Page 4849 - Week 15 - Thursday, 16 December 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

MADAM SPEAKER, I WISH TO ADVISE THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MOVES TO REFORM THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY.

FOR SOME YEARS NOW IT HAS BEEN APPARENT THAT THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE IN THE VARIOUS AUSTRALIAN JURISDICTIONS ARE SERIOUSLY IN NEED OF THOROUGH REFORM. IN 1979 THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT ASKED THE AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE THAT OPERATE IN FEDERAL AND TERRITORY COURTS.

AT ONE LEVEL, THE COMMONWEALTHS INTEREST STEMMED FROM THE FACT THAT THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE THAT APPLY IN FEDERAL COURTS ARE THE LAWS OF THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE COURT IS SITTING. THIS LEADS TO THE FARCICAL SITUATION WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FEDERAL COURT TRYING A CASE IN BRISBANE APPLIES QUEENSLAND EVIDENCE LAW, WHEREAS IF THE CASE WAS TRIED IN SYDNEY THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE OF NEW SOUTH WALES WOULD APPLY. THE DIFFERENCES IN THE EVIDENCE LAW COULD PRODUCE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES.

THE PROBLEM GOES BEYOND THE FEDERAL COURTS,

HOWEVER. THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT

DIFFERENCES IN THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE BETWEEN THE

VARIOUS AUSTRALIAN JURISDICTIONS CAN PRESENT

PROBLEMS FOR THOSE BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE IN

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .