Hansard debates
Search Hansard
Search help
|
|
|||||||
EVIDENCE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT (AFFIDAVITS) BILL 2012
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
28 February 2012
Statement of Compatibility
CLARK
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
EVIDENCE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT (AFFIDAVITS) BILL 2012 Statement of compatibility Mr CLARK (Attorney-General) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006: In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (charter act), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (Affidavits) Bill 2012. In my opinion, the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (Affidavits) Bill 2012, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights
Page 490
protected by the charter act. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of bill The purposes of the bill are to: amend the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (the act) to deem effective any affidavit made before 12 November 2011 for which certain procedural requirements were not complied with; deem valid any warrant, summons or other process issued, or order made, in reliance on affidavits deemed to be effective pursuant to the bill; and create a new offence of making a false or misleading statement as to the circumstances in which an affidavit was sworn or affirmed, in relation to affidavits made after commencement of the bill. Human rights issues The effect of the bill is to validate affidavits made before 12 November 2011 that are tainted by certain procedural defects, and any warrant, summons or other process issued, or order made, in reliance on those affidavits. This validation in and of itself does not limit human rights. It does, however, have the result that interferences with human rights that may have otherwise been unlawful (due to being based on affidavits not made lawfully) are now lawful in retrospect. For example, the execution of a search warrant may engage the rights to privacy and property, and the execution of an arrest warrant will engage the right to liberty. However, interferences with these rights only require justification in circumstances where the relevant interference is 'unlawful' or 'other than in accordance with law'. The rights are not prescriptive as to the content of the laws governing the form of affidavits, or even whether an affidavit, statutory declaration or other document is required. It may be said that the execution of a warrant that was based on a defective affidavit is unlawful or other than in accordance with law. The effect of the bill is to remedy this situation by deeming the affidavit effective and the resultant instruments valid so that no unlawfulness arises. It should be emphasised that in rendering procedurally defective affidavits and consequential instruments valid, it is not the intention of the bill to validate any corrupt conduct or any affidavit the contents of which are false. Where deponents have given false evidence purportedly on oath or affirmation, those deponents should be subject to the offence of perjury. It should also be emphasised that such validation is suitably confined to apply only to affidavits made before 12 November 2011. Further, a new offence will attach to the making of false or misleading statement made after the commencement of the bill, which will apply even if the statement concerns an affidavit purportedly made before commencement of the bill. This is to ensure that deponents adhere to procedural requirements in the future. Conclusion For the reasons given in this statement, I consider that the bill is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Robert Clark, MP Attorney-GeneralMr CLARK (Attorney-General) -- I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (Affidavits) Bill 2012 will amend the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 to remedy issues identified in recent County Court proceedings in relation to the failure of members of Victoria Police to properly swear or affirm affidavits in support of search warrants in that case. The defects in the relevant affidavits resulted in the evidence obtained being excluded from the proceedings under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2008. Affidavit evidence is crucial to the functioning of many parts of the criminal justice system. The potential consequences of the failure of Victoria Police to properly swear or affirm affidavits would be far-reaching if the situation were not rectified. The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police has now taken specific action to ensure that in future Victoria Police members follow the correct procedure for the preparation of affidavits. This action seeks to ensure that henceforth all appropriate processes are followed so that courts will be able to rely on the proper swearing or affirming of affidavit evidence prepared by Victoria Police members in the issuing of warrants, orders, summons or processes, in accordance with all applicable procedural requirements. This bill does not purport to excuse nor endorse the failure of many Victoria Police members to follow proper procedural requirements for the making of affidavits. However, the government considers the potential consequences for the legal system of procedurally defective affidavits remaining unremedied to be so grave that legislation is required. The bill applies where the affidavit states that the maker made the affidavit on oath or affirmation but where certain formalities associated with the making of an oath or affirmation were not performed. The bill will ensure that these procedural defects in an affidavit to which the bill applies supporting an application for a warrant, order, summons or process do not result in the exclusion of evidence from a proceeding. The requirements for the making of affidavits are provided for in the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 and at common law. The bill will amend the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 in a number of ways. First, the bill will amend the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 to retrospectively validate otherwise procedurally defective affidavits by deeming
Second reading
Page 491
