Get Involved - Parliament

Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Published on: September 2019

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-107499

Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from 21 August 2019.

Mr JUSTIN CLANCY (Albury) (12:17:24):

I resume my contribution to debate on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I spoke previously on schedule 1.13, which introduces the title of justice of the peace (retired) for people 65 years or older when they cease to hold office as a justice of the peace [JP]. Enabling these individuals to apply for the title of justice of the peace (retired) would recognise their service and their status in the community. The application process will be quick and simple. Information on how to apply will be available on the website of the Department of Communities and Justice and also will be circulated by the JP newsletter, which is distributed widely around New South Wales.

I turn to the amendment at schedule 1.18, which will enable current JPs to witness the execution of documents for use in other States and Territories or in relation to Commonwealth matters where the law of another jurisdiction permits them to do so. JPs in my electorate would be well aware that JPs are regularly asked to witness interstate documents, including legal documents such as mortgage papers. However, the power of New South Wales JPs to witness documents is derived from New South Wales legislation. This means that even if the law of another State permits them to witness a document, JPs are not authorised to do so under New South Wales law. This creates confusion for the community and limits the range of services that JPs can provide. In some cases, interstate authorities have issued guidance stating that New South Wales JPs can witness particular documents, making the situation even more confusing.

Nevertheless it will clarify an issue that has been causing practical difficulties for JPs and the public. It will also provide a real benefit to the New South Wales community by making it quicker and easier to complete interstate transactions, especially property transactions. Our JPs provide an important and high quality service to the people of New South Wales. I am pleased to support the amendments, which will both improve the quality and availability of JP services and recognise the significant contribution that many JPs provide to their local communities over many years.

This uncertainty is further compounded by the fact that JPs can already witness statutory declarations for use in other jurisdictions. It is only other types of documents that cannot be witnessed. The amendment at schedule 1.18 is a very simple change to section 26A of the Oaths Act 1900.

In my electorate there has been ongoing concern about the impact of the current processes for coronial services on local residents in regional New South Wales. I appreciate those concerns are not confined to the Albury electorate alone and I thank the members for Cootamundra, Wagga Wagga and Murray who have also advocated on this issue. The issue first came to my attention in the lead-up to the State election in March. Following the election the issue was raised with me by John Vogel, a director of Lester & Son Funeral Directors in Albury-Wodonga. Since our discussions, John and I have been advocating in our own directions and channels for solutions that will help reduce the attendant delays that have occurred as bodies of the deceased are sent from the Albury electorate to Newcastle, Sydney or Wollongong for autopsies.

The second point of considerable interest to my electorate is covered in schedule 1.4 to the bill, which contains amendments to the Coroners Act 2009. As the Attorney General said, the purpose of those amendments is to improve coronial processes and reduce delay in the system.

In May this year, the Country Women's Association of New South Wales conference was held in Albury over five days. The 460 delegates and other visitors discussed many issues that affected their communities, from drought to mental health and beyond. One of the key issues was the impact of coronial investigations for rural residents. Janet Drummond, secretary of the Table Top branch and a retired nurse, moved a motion to end autopsies being limited to Newcastle, Sydney or Wollongong. She told the conference, "With ... advances in forensic medicine it is very difficult to understand why rural and regional families have to endure long delays for results of a post mortem." A motion was successfully put to the conference in these terms: The CWA of NSW lobby the NSW Government to change the unreasonable monopoly of post mortems undertaken in metropolitan areas to regional and rural centres where there are PET and CT scanners available for such procedures.

The loss of a loved one is a time of immense grief. In January 2019 Mr Tony Iverson, local to Albury, passed away. His father, Graham Iverson, alerted us to the fact that there was a 31-day delay before Tony could be buried—a consequence of increased demand on coronial services at that time. The trauma for the Iverson family is a reminder to us that this issue is not a statistic on paper, but the heart-rending reality of everyday families. Grief and anguish at a time of loss can only be compounded by delays in the return of the deceased to the bereaved. It is important therefore that we work together to review and improve where we can the coronial service to ensure that our vulnerable and bereaved constituents experience less stress in what is a terrible time.

The first step, as set out in schedule 1.4 [1] to the bill, is to amend the meaning of what constitutes a reportable death under the Act. Any person who has reason to believe that a death is reportable within the meaning of section 6 of the Coroners Act must report the death to a police officer, Coroner, or Assistant Coroner. Of particular note is section 6 (1) (d), which currently provides that a death is reportable if the person who died did not see a medical practitioner in the six months prior to their death. The first amendment to this part of the Act will remove the requirement in section 6 (1) (d) by providing that deaths will no longer be reportable to the Coroner simply because the person did not see a medical practitioner within a period of time before their death. It is expected that this reform will result in a reduction in the number of natural deaths unnecessarily reported to the Coroner. As a guide, it is estimated that around 60 per cent of all cases reported to the New South Wales Coroner each year are the result of a natural death.

