Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8296] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am not a lawyer. Before Mr Finlayson in his own inimitable charitable and humble way gets in to have a dig at those members who stand up and who are not lawyers I will get in first to say that I am not a lawyer. I am sure that he is far more— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I’ve said nothing! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am just getting in first because Mr Finlayson who is one of the most charitable and humble members of the House normally does that. 
As a person who is a layperson and not a lawyer I say that this Criminal Procedure Bill provides a decent disclosure regime and brings the law into this century. A lot has been made of the fact that preliminary hearings and if you like committal hearings will go and therefore that defendants will be somehow stripped of their rights. It is worth noting that since 1977—so the Law Commission in its papers and others tell us—committal hearings or decisions on the papers in terms of committal to a trial have been made in around 47 percent of cases. 
The bill also allows some flexibility which is something not evident under the present circumstances in that if a committal is made on the papers by a judge there is still the ability for counsel to make an application so that a preliminary hearing can come about. But that is a matter for the judge. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This debate is on Part 2 which is specifically about disclosure requirements; it is not about depositions or pre-trial hearings. It is very specifically about disclosure and I do not believe that the member is talking about disclosure. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I think it is fair to say that when the Committee is conducting its business members are generally given a little bit of leeway to explore the issues around the particular focus of the part. That is something that members have commonly done—on both sides of the Chamber. As long as the member moves reasonably quickly to the appropriate part of the bill that is generally seen as allowing for a certain amount of touching on related issues that members want during these debates. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Kate Wilkinson for raising the issue. The Minister has proposed a way through it and I intend to follow that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I bow to your learned judgment Mr Chairperson. 
In essence when enacted Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Bill will become a separate statute referred to as the Criminal Disclosures Act. In essence two major reports on reforming criminal disclosure have been written both of which call for the implementation of a statutory regime for disclosure. These are actually learned reports—the first being of course  
Report on Discovery in Criminal Cases 
 from the Criminal Law Reform Committee in 1986 and the second being  
Criminal Procedure: Part One Disclosure and Committal 
 Report 14 from the Law Commission 1990. 
I have to say not being a lawyer but being one who observes legal practice through being a member of Parliament that when law commissioners eminent as they are propose reforms they should be listened to. There are various views within Law Society branches around the country in respect of this disclosure regime but I would have thought that when law commissioners suggest changes like this—which do bring a practical effect and a more speedy and efficient court system—those of us who observe the law and are part of the legislative decision-making process should listen. 
The member who took a point of order on me has been very vocal of course in trying to manufacture the proposal that we do not have such justice. Her favourite saying which she quotes from history is “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Well this proposal effectively to codify disclosure regimes provides a more efficient court system. I would have thought that people would agree with that basic proposition. I see Mr Borrows over there an ex-policeman who was involved no doubt in aiding the Crown in prosecution of many criminal cases. He would agree with the proposition that a more efficient court system provides a greater degree of justice to both defendant and victim. That is what these proposals in Part 2 are all about. 
Chester Borrows 
: That’s right. I agree with what it’s about. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member says he agrees with that but of course his Supplementary Order Paper does not provide the back-up for that comment.