them to be properly sworn or affirmed where the affidavit has been signed by the deponent and signed by a person authorised to witness affidavits under section 123C of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958. The bill makes it clear that these affidavits will be deemed to be validly sworn or affirmed despite any failure to comply with procedures for the making of affidavits such as, but not limited to: a failure to make an oral oath or affirmation; a failure to complete the jurat in accordance with section 126 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958; or a failure to properly witness the signing of the affidavit. This will place it beyond doubt that the Parliament intends to cure these procedural defects. The bill will not, however, excuse fraud or forgery. Nothing in this bill will validate corruption or perjury in the making of an affidavit. Secondly, the bill will provide that where an affidavit or other instrument has been relied on by a court or other person for the issue of a warrant, order, summons or process, that warrant, order, summons or process is not invalid due to a procedural defect in the original affidavit. Finally, the bill provides that a procedural defect in the preparation of an affidavit is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether or not to admit that evidence in a criminal proceeding where the evidence was obtained in reliance, either directly or indirectly, on the procedurally defective affidavit. Subject to that provision, the judicial discretion to exclude evidence or to stay a criminal proceeding in the interests of justice will not be affected. The bill will apply to all affidavits made before 12 November 2011 and accordingly any subsequent actions undertaken in reliance on those affidavits. The bill will also create a new offence of making a false or misleading statement as to the circumstances in which an affidavit was sworn or affirmed. This offence will apply to any false or misleading statement made from the day after the bill receives royal assent, even if the statement concerns an affidavit purportedly made before commencement of the bill. This will ensure that anyone who falsely signs or witnesses that an affidavit has been sworn, affirmed or witnessed when it has not been is liable to a penalty of up to 10 penalty units. The government will also give consideration to the desirability of further legislation that would codify the formal and procedural requirements for the making of an affidavit. The government considers that retrospective legislation is a measure of last resort and brings this bill before the house only after close consideration of the potential consequences of failing to act for victims of crime and the justice system more broadly. If this legislation is not enacted, there would be an immense potential toll upon victims of crime, community safety and our court system associated with the disruption or abandonment of criminal proceedings as a result of procedural defects in affidavits. I commend the bill to the house.
Ms HENNESSY (Altona) -- It is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity to rise and make a contribution on the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (Affidavits) Bill 2012. I say at the outset that the opposition will not be opposing this bill, which is not to say that the opposition in any way endorses the processes that have been used to bring this bill before the house today. We are not persuaded by the assertions of government members that this is an urgent matter that they have not had the opportunity to deal with previously. The opposition was only provided with a briefing and access to the bill at approximately 9.30 a.m. today -- this is not an acceptable way to make public policy -- and this has significantly impaired our ability to make a reasonable and rational contribution to the debate on the bill. Therefore we will be making reasonably brief contributions to the debate on the bill. As I said, the opposition does not intend to oppose the bill as we understand the consequences of failing to address this issue and we support the government's endeavours to mitigate the risks that we understand are currently before the courts. We understand the challenges around opening and shutting the gate on this issue, and we support the government's endeavours in that regard. However, what we do not support is the failure of the government to act in respect of this matter when they have been on notice for a significant period of time. This issue became apparent in late September-October last year, and the shadow Attorney-General raised the matter with the government and indicated that the opposition would be more than happy to work with it to address the issue and mitigate any existing risks. The response we received from the government was that
Page 492
there was not a significant problem. The reason we did not accept the government's response at that particular time is that it was clear to all and sundry that there were serious problems. I accept that the government may not have been able to accurately quantify the scale of the problem at that point in time, but the government was put on notice and it was warned. I note that at that time there were a range of commentators in the media -- all very significant stakeholders from the Victorian Criminal Bar Association, Victoria Police, the Police Association Victoria and the Law Institute of Victoria -- who warned the government and the Victorian public that the scale of the issue may be much larger than was necessarily revealed in the criminal proceedings that led to the initial revelation. On 6 October last year 'ABC news' reported the secretary of the Police Association Victoria, Greg Davies, as saying that most officers do not take an oath when signing an affidavit. He said: It's an issue of training and it's an issue of reinforcing the standards that perhaps we were all imbued with several decades ago, but appear to have fallen by the wayside... The ABC further quoted Mr Davies as saying that the oversight was going to be problematic at best. He stated: Clearly on the evidence that has been provided, there's a suggestion that it will be a problem in many more than one instance. That is certainly true. According to another source, Victoria Police has identified that three-quarters of its officers -- potentially around 9000 or so, including those up to the rank of deputy commissioner -- have conceded to illegally preparing affidavits used to gain search warrants and the like. When I say 'illegally' I do not