Importantly, this amendment brings New South Wales into line with all other States and Territories other than the Australian Capital Territory, which is another element that is significant for my border community. By removing the requirement to report a death to the Coroner just because the person had not seen a medical practitioner in the six months before their death and allowing a pathologist to carry out a non-invasive preliminary examination of the remains of a person without the need for a post-mortem investigation direction from a coroner, the sort of situations I have just described may never have to occur again.

The amendments to the Coroners Act 2009 will better serve families during a difficult and stressful time, helping them get the answers they seek more promptly about a loved one who has passed away unexpectedly. I also acknowledge that the Attorney General has said that further opportunities for appropriate ways to improve the coronial process are to be explored. I welcome the establishment of a review of the coronial system to be conducted by a combined Department of Communities and Justice and NSW Health task force. I thank all those in the Albury electorate who have contacted me on this issue. I thank the Attorney General, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, the Hon. Mark Speakman, and the Government for introducing this legislation. I note the support and considerable work of the Minister for Health and Medical Research, the Hon. Brad Hazzard, and thank him. I support the bill.

Mr RON HOENIG (Heffron) (12:25:07):

I make a contribution to debate on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The member for Liverpool has expressed the Opposition's position, which I support as I am bound to, and nothing I say should be seen to be inconsistent, either expressly or by implication. I wish to confine my remarks to schedule 1.4 to the bill, whereby items [1], [2], [3] and [4] seek to amend the provisions of the Coroners Act 2009. I observe that tinkering with the Coroners Act to avoid delay, as the Attorney General expressed in his second reading speech, is hardly a substitute for the long outstanding statutory review of the Coroner's Court or the Coroners Act. I suggest to the House that the Coroner's Court is currently in crisis and has been for quite some time. Simply trying to reduce delay to enable a focus on inquests, as is the basis of the provisions of schedule 1.4, ignores the fact that the crisis in the Coroner's Court is due to both structure and the quality of appointments.

Bar News

The problems in relation to the Coroners Act and the outstanding review were highlighted in a publication by the former Deputy State Coroner Hugh Dillon that was published in the 2019 autumn edition ofthe. Hugh Dillon is an adjunct professor at the University of New South Wales Law School. He was a magistrate from 1996 to 2017. He was the Deputy State Coroner from 2008 to 2016 and he is now the Deputy President of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. He is not a person whose views should be ignored. With respect to the problem with the structure and quality of appointments and the manner in which the Coroner's Court discharges them, I quote from Mr Dillon on page 10:

The criminal justice orientation of the Local Court limits the effectiveness of the coronial system. The cultural habits of mind and practice of magistrates are oriented towards managing and processing large volumes of relatively uncomplicated criminal matters as efficiently and as quickly as possible. Single cases are dealt with seriatim. Magistrates have no jurisdiction or capacity to treat them epidemiologically. Decisiveness and speed are the qualities most admired in magistrates by those who run the Local Court. High clearance rates are the KPI that keeps the Chief Magistrate's Office happiest. Some senior magistrates refer to the coronial jurisdiction of the court as a "tick-a-box" jurisdiction – their view is that coronial cases can be disposed of almost effortlessly in most instances before they return to the real work of punishing drink-drivers, hotel heroes and other miscreants. It would be sad if that was the magistrate's view of the coronial jurisdiction. The Coroner is the oldest known office to the English legal system and it dates back to 1194—some 825 years. The basis of the coronial jurisdiction is to ensure that no-one loses their life without society knowing the manner and cause of death as best as possible. It is because society has for 825 years valued human life that the coronial office has continued over that period of time in England and in Australia. The problems with the coronial jurisdiction, as I said, relate to structure.

Whilst I agree with some of Hugh Dillon's comments, I do not agree with all of them. To categorise the magistracy as Hugh Dillon has really does not speak of the high regard that the Coroner's jurisdiction was held in when I was counsel assisting in a number of inquests. To speak like that of former State Coroner John Abernethy or former senior Deputy State Coroner Jacqueline Milledge, who has subsequently become a personal friend, or Dorelle Pinch or Carl Milovanovich really understates how outstanding they were. Unfortunately that has not been the case since those appointments and since the amendments of the Coroners Act.

