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.