necessarily impute a deep, dark, criminal desire to their intention; I merely take up the point that Mr Davies made that a cultural practice has evolved and a degree of professional socialisation appears to have occurred whereby the practice of swearing or affirming affidavits lawfully and correctly has fallen by the wayside. Almost 3000 pending criminal cases in the Magistrates Court and another 300 in the Supreme Court and the County Court are likely to be affected by this fiasco, and I say 'fiasco' because the government was on notice and had a significant period of time in which to take action. It had been pointed out by the most significant of stakeholders within the law enforcement and judiciary spheres, and it chose to do nothing. We support this bill, and we support the government's attempt to make sure that the gates are opened and closed very quickly. We accept that it is a legitimate issue to address because we know that the consequences of failing to do so would mean that thousands of criminals would seek to have their convictions overturned by arguing that the evidence used or obtained to attempt to convict them was obtained illegally. That is a matter that the Court of Appeal has upheld. We also saw last year -- and again this goes to the government's failure to take action -- the then Acting Chief Commissioner of Police, Ken Lay, institute an amnesty across the force to flush out the true nature and extent of the problem. He promised not to take action against officers who confessed to failing to properly swear or affirm affidavits. This process indicated that the practice of failing to swear or affirm affidavits had commenced approximately 15 years ago and was a problem across the majority of suburban, regional and country police stations. Again, I accept and understand that what appears to have occurred can be attributed to a professional socialisation or cultural issue, and a change of practice needs to occur. However, the point is that the government was put on notice from October last year, on the most positive reading, when it became aware of this being a significant problem. The deputy commissioner who was in charge of the investigation revealed that some long-serving members of squads involved in major drug and organised crime cases had admitted to never having correctly sworn an affidavit. If there is any basis for the government's urgency on this legislation, it must also be accepted that this issue has the capacity to be a fiasco of epic proportions. Whilst there are certain high-profile criminal prosecutions that have attracted media comment on this issue, those that do not necessarily attract a media profile also warrant serious consideration. As I mentioned at the outset, I am concerned that the government failed to take swift and responsive action on this matter. I am also concerned that it has taken the government four to five months to acknowledge that such action is required to remedy the issue. I am concerned that the government has now rushed in this legislation. We have not had an opportunity to consider it in any great detail, although I acknowledge and thank representatives of the Attorney-General's office and the department for providing a briefing at 9.30 a.m. to me and to the shadow Attorney-General. However, the fact is that the benefit of having legitimate parliamentary scrutiny of this matter and having significant external stakeholders scrutinise it is that it identifies potential
Page 493
deficiencies, loopholes and weaknesses in the bill, enabling the government to remedy those deficiencies. If the government and the opposition agree on one thing, it is that the consequences of getting this wrong and failing to act would result in a complete and utter disaster which would undermine confidence not only in Victoria Police and the processes it has used to obtain evidence but in the criminal justice system more generally. I note that the bill applies to organisations wider than Victoria Police. We should reflect on whether or not it is appropriate that, for example, members of the legal profession should be given an amnesty. People from the legal profession should perhaps know better in relation to such matters. The response we were given from the department and from the Attorney-General's representatives this morning was that it was difficult to draft a bill that was specific to Victoria Police. That may be a legitimate response; it may be a legitimate framework in which to talk about this bill being a public policy-making exercise, but the fact is that members of the opposition and many others who work in the legal system have not had the opportunity to test those assertions. We think the bill may potentially be the poorer for that. If there is a problem with this bill, it will be on the government's head, not on the opposition's head. The government must accept responsibility for this rushed legislation and for a failure to scrutinise the matter adequately. We are also concerned that the government may also not have the benefit of referring this matter to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. We were advised by the Attorney-General's representatives this morning that it was intended that this bill would be considered in the Council on Thursday, providing the government with a chance to give SARC the opportunity of scrutinising the bill tomorrow. More importantly, confidence in the bill would be better for the government adopting that process, and we would be interested to hear what the government's response is to that proposal. Finally, we are deeply sincere in our commitment to assist the government to fix this problem. That is why we are not opposing the bill and why we have not opposed the expeditious proceedings the government has sought cooperation for in order to get this bill through both chambers as soon as possible. However, we are concerned about this practice. We do not accept it as a legitimate modus operandi, and we put the government on notice that our cooperation on such matters will not be extended in all circumstances. We remain deeply concerned that this bill has not been adequately scrutinised, and we say that, to the extent that there are any deficiencies and weaknesses in this bill, they will be on the government's head. Having said that, we support the government in its endeavours to address this problem, and we wish the bill a speedy passage through this chamber.