The solution is one of structure. I suggest that the State Coroner have the status of a District Court judge at the very least, and that the Coroner's Court needs to be removed from the supervision of the Chief Magistrate and the magistracy. I also assert, when I relate to appointments, that the appointments should be made by the Attorney. Whilst he should engage in the normal consultation process, the Attorney is a highly regarded silk in his own right. I would far better trust his appointments to the Coroner's Court, even if he appoints his own Liberal Party colleagues, than leaving it up to the current bureaucratic method that has allowed the Coroner's Court to descend into the shambles that it currently is.

You cannot have the State Coroner and the coroners that operate in the Coroner's Court be subject to a tick-a-box. You cannot have State coroners under pressure to dispose of matters in the name of efficiency, because every reportable death is different and every requirement or inquest into the manner and cause of death is different. Lest this House think that coroners are not under pressure, I can indicate that through my involvement as counsel assisting the Coroner I have seen subtle pressure being placed on coroners. I was counsel assisting the Coroner in respect of the inquest into the death of Dianne Brimble, a lady who was killed on a cruise ship more than 15 years ago. When I turned up on the first day of the inquest the then Deputy State Coroner, Jacqueline Milledge, who I indicated previously has since become a personal friend, said to me, "Ron, this inquest will ensure that I never become State Coroner." My response was, "Jackie, don't be silly."

But the reality of the situation was that right the way through that very lengthy inquiry to determine the manner and cause of death of a woman who was treated abysmally and killed in the most terrible circumstances, the Coroner was subject to considerable criticism from within the profession and from within the magistracy. There were brazen attempts at lack of cooperation, or lack of effort in trying to make available telephone intercepts that were recorded as part of the police investigation in South Australia as to the manner and cause of Mrs Brimble's death, and there was a pressure to finish the inquest and get it out of the way.

Extension of time

That is the sort of pressure that gets placed upon the coronial jurisdiction if they be subject to control, oversight or pressure by the Chief Magistrate or a Chief Magistrate's Office when dealing with the manner and cause of death. There is another issue of some concern in relation to the way these things operate. I was consulted by the senior Deputy State Coroner who was to hold an inquest into the death of Kovco, an Australian soldier that had died in Iraq. The death of Kovco was subject to a military inquiry which resulted in a determination that Kovco had died by his own hand. Following the military inquiry the Coroner determined to hold an inquest into Kovco's death. []

During a conference with the Coroner and senior officers of the police Homicide Squad some material was made available to the Coroner and I that provided a possible alternative motive for the killing of Kovco. I cannot disclose what that material is because it is subject to national security. I was contacted by the Crown Solicitor's Office to indicate my available dates for that inquest. I spoke to Frank Hollis, a former Crown Prosecutor who appeared for the family at the military inquiry, and suggested that he may wish to remove his request for a jury inquest. I gave my available dates and expected to receive a brief to appear as counsel assisting. Within a short period of time after doing that the Kovco inquest was removed, in my view unlawfully, from the Deputy State Coroner. It was taken by the State Coroner and another counsel was briefed to appear. The information disclosed to me in conference, I am told, was never subject to any evidence before the jury. We cannot have a situation where coroners are subject to any pressure or control. The jurisdiction of a coroner begins as soon as a death is reported.

The other inquest that I will reference to is notable for the pressure that a coroner is placed under. Deputy State Coroner Dorelle Pinch held an inquest into the manner and cause of death of the Balibo Five, the Australian journalists murdered by Indonesian soldiers—as so she found—in East Timor. There was considerable pressure, I am told, to not have that inquest for national security reasons. So concerned was the Coroner that she had Mark Tedeschi, the then Senior Crown Prosecutor, act as counsel assisting in that inquest. The function of the Coroner is not just to determine the manner and cause of death but also to make recommendations as to how to prevent deaths in the future and to improve safety. For example, the inquest into the death of Dianne Brimble resulted in recommendations that have substantially changed the entire cruise industry, not just in Australia but around the world. Mrs Brimble did not die in vain because her killing has resulted in substantial changes.

I want to say this about the magistracy: Hugh Dillon is critical of magistrates being appointed and believes that coroners should have their own permanent jurisdiction. My view is that there is no reason why any judicial officer cannot be appointed to the office of Coroner or be a Deputy State Coroner. Coroners need to be well rounded. It is like presiding at any other court or presiding at the Police Integrity Commission, the Crime Commission, or the Independent Commission Against Corruption. They are things that judicial officers and barristers do every day. The roles are spelt out in the legislation and the bar rules. There should be no assumption simply because you rotate coroners that magistrates are not fit and proper people to hold that office.

