Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time. The purpose of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill is to amend the Oaths Act by repealing it and replacing it with a new act, the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. Currently, section 22 of the Oaths Act provides that unless otherwise requested and whether in judicial proceedings or otherwise an oath is to be administered and taken in the following manner: the person taking the oath shall, standing up, hold a copy of the Bible or New Testament or Old Testament in his hand and after the oath ‘The evidence you are now about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’ has been tendered by the officer administering it, the person shall utter the words ‘So help me, God’. Section 8 of the act provides that any person may make an affirmation in lieu of taking any oath. Section 9 provides that every affirmation shall commence with the words ‘I X do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm’, and then shall proceed in the same words as the oath as required or permitted under the law. In accordance with section 9 and schedule 7 of the Oaths Act the person making an affirmation before a court shall be addressed by an officer with: ‘Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare etcetera,’ and shall then speak the words ‘I do’, or otherwise signify agreement. The issue of the language used for the taking of oaths and affirmations in court has been considered twice by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. In 1983, the Law Reform Committee considered whether there was a need to simplify the language used by the court in seeking to ensure a witness understands that they must tell the truth. The majority of members of the Law Reform Committee recommended that the current provisions concerning the taking of an oath be abolished and replaced by a standard simpler form of affirmation. The 1983 report was not acted upon in respect of that issue. In September 2007, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, the Hon Chief Justice Brian Martin, wrote to the then Attorney-General, Mr Syd Stirling, about this issue. Chief Justice Martin wrote that the judges of the Supreme Court were of the view that formal language of the current oath and affirmation were ‘singularly inappropriate’ for many witnesses of all ethnic backgrounds. In his letter the Chief Justice also noted that there were difficulties in converting this formal language into appropriate Aboriginal languages and that many Aboriginal witnesses for whom English was not their first language had difficulty understanding the formal concepts when translated. The judges of the Supreme Court at that time were all in favour of amending the Oaths Act to enable the adoption of simple language more likely to be understood by witnesses. The Chief Justice had canvassed the magistrates, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was general agreement that the current wording of the oath and affirmation be replaced by a simple promise to tell the truth. In 2008, the Law Reform Committee was then asked to investigate the implementation of the proposal made in the 1983 report and to consider the letter of the Chief Justice. The Law Reform Committee reported that the 1983 report considered the decline in Christian religious belief and the fact that the number of people of other religions was increasing. However, the Law Reform Committee noted that in 2008 it was more accurate to state that a belief in divine sanction, or at least the more fearsome of them, for example, eternal damnation and punishment, has declined. As such, the Law Reform Committee considered whether there is ‘any reason to retain a specifically religious oath rather than using the same form of words for all witnesses by affirmation in which the witness simply promises to tell the truth’. The Law Reform Committee concluded that any affirmation should be in simple terms that are immediately understandable by a witness. The Law Reform Committee considered various alternatives and considered the most appropriate form to be: ‘I promise to tell the truth to this court’. Thus, the Law Reform Committee recommended that the witness be asked: ‘Do you promise to tell the truth to this court?’. In response, the witness would indicate affirmation. The Law Reform Committee recommended that all witnesses should be asked the same question and that no other form of oath need be retained. In this case, there would be no need to ask any witness if they preferred some other form of words to be used. It was agreed that there is no need for witnesses to be treated differently based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Therefore, the same question should be asked of all witnesses. This approach reflects the one suggested by the Chief Justice and is still supported by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The Law Reform Committee recommendations also have the support of the former Chief Magistrate, Ms Jenny Blokland and former Northern Territory magistrate, Ms Melanie Little. The Law Reform Committee also noted that since 1983, the trend towards simplicity of language has continued and been accelerated in other jurisdictions. I thank members of the NT Law Reform Committee for their time and consideration of the issues. This government has agreed to implement the 2008 recommendations of the Law Reform Committee through amending the Oaths Act. Although the Law Reform Committee focused on court proceedings, it became apparent during drafting of the amendments, that to give effect to their recommendations the scope needed to be widened to affidavits and other situations where a person may be required to take an oath; for example, applications for warrants or complaints made on oath and oath of an interpreter, or an oath of a juror or office holder. In the Oaths Act, the oath required for the taking of an affidavit or other situations is not distinguished from the taking of an oath for a witness in court. It appears from the Law Reform Committee’s report that the two justifications for changing arrangements for witnesses in court are to simplify the process and to remove the need to distinguish between people based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. These very same considerations apply in relation to affidavit evidence or other situations, including oaths of allegiance or office. This is despite the Law Reform Committee stating that oaths of allegiance should not be changed because they are more a matter of formality rather than simplicity. A further issue was subsequently raised. It was suggested that the oath be administered by the presiding judge or magistrate, as happens in Timor Leste, rather than by a courts’ officer. There was general support for this in the contexts of courts. It became apparent during drafting of amendments that parts 2, 3 and 5, and most of part 6 of the act, would need to be repealed and replaced. On advice from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, given that this would see most of the act being repealed and replaced, it seemed more appropriate to draft an entire new act rather than amend the existing one. This is the bill before this house, a new Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2010. The bill implements the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee, providing a new oath for witnesses, being a promise to tell the truth to the court. The bill provides a comprehensive regime, although it does allow for other acts to make different provision. It replaces the current oath/affirmation with a promise to tell the truth, not only as recommended by the Law Reform Committee for witnesses in court, but in all situations requiring an oath. Who can administer an oath, in what circumstances? In particular, the new oath promise will be administered by the presiding judicial officer in court. For tribunals, the current situations for the majority of tribunals will become the norm, whereby, any sitting member from a tribunal can administer an oath and how the oath should be administered. The bill also allows for alternative forms of administration of the new promise. If the person taking the oath wants to take the oath in another form, for example, taking a religious oath, or have it administered in another way, they can do so if the person administering it is satisfied they understand the consequences of taking an oath and that the person is taking it honestly and in good faith, intending to be bound by it. It is noted that the Law Reform Committee considered there was a slight risk that a witness when asked if they would tell the truth may ask the philosophical question: what is the truth? In such circumstances, the Law Reform Committee stated that in such rare cases they could use their discretion to determine if such a response was a genuine objection to the words and, if so, formulate a different procedure. The bill now provides some basic provisions as to how affidavits are to be made. These are based on section 9 of the Western Australian Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Act 2005 and existing NT court rules. Other provisions in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill generally replicate the balance of the current provisions in the Oaths Act. The Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 amends various acts and subordinate legislation consequent on the reform of the wording of the oath. A number of the consequential amendments:
� omit existing provisions which provide for who may administer an oath, as they are no longer necessary. The new act provides a comprehensive regime for who can administer an oath, in what circumstances, namely the presiding member of a court or any sitting member of a tribunal; and � make consequential changes to ensure uniformity of terminology. I thank the Chief Justice for bringing the judges concerns about the form of the oaths to government’s attention. I thank the Law Reform Committee for their recommendations. Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statements. Debate adjourned. |