Mr RYAN (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) -- It is my great pleasure and an honour to rise to speak in support of this legislation. It is vitally important legislation. All parties across this Parliament agree that such is the case, and it is imperative therefore that the bill pass as quickly as can be done. I want to go to some of the principles underlying the legislation. As a matter of general course, retrospective legislation is repugnant -- it is regarded at law as being repugnant. It is something in which the Parliament as a matter of general course does not indulge. That is so as a matter of general principle because when laws are passed, citizens cast their activities according to those laws; they shape their lives in accordance with what those laws dictate. Therefore, when legislation of a retrospective nature is passed by the Parliament which in some manner impacts upon those pre-existing laws in a manner that changes the operation of those laws in a way that means that the people who have acted in accord with them are in some way disadvantaged, as a matter of general course that is utterly repugnant. It is the fundamental reason why I think it reasonable to say that governments of all political persuasions across all jurisdictions in the political spectrum of our nation have historically baulked at passing retrospective laws. That having been said, there are cases, rare though they may be, where that general principle must be obviated. Sometimes it is necessary in particular circumstances, more often than not unique, that laws of a retrospective nature do have to be passed. I might say that has been the case throughout the history of the parliaments of this state. I well remember as a member of the third party in this Parliament prior to the coalition being formed in 2008 that over a period spanning many years the former Labor government on occasion saw the need to pass legislation of a retrospective nature. I stand to be corrected, but as I recall The Nationals as a party and then we as a party within the coalition structure in opposition supported the government of the day for the purposes of being able to deal with those items of legislation as they came before the house. In this case we therefore welcome the support of the Labor opposition in relation to the passage of the bill through the chamber, and indeed we look forward to that support continuing throughout the course of the week to enable the final passage of the legislation through the upper house and then to its concluding stages in this chamber before enabling it to become the law of our state as soon as those processes are concluded.
Page 494
In all of that, with the greatest respect, the member for Altona is trying to have a bob each way in relation to this important debate. It is said on the one hand that it is imperative that this legislation be passed for all the reasons that have been talked about, that the issues surrounding these procedural deficiencies be addressed and that the matter be regularised so we can therefore achieve the outcomes that are set out in the erudite second-reading speech by the Attorney-General. On the other hand we are subjected to criticism by the member for Altona because we have not done it fast enough. It is an interesting juxtaposition when you actually have regard to the facts. The first fact is that back on 6 October Mr Pakula, a member for Western Metropolitan Region in the other place, made some observations as reported in the Australian newspaper with regard to the matters that are now under discussion. In the course of a rather discursive commentary that he provided to the paper he had a number of things to say, but the take-out from his commentary was that he made the observation, which I think was accurate, that both the police and the government were in what he termed 'a wait-and-see predicament'. That was the expression he used. It was a very sensible thing, if I may say so, for him to have said because the issues around this imbroglio were emerging and no-one knew where this was going to go. Certainly the police were unsure and most assuredly the government was unsure, and not surprisingly the Labor opposition, with due respect, did not have a clue. Mr Pakula made the very reasonable observation that there was a wait-and-see predicament among the parties. Subsequent to that, as we know, a number of things occurred. I am not seeking to track through the totality of the history of this matter for the purposes of this contribution, but not the least of that was that as it continued to emerge that this problem was of a scale and a degree of gravity that had not previously been appreciated or indeed had occurred in the state of Victoria, steps needed to be taken to get to the bottom of just how substantial the problem was, let alone how you would go about then fixing the problem, having regard to whatever materialised once that problem had been properly diagnosed. In all of that a process was undertaken by the Chief Commissioner of Police in close consultation, as I understand it, with the Office of Police Integrity. That process in essence established a system whereby police were able with impunity to confess to the fact that they had not conducted themselves in accordance with proper protocols and legislative requirements for the purposes of either swearing or affirming affidavits. The amnesty that was offered under that arrangement was the precursor to what we now know to be the substantive facts, which in turn have given rise to the legislation before this house. It was as a result of that process that police fessed up, as it were, that something of the order of 9000 of them may have been involved in a style of conduct which was in breach of the law or those protocols and which in any event rendered at risk the affidavits that had been sworn, in turn creating the terrible uncertainty which would otherwise apply in the justice system if this issue were not addressed. By definition, no-one knew the gravity or the depth of the problem until such time as that process had the opportunity to take its course. I might also say that it was probably not until recent comments of even further clarification were made by Deputy Commissioner Tim Cartwright that the fuller detail of all of this came to light. So it is that the government and the police came to understand the depth of the problem and the prospect of the extent of it, and then minds were able to be turned to how these issues would need to be addressed. It was as a result of that protracted, in a sense, but reasonable and responsible approach to this issue that the government came to the conclusion that legislation of this nature would need to be introduced to the Parliament and passed in the manner now intended. This has been a very careful and considered approach to an issue of fundamental principle and significance to the laws of the state of Victoria and our justice system. This is not something that you rush into. This is not something that you just tear into by way of seeking to apply solutions without having a proper investigation of the matters underpinning the necessity for such action to be taken. With that position having been made clear, it then became imperative for the government to act as soon as was reasonably possible to address the areas that are impacted by this legislation. That in turn is necessary because there are a number of trials before the courts that may potentially be affected by the matters that are going to be addressed through the passage of these laws. In conclusion, I congratulate the Attorney-General for the enormous amount of work that has been undertaken to bring this legislation before the house today. I wish the bill a speedy passage.