I say that the person appointed to be the State Coroner on any review of the Coroners Act needs to be at least a District Court judge—at least a judicial officer with the status of a District Court judge. That will make it more difficult for that undetectable pressure to be placed on trying to speed matters through. Human life is so precious to us. Indeed, the English common law for 825 years has recognised that no person should lose their life unless society is satisfied as best it can be as to their manner and cause.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) (12:40:59):

I speak to the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The purpose of the bill is to make amendments to various Acts within the Stronger Communities cluster to address emerging issues, support procedural improvements, clarify uncertainty and correct drafting errors in legislation. Justice legislation miscellaneous amendment bills are typically introduced into Parliament each session as part of the Government's regular legislative review and monitoring program. There are a number of major points within this legislation. I will focus on an issue very dear to those on both sides of the House—justices of the peace [JPs].

In each New South Wales electorate we are all blessed to have a large number of justices of the peace. In the Tweed electorate we have a significant number of JPs who volunteer their time, usually in the local shopping centres, to sign affidavits and legal documents. There is also a steady flow through the doors of many electorate offices, including mine, for this service. Schedules 1.13 and 1.18 to the bill contain amendments to the Justices of the Peace Act 2002 and the Oaths Act 1900 respectively. For more than 200 years JPs have provided an invaluable service to the New South Wales community.

The primary role of a JP is to witness a person making a statutory declaration or affidavit and to certify copies of original documents. These kinds of documents are often needed for official and legal purposes. JPs come from all sections of the community and are widely available across New South Wales. They also provide their services on a voluntary basis. The amendments in this bill also provide an important recognition of the significant time many JPs have dedicated to their local communities over many years.

Schedule 1.13 [5] to the bill introduces the title of "Justice of the Peace (Retired)" for people 65 years or older who have ceased to hold office as a JP and who have provided at least 10 consecutive years of service. On a number of occasions the Attorney General and I have awarded certificates to JPs who have performed 50 years or more of service. It is absolutely amazing that those people have been able to do that. The title of JP holds personal significance for many current and former office holders.

It is a reality that some JPs will need to relinquish office as they advance in age or otherwise find that they cannot fulfil the requirements of the role. Enabling those individuals to apply for the title of "Justice of the Peace (Retired)" recognises their service and status in the community. The application process will be quick and simple. Information about how to apply will be available on the Department of Communities and Justice website. Information will also be included in the JP newsletter, which is circulated widely around New South Wales.

I turn now to the Oaths Act 1900. The amendment in schedule 1.18 to the bill will enable current JPs to witness the execution of documents for use in other States and Territories in relation to Commonwealth matters and where the law of another jurisdiction permits them to do so. This is a very important amendment, particularly in border areas such as the Tweed, where we have a steady stream of Queenslanders wishing to conduct business in New South Wales and, conversely, New South Wales people wishing to conduct business in the State of Queensland who would like documents signed. Up until now that service has been declined.

Justices of the peace are regularly asked to witness interstate documents, including legal documents such as mortgage papers. However, the power of a New South Wales justice of the peace to witness documents is derived from New South Wales legislation. This means that, even if the law of another State permits them to witness a document, justices of the peace are not authorised to do so under New South Wales law.Thiscreates confusion for the community and limits the range of services that justices of the peace can provide.

Insome cases, interstate authorities have issued guidance stating that New South Wales justices of the peace can witness particular documents, which makes the situation even more confusing.This uncertainty is further compounded by the fact that justices of the peace can already witness statutory declarations for use in other jurisdictions. It is only other types of documents that cannot be witnessed.The amendment in schedule 1.18 to the bill will make a very simple change to section 26A of the Oaths Act 1900.Nevertheless, it will clarify an issue that has been causing practical difficulties for justices of the peace and the public. I know that my staff will agree this change will make their lives a lot easier. It will also provide a real benefit to the New South Wales community by making it quicker and easier to complete interstate transactions, especially property transactions.

Justices of the peace provide an important and high-quality service to the people of New South Wales. I am pleased to support the amendments in this bill, which will improve the quality and availability of justices of the peace services and recognise the significant contribution that many of them have provided to their local communities over many years. Recently I was privileged to be granted my re‑accreditation as a justice of peace. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) (12:46:31):I make a brief contribution to the Justice LegislationAmendment Bill 2019. This omnibus bill contains numerous miscellaneous amendments; however, I will only address a few of them.As part of the bill, the standard non-parole period for bushfire arson offences under the Crimes Act 1900 will be increased from five to nine years.This change is in line with community expectation to crack down on those individuals whose recklessness and stupidity places a significant cost and burden on to our State. Bushfires pose a significant risk to life. They can destroy wildlife habitats, homes, businesses and communities. Families can also lose their livelihoods and sometimes, their lives.

