Footnotes
Chapter 1 - Introduction
[1]
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 1.
Chapter 2 - Summary of Provisions
[1]
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 5.
[2]
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 6.
[3]
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 7.
[4]
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 7.
Chapter 3 - Key Issues
[1]
The Hon Robert McClelland MP, Attorney-General, House Hansard, 3
December 2008, p. 12298; and Attorney-General's Department, Submission
4, p. 1.
[2]
The Hon Robert McClelland MP, Attorney-General, House Hansard, 3 December 2008, p. 12298. Note: the NSW Council for Civil Liberties disputed that
foreign business records are necessarily reliable and/or probative: see Submission
1, p. 2 & pp 7-8; and the NSW Law Society condemned the dissimilar
treatment of foreign business records and domestic business records: see Submission
5, pp 1-2.
[3]
Attorney-General's Department, Submission 4, p. 1. Also, see Mr Steven Marshall, Attorney-General's Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, pp 9-10.
[4]
Law Council of Australia, Submission 3, pp 7-8. Also, see NSW Law
Society, Submission 5, p. 2.
[5]
Attorney-General's Department, Submission 4, p. 3. Also, see
Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice, p. 1 & pp
8-9 (received 24 February 2009).
[6]
The Hon Robert McClelland MP, Attorney-General, House Hansard, 3 December 2008, p. 12298. Also, see Attorney-General's Department, Submission 4,
p. 1.
[7]
NSW Law Society, Submission 5, p. 2.
[8]
NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission 1, p. 8.
[9]
Mr Stephen Odgers SC, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard,
Canberra, 20 February 2009, p. 1 & p. 6. The Law Council of
Australia also condemned the grounds which must be established by the
non-adducing party challenging admissibility, arguing that these too contravene
established principles regarding the use of business records: see Law Council
of Australia, Submission 3, p. 9. Also, see NSW Council for Civil
Liberties, Submission 1, p. 1 & pp 4-6; and CDPP, Submission 6,
p. 3.
[10]
Attorney-General's Department, Submission 4, p. 3. Also, see Mr Graeme Davidson, CDPP, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, pp 10-11; and Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice, pp 1, 3 &
6-7 (received 24 February 2009).
[11]
CDPP, Submission 6, p. 3.
[12]
This provision is similar to section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995.
[13]
Mr Stephen Odgers SC, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, pp 1-2, 3 & 6.
[14]
Mr Graeme Davidson, CDPP, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, p. 11.
[15]
Attorney-General's Department, Submission 4, p. 5.
[16]
Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice, p. 3 &
6 (received 24 February 2009). Also, see CDPP, Submission 6,
p. 4.
[17]
The Law Council of Australia disputed whether 'probative' is a real
safeguard: see Mr Stephen Odgers SC, Law Council of Australia, Committee
Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, p. 2.
[18]
Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice, p. 5
(received 24 February 2009).
[19]
Mr Stephen Odgers SC, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, p. 2.
[20]
NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission 1, p. 6.
[21]
Law Council of Australian, Submission 3, p. 11.
[22]
Mr Stephen Odgers SC, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, p. 2. Also, see Mr David McLeod, Submission 2,
p. 3; NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission 1, p. 1 & p.
12; and Mr Dick Smith, Submission 7, p. 1.
[23]
Law Council of Australia, Submission 3, pp 10-12.
[24]
Law Council of Australian, Submission 3, p. 12.
[25]
NSW Law Society NSW, Submission 5, p. 2; and NSW Council for Civil
Liberties, Submission 1, p. 2.
[26]
Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice, p. 4.
(received 24 February 2009). A further complication for importing
section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 into the Bill is the requirement for
the calling of a witness before the court. Also, see Attorney-General's
Department, Submission 4, pp 2-3.
[27]
Mr Steven Marshall, Attorney-General's Department, Committee Hansard,
Canberra, 20 February 2009, pp 9 & 13. This was notwithstanding that the
amendments to the Act will make it easier for the prosecution to adduce
evidence against the Accused. Also, see Attorney-General's Department, Answers
to Questions on Notice, p. 3 (received 24 February 2009).
[28]
Mr Graeme Davidson, CDPP, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, p. 14.
[29]
Subsections 22(1) & (2) of the Foreign Evidence Act 1994.
[30]
Law Council of Australia, Submission 3, pp 12-13. Also, see Mr Stephen Odgers SC, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, p. 6.
[31]
Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice, p. 9
(received 24 February 2009).
[32]
Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice, p. 7
(received 24 February 2009). Also, see Attorney-General's Department,
Submission 4, p. 5.
[33]
Law Council of Australia, Submission 3, pp 13-14. Also, see NSW
Council for Civil Liberties, Submission 1, p. 2.
[34]
Mr Steven Marshall, Attorney-General's Department, Committee Hansard,
Canberra, 20 February 2009, p. 16. Also, see Attorney-General's Department, Submission
4, p. 5; and Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice,
p. 9 (received 24 February 2009).
[35]
Law Council of Australia, Submission 3, p. 7. Section 69 of the Evidence
Act 1995 – the exclusionary evidence rule (for business records) – was
examined during the review, and it was concluded that there was no particular
problem with that provision: a case could not be made for its amendment: see ALRC Report 102 Uniform Evidence Law (December 2005), para 8.157: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/102/
(accessed 23 February 2009).
[36]
Mr Stephen Odgers SC, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, pp 3–4.
[37]
NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission 1, p. 2 & pp 13–24;
and Ms Sarah Moulds, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard,
Canberra, 20 February 2009, pp 5-6 where the Council advised some discussions
had taken place between it and the department, subsequent to the introduction
of the Bill.
[38]
Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice, p. 5 &
pp 7–8 (received 24 February 2009). Also, see Mr Steven Marshall, Attorney-General's Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 February 2009, pp 12 & 14.
Dissenting Comments by Liberal Senators
[1]
NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission 1, p. 8.
[2]
Mr Stephen Odgers SC, Law Council of Australia, Committee Hansard,
Canberra, 20 February 2009, pp 1-2, 3 & 6.
[3]
Law Council of Australia, Submission 3, p. 9.
[4]
Attorney-General's Department, Answers to Questions on Notice, p. 7
(received 24 February 2009). Also, see Attorney-General's Department,
Submission 4, p. 5.
[5]
For example, see Mr David McLeod, Submission 2.
[6]
House Hansard, 5 February 2009, pp 533-548.
[7]
Law Council of Australia, Submission 3, p. 5.