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk) -- I am pleased to rise to speak on the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (Affidavits) Bill 2012. The Deputy Premier is right when he refers to this legislation as being fundamental and significant. This is indeed legislation that requires deep thought. Having said that, the opposition was briefed at around 9.30 to 9.40 this morning after a phone call last night saying, 'It is going to be in the papers tomorrow. We are happy to provide you with a briefing in the morning, and by the way can you agree to rush it through the Assembly and the Council this week?'. Given that this significant and fundamental bill has been provided to the opposition today with a briefing only this morning -- and I thank the departmental officials for briefing the member for Altona and the shadow Attorney-General -- the contributions to this debate from our side will be brief. It is impossible to provide, and we have not had the opportunity to prepare, an analysis of and full response to this bill. It is simply not something we can do. As we have heard, this bill addresses procedural defects in relation to affidavits, and the scale in which it does that is something we heard about this morning.
Page 495
However, as the manager of opposition business pointed out, the scale of this matter was flagged some four months ago. It has only become urgent because of this government's dithering over that four-month period. The shadow Attorney-General offered assistance from the Victorian parliamentary Labor Party to fix this problem, which, as we have heard, is a problem that goes back some 15 years. It is a longstanding practice within Victoria Police of not going through the correct procedures as they provide affidavits. Four months ago the shadow Attorney-General offered to provide assistance, and there was the debate on the government business program earlier. The urgency of this bill is, in part, manufactured. The government business program that was provided to the opposition last Thursday contained four bills. There is no doubt that the government has always planned, and planned for quite some time, to introduce this bill. You do not just provide a government business program of four relatively simple bills that can speedily get through this Parliament; we always thought that there would be something the government intended to introduce during the course of today. I also make the point that when we offered to provide the assistance of the Labor Party to address this issue of affidavits, the advice from members of the office of the Attorney-General was that they did not think that this was a problem, and indeed they thought it was pretty confined. Furthermore, the Premier also made a number of statements to that effect: that this issue was pretty confined, that it was not a big issue and that Victoria Police and the courts would sort it out. That is not what the Criminal Bar Association of Victoria was saying; it was not what Victoria Police was saying; it was not what the Police Association was saying; and it was not what the Law Institute of Victoria was saying. I will read again the quote referred to by the manager of opposition business in which it is stated that the secretary of the Police Association, Greg Davies, had said that most officers do not take an oath when signing an affidavit, and further: It's an issue of training and it's an issue of reinforcing the standards that perhaps we were all imbued with several decades ago, but appear to have fallen by the wayside. In the eyes of anyone associated with the legal profession in Victoria this was always identified as a significant issue. As we have pointed out, we do not oppose this bill, we will assist in its speedy passage through the Assembly today and it will be debated in the Council on Thursday. Therefore there is no time for members in this chamber to scrutinise and analyse this legislation, but the government can make a minimal effort in terms of openness and transparency. The Council cannot debate this legislation tomorrow, but it will do so on Thursday. Between the conclusion of the debate in the Assembly and the commencement of the debate in the Council, the minimum the government can do -- it is what the opposition is requesting the government to do -- is to ensure that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has the opportunity tonight and through the course of tomorrow as an absolute minimum to give the bill some scrutiny. If there is a defect or a loophole in the drafting of this legislation, it will be on the heads of the Attorney-General and the Premier, because there has been time to get this legislation scrutinised, to go through the proper processes, to allow the opposition to analyse the bill and to allow for full consultation with stakeholders. What I have proposed is the minimum the government can do. The opposition will expedite this bill through Parliament this week, but the minimum the government can do is provide for the bill to be given some analysis by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. The manager of opposition business raised the issue of the date of 12 November, and I think we can make the point that if anyone failed to correctly go through the proper procedures in the provision of an affidavit after this issue became public, then that should be on their own head, it should be their responsibility. I am unsure why this date was picked and not the date on which this became a very public issue within the Victorian community. This legislation also applies across the board. The provision does not cover only police officers who have incorrectly provided affidavits but also applies across the board. Every lawyer should have
Page 496
known better. Is it the responsibility of this Parliament to provide coverage for lawyers who should have known better? I understand the issue in regard to Victoria Police, but that is a question we ask. As I said, we do not oppose this bill. We will ensure that it gets through this chamber today, and we will ensure that it is debated in the Council on Thursday, but we request that the Attorney-General provide some scope for the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee to examine this bill and provide some advice to the members in the other place.