It is well knownthat for every bushfire that starts across our State,our emergency service workers are the ones called to the frontline to tackle the situation at hand. To know that these brave men and women are putting their lives on the line as a result of an arsonist's reckless behaviour is sickening. These individuals need a stronger deterrent to make them think twice before starting a fire. Recently we saw the trials and hardships faced by our firefighters as they battled fires throughout northern New South Wales. Our emergency services personnel have enough on their plate, let alone having to deal with man-made infernos set to wreak havoc and threaten lives. I commend this amendment. I pray it serves as a stronger deterrent for any would-be fool who wishes to recklessly endanger people's lives and livelihood throughout the State.

It is my understanding that the Coroners Act creates an unfortunate set of circumstances for families living in rural and regional New South Wales who have lost a loved one in suspicious or unexpected circumstances. Deaths of this type currently need to be reported to the Coroner for a coronial investigation. That objectively places rural and regional communities in a state of limbo as delays in retrieving the body of the deceased may range from three days to three weeks, sometimes even longer.

This prevents families from making funeral arrangements or allowing them to appropriately begin to grieve, given the delays may vary on a case by case basis.

Meanwhile communities in rural and regional New South Wales have been left with no alternatives. The proposed amendments to the Coroners Act will provide reassurance to those living in rural and regional New South Wales that the process will be significantly faster and less intrusive on the family of the deceased. This will be achieved by the revocation of the requirement to refer all unexpected deaths to the Coroner for a coronial inquiry. Pathologists will be allowed to carry out less invasive examinations to determine whether a full post-mortem examination is necessary or if the matter should be referred to the Coroner. The intent of these changes aims to ensure matters are resolved quickly and to allow for bodies to be returned to families without unnecessary delays in most circumstances. It is a sensible amendment that will greatly benefit rural and regional communities.

I also mention schedule 1, part 1.13 and the amendment to the Justices of the Peace Act 2002 No 27. This amendment will allow for former justices of the peace who are 65 years or older to apply to use a retirement title after their names. This means any former justice of the peace—who was 65 years or older when they ceased holding office and have served as a justice of the peace for a period of 10 consecutive years or more—may apply to the secretary of the department to use the title "JP (Retired)". The title will serve as an acknowledgement to our State's justices of the peace for their longstanding service to the community over the years and will be a way to show our sincere appreciation for their efforts. In my electorate of Fairfield a number of justices of the peace are over 65 years of age and have been providing their services to our community for many years. I am pleased many of these longstanding contributors to our community will have the opportunity to apply for a JP (Retired) title once they are ready to finally put down the quill. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (12:51:53):

I support the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. While the bill makes amendments to various Acts, the area I will speak about focuses particularly on domestic violence, including the introduction of Legal Aid NSW as a member of the Domestic Violence Death Review Team [DVDRT]. I am pleased that the bill enables Legal Aid NSW to become a member of the Domestic Violence Death Review Team. I am especially passionate about any efforts that will help put perpetrators of domestic violence behind bars and these amendments should be supported wholeheartedly. In my electorate of North Shore a number of organisations are working very hard to protect the survivors of domestic violence. One such organisation is Mary's House, which is a refuge that organises accommodation for women and children who are escaping domestic violence—it provides outstanding care for our community's most vulnerable people.

The object of DVDRT is to investigate the causes of domestic violence deaths in our State so as to reduce the incidence of these deaths, and to facilitate improvements in systems and services. As part of the investigation the DVDRT undertakes qualitative and quantitative analyses. The team also looks into specific cases of domestic violence and uses them to provide a window into domestic violence offending so that specific opportunities for intervention and prevention can be identified. The multidisciplinary team includes government and non‑government representatives, and is convened by State Coroner Teresa O'Sullivan.

The bill will amend section 101E of the Coroners Act 2009 to include a representative from Legal Aid NSW as one of the members of DVDRT, which plays such an important and invaluable role in the State's response to domestic violence. This amendment is a natural and highly beneficial progression, given Legal Aid NSW already plays such a key role in responding to domestic violence. One of the ways that Legal Aid NSW does this is through its domestic violence unit, which is a specialist domestic violence service. Some of the many functions of this unit include helping victims of domestic violence obtain apprehended domestic violence orders, sorting out arrangements for children, resolving property disputes, assisting with legal problems, and organising for the provision of child support and maintenance.

Domestic Violence Death Review Team Report 2015‑2017

I take this opportunity to reflect on the Government's recent decision to join Our Watch, which took effect on 1 July 2019. Local domestic violence advocacy groups in my electorate have spoken with me about that in the past. The decision to join Our Watch was the first recommendation, recommendation 1.1, of the New South Wales . In closing a loophole and looking at the importance of the Domestic Violence Death Review Team, Our Watch provides us with another opportunity to drive nationwide change and the cultures that lead to violence against women by working closely with members to implement strategies and initiatives. The decision to join Our Watch will change the way that our primary prevention work in New South Wales is coordinated. As part of a cohesive and national primary prevention approach, we can address domestic and family violence through attending the board, inputting into the national agenda, engaging with key advocates and considering opportunities to pose prevention projects.

