Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

We are debating Democrat amendment (24) and opposition amendment (12). I think there are some misunderstandings here, and I will correct those. I refer to clause 117AB. It states:

Costs where false allegation or statement made

(1) This section applies if:

(a) proceedings under this Act are brought before a court; and

(b) the court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings.

(2) The court must order that party to pay some or all of the costs of another party, or other parties, to the proceedings.

That is very clear. It is not an allegation which is made anywhere other than in proceedings brought before a court. So we at least have that clarified. It is not a statement made in the street. It is not a passing comment. It is a statement made in proceedings before a court—and that is what makes this all the more serious. If anyone is trying to play down the act of perjury then they should think again. Senator Siewert says, ‘You know, it doesn’t happen that often.’ I can tell you that one act of perjury is one act too many, because justice in this country and in any decent civilised society is based on truthful evidence. There can be no condoning of any false statement made before a court. We are not just talking about allegations of violence, which everyone is so taken with. I agree that that is important, but we are also talking about false statements. It could be a false denial. It could be a false statement about the other party, which is indeed deleterious in the extreme, but it may not relate to violence. I ask those opposite whether they have really thought about this carefully, because we are talking about a knowingly false statement or allegation—and we inserted ‘knowingly’ deliberately, because we were not just talking about something that was in passing, an error or a faulty recollection; we were talking about someone who sets out to make a false statement and does so deliberately in a court of law.

Senator Ludwig asked, ‘How’s this investigated?’ It is in the court. The court is seized of the facts in the hearing before it, and the court deals with it accordingly. There are a number of ways a court could do that. If perjury is made out or the court feels it is made out, it can refer the papers to the police. But courts have been making orders for costs on the basis of proceedings being determined one way or the other for a long time, and in making that determination the courts have relied on the veracity of witnesses. That has been part and parcel of our legal system for a very long time indeed. It is certainly a very important provision.

This is about a false statement which is knowingly made in a court of law. If you do not think that should attract an order for costs then I really despair. Quite frankly, if someone lies in a court proceeding and perjury cannot be made out but the court is satisfied that a knowingly false statement has been made then costs should follow. Let us not get preoccupied with how many false allegations of violence are made. Let us look at the principle that is involved here, and that is that a knowingly false statement has been made in a court of law in this country. That should attract condign punishment if it can be made out in a criminal jurisdiction, but, if it is made out only to the satisfaction of the court, the court should be entitled to take appropriate action—and in this case an order for costs should follow.