Mr McINTOSH (Minister for Corrections) -- I will address a couple of matters that the previous speaker raised in his contribution in relation to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. Notwithstanding the fact that the bill passes through both houses and may even be enacted into law, SARC has the capacity to review it, and I anticipate that it will be reviewed in some degree of detail and that the committee will report back to the chamber on it. The second matter I address is the reason 12 November was selected as the deadline. It was because that was the day the Court of Appeal handed down its decision essentially upholding a decision to exclude affidavit material in relation to a criminal proceeding. I do not want to go into the details of that particular case, but it was for that reason 12 November was selected. I remind the house that this is retrospective legislation. Traditionally, and as a matter of practice, people are entitled to rely on the law at a particular date to have a court define their rights and liberties. This may have been highlighted by a number of commentators, but it was that Court of Appeal decision which upheld a lower court's decision to exclude affidavit material in the course of a trial. In that case it led to a serious consequence. The point about this is that it is retrospective legislation and, as the Leader of The Nationals has indicated, you do not take these things lightly. The Attorney-General had every right to ensure that there was an understanding of the magnitude of the problem, its impacts and how it would play across a number of different players in the scheme. The magnitude of the problem has been the subject of media speculation, but certainly the Attorney-General is acting on the advice of the Chief Commissioner of Police, and as he has indicated, there appear to be over 9000 voluntary disclosures by members of Victoria Police that they may have inadvertently adopted a practice that may have led to this significant problem. On top of that clear evidence, which the Attorney-General has acted upon, is the significant impact that may have on a number of matters that are currently before the court. It potentially could also impact upon those cases that have gone before the court where this material has already been relied upon. It is a significant problem just in relation to these matters. On top of that, the Attorney-General has taken advice about the significant impact it may have on victims of crime. That would mean not only victims of crime who are looking towards a particular proceeding or court trial coming up that could be abandoned because of these technical deficiencies, but also the potential that cases could be reopened. Cases that have been proceeded on and then determined by a court, perhaps on appeal, could be subject to review on that basis. As I said, in addition there is the trauma for victims who may have those matters reopened because of these deficiencies. The Attorney-General has taken advice from a number of players in relation to costs. Not only are there a number of costs applying to prosecution services but there is also the physical cost of potential litigants in those proceedings and an enormous amount of court time that may be taken up just in resolving these technical matters. If there are 9000 voluntary disclosures by Victoria Police, there is the potential for a huge number of cases to be extended and for these issues to be debated at trial level or otherwise. All of this will be an enormously expensive process, not just for the Crown but also for those other people who are involved in that sort of litigation and in particular, of course legal aid, which would be funding many of the defendants in these proceedings. It provides a significant problem in relation to the delay in our courts because of these other proceedings being mounted. Therefore those cases that are able to proceed may not do so in the appropriate time because of the delays that this particular matter creates. On top of that there is the potential -- and all of this is beginning to come clear -- that there may be proceedings that may have to be reopened. As an example, the state could be exposed for unlawful imprisonment of particular parties if they were to avail themselves of this opportunity to make that claim. There is also the issue of proceeds of crime, and there may have to be reversals in those matters. All of these things are matters of practical effect, but the Attorney-General has taken a measured and reasonable response. Everybody is now taken to have known what the law was from 12 November, which has been declared effectively by the Court of Appeal. That is why the date of 12 November was selected. The Attorney-General has operated effectively and appropriately to get all the material marshalled from a variety of different sources to enable and support this legislation going through the Parliament. I remind the
Page 497
house, as many other speakers have said: it is retrospective legislation. While this house is quite capable of passing retrospective legislation, it is not done lightly. The Attorney-General has acted reasonably and responsibly in garnering all that information that supports this retrospective legislation. Accordingly I am very pleased and proud to support the Attorney-General in this important piece of legislation. Again I thank the opposition for its support to facilitate the bill through both houses of Parliament. I will just raise one matter in relation to the upper house. Wednesday is opposition business day in the upper house and this bill cannot be dealt with, so Thursday will be the first practical time with which to deal with the bill.