In this term of government we have chosen to join Our Watch because we know that with all of the investments we have made in previous terms of government in frontline service delivery, we now have the capacity through our strong budget management to provide additional funding for frontline service delivery, Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety Limited membership, as well as being a member of Our Watch. I know this membership will be a valuable investment to help stem the prevalence of domestic, family and sexual violence, and ultimately to save lives, which is a fundamental goal. That commitment builds on the State's existing prevention work such as the innovative projects funded through the $20 million Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund.

I will reflect on some of the investments and work that the New South Wales Government has put into tackling this grave social issue of domestic violence. The Government invests hundreds of millions of dollars annually to combat domestic and family violence through mainstream services in Justice, Police and Health, and child protection, social housing and homelessness services. The Government is committed to being tough on perpetrators, but is also investing a record amount of money to support victims and help keep them safe. The Government has invested in a number of different programs including Rent Choice Start Safely.

Members probably will be aware that this program supports people escaping violence to move into stable housing in the private rental market. The Government has introduced behavioural change interventions for high‑risk offenders and, as I already mentioned, the Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund. Some of those investments go into innovative prevention, early intervention and crisis responses. The Government's Safer Pathway program is a response that uses multiagency interactions to address high‑risk domestic violence victims. It operates in many locations across New South Wales, including in my electorate of North Shore.

I have spoken in this place before about the Women's Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service NSW, which supports victims through the criminal justice system. I had the great opportunity of joining staff at Manly Court House, where the majority of domestic violence cases from my community are heard. I acknowledge the work that it does. Josie Gregory has spent quite a bit of time with me at Manly Court House and has spoken with me about the increase in demand for the agency's services, and the growing number of clients from my electorate who require its support. I thank her and her team for the work that they do in supporting and investing in the women who are facing domestic violence cases at Manly Local Court.

The New South Wales Government's Staying Home Leaving Violence initiative supports women and their children to remain safely at home by removing the perpetrator. It also invests in the NSW Police Force through the Domestic Violence High Risk Offender Teams. It also has a number of non-government community‑based organisations leading perpetrator interventions. The North Shore Police Area Command in my electorate has a range of specific liaison officers in place to support different, vulnerable or at‑risk communities. Historically it has had domestic violence liaison officers led by Superintendent Allan Sicard. Recently I met with Superintendent Sicard again and we spoke about how the changes in the police area command had enabled him to look at the structure of those support groups and to introduce additional resources to his team to broadly support vulnerable groups within our community.

There is such a strong focus on proactive policing in our community and on providing support and advice to people experiencing domestic violence, whether they be women, people in family relationships such as parents and children, or even flatmates who might be experiencing violence. The North Shore Police Area Command is working very hard to address what is one of the highest levels of crime that occurs within my electorate and community. As I said before, in my electorate we have the Lower North Shore Domestic Violence Network. I have worked with that network, as I have with the court advocacy service, to try to achieve the support necessary for women and other people escaping violence.

I thank the shelter manager of the Manly women's shelter, who took me to meet with some of the women who were seeking refuge at the Manly women's shelter and to talk about what they do to address this issue in our shared community. I also thank the North Shore Women's Benevolent Association, which opened Mary's House women's shelter in the first place. I also thank the volunteers and supporters of Share the Dignity, for whom I am a collection point every year. I know that the Assistant Speaker and member for Oatley is a very avid supporter of Share the Dignity; he has very significant drives and gets a lot of materials and donations together for women escaping violence and homelessness in our community. I know a number of members in this place do the same.

We all know that domestic violence, sadly, is often hidden due to embarrassment, fear, control and financial dependence. While I have spoken broadly about the issue of domestic violence, about what our Government is doing to help address, reduce and minimise domestic violence in our community and about the roles of my local organisations, this bill specifically looks at involving Legal Aid representatives in the analysis of domestic violence‑related deaths. That will help us better identify opportunities to prevent domestic violence and to support victims—survivors, really—throughout the legal system. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee) (13:01:42):

I contribute to the debate on the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The Opposition will support the bill and so I, too, will help secure its passage. I first acknowledge the good work of the member for Liverpool and shadow Attorney General in bringing much of the content of this bill to the spotlight. The shadow Attorney General's commitment to the constant improvement of the bureaucracy of justice in this State is a credit to himself and to our side of the House. If only Joseph K. had had access to the member for Liverpool in his time of need, his fate must have been much different. The bill introduces a number of amendments that bring many pieces of legislation in line with contemporary society and the technology that we now use to engage in the public sphere and civic life. That, after all, is why we are here: to ensure that the laws of New South Wales remain up to date and adequately reflect the communities that we are elected to represent.

