I move amendment No. 5 (a):
(3) The relatives of either of the parties to the proceedings may, except when evidence is being tendered by them, be excluded by the Court from the hearing of any proceedings under subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
SECTION 24.
May I say that section 24 provides for the proceedings to be heard in private?
The amendment is very clearly worded. Nobody can be in any doubt as to its meaning. Those who have experience of these types of proceedings will appreciate that sometimes the absence of some of the parties to the proceedings, and more particularly the relatives who, for human reasons, take one side or the other, can have an ill effect on the actual proceedings under consideration. That is really what motivated concern on this side of the House with that particular section.
May I say I appreciate the spirit behind the amendment but it is unnecessary. The district court rules provide that in any proceedings a witness may be ordered by the Justice either to leave the court during the inquiry until after the evidence has been given. That is normal district court power. In addition, section 24 makes it very clear. It states :
Proceedings under this Act shall be conducted in a summary manner and shall be heard otherwise than in public.
Relatives would be members of the public. The only people who would not be members of the public would be parties who were witnesses and they could be excluded under section 24.
What the Minister is saying then is that the relatives can be excluded under the district court rules?
Yes.
That is very satisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.