Mr CLARK (Attorney-General) -- I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. I thank opposition members for their wishes of speedy passage for the bill and for their support of its expeditious passage through this house. The opposition has raised a number of points during the course of the debate, some of which have been responded to by previous speakers and some of which I will respond to in closing the debate. As the Deputy Premier indicated, in essence opposition members are trying to have a bob each way in relation to this issue. Their argument seems to be that the government should have brought in legislation more quickly but now it is doing it too quickly. Let us look at both aspects of that argument. There has been a significant effort to reinvent history here. There have been references to conversations indicative of the offering of opposition support if at any time the government chose to legislate, and opposition members have now tried to morph that into the claim that the opposition, in retrospect, was calling for this and knew all along that something drastic needed to be done. The trouble is that if you look at the public record, there is nothing to support that proposition. As the Deputy Premier said, the Australian of 6 October last year reported the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Pakula, as saying that the government and police found themselves in a wait-and-see predicament. As all members will know, press reports are not always a 100 per cent accurate reflection of what members have said, but that is what is on the public record attributed to the shadow Attorney-General. I have not been able to find anything else on the public record from him in terms of publicly exhorting the government to legislate. If I have overlooked anything, I would be most grateful if members of the opposition would draw it to my attention. For all the attempts to reinvent history there is no evidence of the opposition at the time actually calling for what it is now saying the government should have done. It has been a situation in which over time the scale and extent of the problem has become increasingly apparent, and there has been reference in debate to the 9000 police officers who have now made disclosures and the current estimates of cases that are at risk as a result of affidavit issues being involved. The government has been closely monitoring the situation throughout, and it has reached the conclusion, as I indicated in moving the second reading and elsewhere, that legislation is necessary. The second aspect of the concern raised by the opposition is that despite its previous arguments that the government should have acted more quickly we are now acting too quickly -- again, notwithstanding the fact that allegedly on its own account it previously offered to expedite the passage of the legislation through the Parliament. There are two reasons why the government is seeking to get the legislation through the Parliament quickly. Of course, the first is that with the magnitude of the problem -- as police information and the result of their disclosure process has come to hand and their further work and the work of others in ascertaining the scope of the problem has come to hand -- it is clear that the sooner this legislation can be on the statute book the sooner the problems can be averted going forward. But there is a second important aspect to the timing issue -- that is, the need to minimise the time between when the intention to legislate is announced and when the legislation is actually on the statute book, because in that intervening period issues are created for the courts. The courts and all the parties before the courts will have heard the government's announcement and will be aware of the legislation before the Parliament, but until this bill ends up on the statute book, assuming the Parliament supports it, the courts and the parties have to operate under the existing law. We were concerned to ensure that that interval of time was kept to a minimum and we were keen to ensure that when the intention to legislate was announced, it became known at a time when the courts were not sitting. As has been indicated, I contacted the shadow minister in the other place, a member for Western Metropolitan Region, Mr Pakula, late yesterday afternoon and I spoke to him in person. I might say as an aside that, to the absolute best of my recollection, never once in the four years that I was shadow Attorney-General was I contacted by the former member for Niddrie about any matter when he was Attorney-General. Nonetheless I phoned and had a very constructive discussion with Mr Pakula. I offered him a briefing and invited him to decide when he would like a briefing and to come back and nominate a time. He came back and nominated a time this morning, and the briefing proceeded. The government has made every effort to ensure that full information was made available to the opposition. Mr Noonan interjected. Mr CLARK -- The member for Williamstown interjects about whether that is acceptable. I do not know if he was listening to the point I was making that there is a need to minimise the period between the
Page 499
announcement and the introduction of the legislation and putting it on the statute book, so necessarily times need to be compressed. On other occasions the government is perfectly willing to allow a normal and adequate time for scrutiny. Again, I might say in reference to the member for Williamstown that the former government tried to rush legislation through the Parliament, at times not because there was a genuine reason but just because it wanted to create mischief. I well recall one occasion when the former Attorney-General arranged for me to be briefed urgently on legislation for intensive correction management orders. The briefing took place at lunchtime, the second-reading speech was given by him that afternoon and at the conclusion he called upon the opposition to be willing to proceed to debate the bill forthwith having given zero notice. Knowing how the former Attorney-General thought, we realised he might be up to that, and in any event we were more than willing