I commend the work that the bill does in closing some of the gaps in our current law and removing some inefficient and imprecise crossovers between pieces of legislation. Most significantly, I recognise the improvement the bill brings to the administration of the New South Wales justices of the peace system—a significant and important role played throughout our communities by volunteers who deserve better representation and acknowledgement. To some extent the bill will improve that through the introduction of the title "JP (Retired)", which acknowledges those over the age of 65 with 10‑plus years of service.

To begin with I turn to the progress the bill will bring. Schedule 1.4 [1] amends section 6 (1) (d) of the Coroners Act 2009 No. 41. The amendment provides that a person's death is a reportable death if the person who died had not seen a medical practitioner within six months before their death. This amendment brings New South Wales law in line with that of all other States of Australia and with the Northern Territory. It removes some of the administrative burdens placed on coroners and the coronial system by deaths that are clearly natural in cause. In practicality this should hasten the coronial process, reducing costliness and improving outcome times for families during what can be some of their most harrowing days. The amendment also will allow coroners to allocate a greater amount of their time and energy to inquiries into suspicious or violent deaths and to prioritise public health, safety and security.

The amendment should also improve the accurateness of a coroner's decision-making by removing a great weight of unnecessary rulings. Their job is difficult—it involves long hours and the requirement to process emotionally challenging content. Easing the burden on those vital public servants, in particular in regional and rural communities where the strain is felt the most, is welcome. The bill also seeks to make amendments to legislation surrounding the work of justices of the peace [JPs]. I acknowledge the good the bill will bring in this space. I will touch on that detail later.

I have received a significant amount of correspondence from constituents and groups within my electorate about the proposed amendments to the Oaths Act 1900. In the main, I acknowledge the correspondence from the Eastern Suburbs branch of the NSW Justices Association. Many of its contingent volunteer at the Waverley customer service centre and the Waverley Council Library daily and understand firsthand some of the bureaucratic frustrations that the bill seeks to address. Further, I acknowledge the work and insights of Paul Tracey, OAM, who offers his time as a JP within my electorate office. Paul seeks to keep me up to date with the nature of the documentation he tends to and has strongly advocated to me the virtue of some of the proposed changes to the legislation governing the work of JPs.

I have received a large amount of correspondence about the proposed amendments to the Oaths Act 1900, specifically urging me to push that the legislation go further than currently slated. I refer to the proposed amendments to section 26A of the Oaths Act as detailed in schedule 1.18. Section 26A as it stands allows for a JP to witness a statutory declaration for use in another State, Territory or the Commonwealth, if that act is permitted by the other jurisdiction in question. Schedule 1.18 extends this by adding "or witness the execution of a document". Quite often, that might involve the witnessing of a land title document. Herein lies the shortfall as it clearly makes little sense to allow JPs to witness interstate statutory declarations, but not other documents. Potentially the most problematic shortcoming of the amendment is that it does not allow JPs in New South Wales to witness overseas documents.

As is the case in many other electorates in New South Wales, a significant number of my constituents are first-generation Australians, having lived a large proportion of their working lives overseas. As such, many of these constituents receive transfer payments from overseas governments—payments they have earned rightfully and payments that ease drawings from our own social support networks. Such payments provide an overall positive benefit to individual people and their communities but often they come with complex administrative burdens. For example, often residents require proof-of-life forms to receive payments from overseas governments. For many years New South Wales JPs signed such documents until the department issued a directive that they not do this. The only alternative to a JP witnessing is a public notary, which will cost the individual several hundred dollars—usually an amount similar to that of the pension the person would receive and on many occasions more. I agree with my colleague the member for Liverpool who described this situation as Kafkaesque.

I now mention the proposed amendment to the bill of the reinsertion of "being a member of a terrorist organisation" into the Crimes Act. While the Opposition does not oppose this, it would be remiss of me if I did not note that it was this Government that allowed it to expire. Furthermore, while this Government continues to spruik its hard stance on anti-terrorism, the offence has somehow managed to fall off its books. Several other sections of the bill are worthy of mention. I comment on those that seek to bring legislation in line with the realities of modern civil life.

