) notes that:* > >> *(i) in 2019 the Family Law Act 1975 was amended to ban personal cross-examination of parties where there are allegations of family violence between the examining party and the witness party, and* >> >> *(ii) it is time the same protection was afforded to victim-survivors of sexual violence; and* > > *(b) calls on the Government to prohibit personal cross-examination of a victim-survivor by the accused".* — 2024-11-27, Senate: negative, ayes 13, noes 26
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-11-27.31.1) to agree with proposed item 24C in amendment (9). This means that amendment will now be included in the bill. ### What does this proposed amendment do? Queensland Senator [Anthony Chisholm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/anthony_chisholm) (Labor) explained that: > *The amendments, which were developed through targeted, confidential consultation with government and non-government stakeholders, seek to address the recommendations of the committee and address stakeholder feedback raised in submissions.* However, NSW Senator [Perin Davey](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/perin_davey) (Nationals) explained her party's opposition to the the proposed item: > *Our concerns, as I mentioned, are technical but very important. They relate specifically to item 24C in amendment (9) and to amendment (14). Both of these amendments, as drafted by government, are essentially for the same thing. Relevantly, they remove the court's ability to admit evidence that is relevant and probative, unless the evidence is of a sexual activity that forms part of a connected set of circumstances or, in the case of a defendant, relates to sexual activity in the recent past. The concern is that there are types of evidence that the court could be prohibited from admitting—evidence of non-recent sexual activity or subsequent activity which is not otherwise connected but which could be used to prove sexual offences against children and vulnerable adults. It's technical, yes, but serious. Our concerns relate to context evidence, tendency evidence and the admissibility of evidence about non-recent or subsequent offending.* ### Amendment text > *(9) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 2), after item 24, insert:* > > *24C At the end of subsection 15YC(2)(b)* > >> *Add:* >> >> *; and (c) either:* >> >>> *(i) the evidence is of sexual activity that is alleged to form part o — 2024-11-27, Senate: affirmative, ayes 32, noes 24
- No motion text available — 2024-11-28, Senate: negative, ayes 27, noes 27
Plain-language summary
Written by a model from the explanatory memorandum; not the record, as at 2024-02-07.
This bill would change how sexual violence cases are handled in the criminal justice system.
It would add genocide to the list of offences with special protections, remove child-only offences from vulnerable adult complainant rules, and let people 18 or older opt out of child complainant and witness protections.
The amendments follow recommendations from an April 2024 Senate committee report and stakeholder feedback.
- Adds genocide offences to the list covered by Part IAD of the Crimes Act.
- Removes offences that can only be committed against children from the list applying to vulnerable adult complainants.
- Lets people 18 or older opt out of child complainant and witness protections.
- Clarifies what sexual experience evidence can be introduced in proceedings.
- Requires courts to only order or allow audio-only evidence in extraordinary circumstances.
- Bans unrepresented defendants from cross-examining vulnerable adult complainants.
Vulnerable adult complainants, child complainants and witnesses, unrepresented defendants, and people with non-physical disabilities.
Sources
em
em supp
em supp
billhome
frl act