to proceed with the debate, but I make the point that the former government tried to bring on legislation urgently for no good reason whatsoever. We have only sought to bring on legislation urgently when there is a genuine reason for that urgency, as I have explained to the house. I will deal with two further issues that were raised in the course of debate. The first relates to why the legislation applies generally instead of only to police officers, as the opposition has asked by way of rhetorical question. The government's view is that there is evidence that practice has got out of line with what is appropriate and that appropriate formalities were not being observed in the police force. The situation was unclear as to whether others who were in the practice of swearing affidavits had got into similar poor practices, and rather than risk a repeat of the problems that have been experienced, we thought the clear point of logic was to say that now everybody is on notice by virtue of the issues that have arisen about the police force and about the need to properly comply with formalities. Everybody is now on notice going forward. People may not have been on notice given that bad practices had developed in other areas prior to this coming to light, and therefore it is better for the legislation to apply across the board. The issue was also raised about the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. Needless to say, the procedures of a parliamentary committee are matters that are governed by that parliamentary committee, so it is a matter for SARC to determine what it does. From the government's point of view we would be more than happy if SARC were to find itself in a position to consider the bill and to report on it. That may be a question of logistics and timing and the availability of staff and whatever other considerations might need to be taken into account by SARC. But we are more than happy to have this legislation scrutinised. Indeed it was mentioned in debate that the opposition wished that it had more opportunity to scrutinise. Of course the opposition is very welcome to continue to scrutinise the legislation between now and when it is debated in the upper house, and if it wants to come back seeking any further clarification or raising any queries with the government, then it is very welcome to do so. A lot of effort has been put in on the part of the government and officers of the department and everybody else involved to get this legislation as right as possible, and we are more than happy to take on board any queries or suggestions that SARC or members of the opposition or anybody else might wish to raise in relation to the bill. In conclusion, this is an important bill to bring to an end these very serious difficulties that have arisen in the courts and in the justice system as a result of failures by police officers and, potentially, others to observe the appropriate formalities in the swearing or affirming of affidavits. This government is not prepared to accept, and the community cannot afford, to have a court system that is logjammed and which grinds to a halt as a result of the sheer weight of these matters. Nor can the community afford, potentially, to have offenders who have committed very serious offences walking free from court because their cases cannot be heard on the evidence that is available to be led against them because of these failures to observe procedural formalities. For all of those reasons I commend the bill to the house. Motion agreed to. Read second time; by leave, proceeded to third reading.Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time.
CONTROL OF WEAPONS AND FIREARMS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Second reading Debate resumed from 7 December 2011; motion of Mr RYAN (Minister for Police and Emergency Services). Opposition amendments circulated by Mr MERLINO (Monbulk) pursuant to standing orders. Government amendments circulated by Mr WELLS (Treasurer) pursuant to standing orders.
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk) -- It probably does not happen too often, but you will notice that the amendments proposed by me and the amendments circulated in the name of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services are exactly the same. It simply reiterates the point that with regard to the Control of Weapons and Firearms Acts Amendment Bill 2011 we did our due diligence with stakeholders and in doing so found there was a significant issue with this bill. We therefore had these amendments drafted some time ago. We then went through the process with the clerks to get the amendments organised and have them circulated today. There was a briefing. For the second bill we are debating today there was another briefing this morning. At the last minute, at the 11th hour, the government also realised there was a significant problem with this bill and proposed the appropriate amendments, so we are talking about the same amendments. However, it was through our efforts with the sporting shooting community that this very significant problem was identified. I will talk more about that in a moment.
At the start can I say that the opposition does not oppose this bill. Indeed there is much in the bill that is quite fine. However, I will spend a bit of time on the participation requirements for licence-holders, as that is the issue to which the amendments of both the opposition and the government go. The amendments prepared by the opposition accurately reflect the commitments given by the government to stakeholders. These were at negotiations held primarily between the Department of Justice, the government and the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee. Those negotiations were around the participation requirements for handgun licence-holders and go back some 18 months. Essentially an agreement was reached with members of the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee and the broader sporting shooting fraternity that dates back to June last year, but when the bill was introduced into this house it did not reflect that agreement and the understanding that was reached back in June 2011.