The alteration of the time allocated to postal delivery is significant and overdue. The amendment reflects the reality of a slower postal service and seeks to eliminate the no-fault escalation of issues, fines and outstanding correspondence. A counterbalance in improving efficiencies can be found in the alterations to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. The suggested amendments allow for applications for notices to produce to be returned electronically, significantly expediting the administrative process surrounding Local Court submissions. The majority of the bill comprises good, logical alterations to legislation. Our role in this place is to facilitate the process by which our constituents navigate civil society. I believe the bill does that in the main. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MARK TAYLOR (Seven Hills) (13:08:45):

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Police and Justice I am pleased to support the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which the Attorney General introduced on 21 August this year. The bill reflects a whole suite of justice reforms made by this Government, which I am certainly proud to support. This bill makes an amendment to 22 different Acts of this Parliament. The objectives of the bill run to no fewer than 32 items. Today, however, I focus my attention on the elements of the bill that seek to improve the New South Wales justice of the peace [JP] system. I know all members will come into contact with this system in their electorate offices and in local shopping centres and libraries. Many of my fellow members will also, I am sure, have members of staff who are JPs.

Last year the New South Wales Government conducted a Justices of the Peace Framework Review, which included a public consultation paper and targeted consultations with the four New South Wales justice of the peace associations: NSW Justices Association, Australian Justices of the Peace Association, Northern NSW Federation of Justices of the Peace, and Tweed Valley Justices' Association Inc. It was this particular review that identified the three amendments proposed in the bill. First, schedule 1.13 to the bill will amend the Justices of the Peace Act 2002 to enable justices of the peace who are aged 65 years or over, and have completed 10 years of continuous service, to apply for the title "JP (Retired)".

We all know that our local JPs gift their time and expertise to helping people at key moments of their lives, whether it be buying a home, accessing superannuation, or more routinely with the filling-in of various government forms, verifying identity and witnessing agreement to subcontracts. The introduction of the new title of "JP (Retired)" will ensure that the valuable service that many justices of the peace provide voluntarily to their local communities over a number of years can be recognised properly and they can maintain the dignity of their position within their workplace or community organisation, even after they are no longer able to perform the functions of a JP. The schedule also contains an amendment to enable the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice to delegate the exercise of functions under the Act and associated regulation to a senior officer of the department in order to deliver administrative efficiencies.

Schedule 1.18 to the bill will amend the Oaths Act 1900 to clarify that justices of the peace may witness the execution of interstate documents where the law of another State or Territory empowers them to do so. This will resolve uncertainty as to whether justices of the peace in New South Wales have the authority to witness such documents. It will also make it much easier for members of the community to complete common interstate forms, such as land title documents. This is a commonsense measure, which will make it clear and easy for our justices associations and individual JPs in the community to know that they are capable of witnessing the execution of any document of any Australian government jurisdiction—State, Territory or Commonwealth.

I share in the Attorney General's thanks to the NSW Justices Association, all the JP associations and JPs for identifying and raising this issue. I particularly thank, among others, Mr Paul Mannix, former President of NSW Justices Association, and Mr Peter Enderby and Bruce Gibbs of that association, who invited me to speak at the NSW Justices Association State conference on ethics, which was organised by the Cumberland branch. It was an absolutely fantastic event. It is wonderful to be a patron of the Cumberland branch of the NSW Justices Association. The Cumberland branch of the NSW Justices Association is currently thriving under the leadership of its dedicated and capable committee executive team led by president Phillip Chown, vice presidents Alan Ezzy and Rees John, secretary Nino Strangio and treasurer Deanna Cartwright. The Cumberland branch meets on the third Monday of each month at Wentworthville Leagues Club, just outside my electorate of Seven Hills.

In order to supplement the traditional search function on the New South Wales Government's Department of Justice, the NSW Justices Association provides a comprehensive list of all the community desks where members make themselves available to exercise their functions as JPs. The NSW Justices Association also does an excellent job keeping its members updated on policy changes, and rules and guidelines for exercising the functions of a JP. I have no doubt that the amendments contained in the bill will feature in an upcoming handbook and circulars of the association, which now has 3,500 active members and 23 separate branches across the State.

The association was established in 1911 as a non‑political and not‑for‑profit professional association. Two Saturdays ago the association held an advisory meeting and its annual general meeting will be held on 16 November this year. I am sure all members in this place will join me in wishing the association all the best as it continues to promote the good work of our JPs in our respective electorates and communities. As a member of Parliament, I relish the opportunity to encourage and support the activities and work of JPs in the local community. I understand the dividend they bring to our local communities and support their efforts wholeheartedly. We may well be living in the digital age but, as Dr Cassandra Cross said in her speech at the 2017 justices conference, online fraud remains an important issue, particularly for seniors and young people in our community. Despite the shift to online identity verification, nothing beats the human-to-human check that New South Wales justices of the peace provide for our community. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER:

I shall now leave the chair. The House will resume at 2.15 p.m.