House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Justices of the Peace JUSTICES OF THE PEACE The Hon. S.W. KEY House of Assembly Ashford The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (16:15): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new role and also Madam Speaker. It is a wonderful day when we have more women in prominent positions in this place. Ms Bedford House of Assembly Ms Bedford: Herstoric. The Hon. S.W. KEY House of Assembly The Hon. S.W. KEY: It certainly is herstoric. I wish to draw to the attention of the house an issue concerning the duties of justices of the peace and other people who are authorised by the Oaths Act 1936 to certify copies of documents. Members in this place would be aware of the important task that justices of the peace undertake in the community in the certification of copies of documents required by members of the community for official purposes. Members of the community require certified copies of documents for a range of official purposes. In my experience as a member of parliament, the largest group needing certified documents—certainly in recent times—are applicants for permanent residency and citizenship. Many other people need certified copies of documents for employment purposes or because they wish to be involved in a volunteer organisation. Members are likely to be aware of the difficulties that justices of the peace face, particularly recently, when asked to certify copies of documents that have been electronically produced. A problem arises because it is very difficult—and, in some cases, impossible—for a justice of the peace or other authorised person to satisfy herself or himself that an electronically produced document is, in fact, what it purports to be. This is because computer and photocopying technology has advanced to a point that it is relatively easy for an electronically produced document such as a utility account, whether in portable document format (PDF) or some other format, to be altered. This creates an ethical dilemma for justices of the peace who are asked to certify that a document is an authentic copy of an original document. On one hand, the JP obviously wishes to help the person who has asked him or her to certify a copied document. People need certified copies of documents for a series of purposes including, as I mentioned, for purposes connected with their immigration or employment status. On the other hand, justices cannot ethically certify a document that is not a genuine copy and have no way of knowing that the electronically produced document is what it purports to be. The relevant South Australian act, the Oaths Act 1936, gives no guidance on this matter. The act does not define or specify what a justice of the peace, a commissioner for taking affidavits or a police officer must do to satisfy herself or himself that a copied document is a genuine copy of the original document. The main guidance that most of us rely on is available in the Justice of the Peace Handbook. The first and current edition was published in October 2006. On page 14 of the Justice of the Peace Handbook, justices are advised: To certify that a document is a true copy of an original you must examine and compare the copy of the original and make sure they are identical. The person must present both the copy and the original for your inspection. You then write on the copy that you certify that the copy is a true copy of the original. So, the Justice of the Peace Handbook states that the JP must satisfy himself or herself that the copy is a true copy of the original. For many documents, this is quite easy to do. Passports, driver's licences, birth and marriage certificates, academic parchments and some other documents have watermarks, raised seals, photographs and original signatures that allow a person, with confidence, to certify a copy. Unfortunately, a justice cannot necessarily have a required degree of confidence when trying to certify an electronically produced document. I have been advised that the Royal Association of Justices of South Australia Inc., in addition to the fantastic work that it does, has raised this issue with the Attorney-General's Department and has asked the department to assist in resolving this dilemma for we who have to go through this process. I understand that the New South Wales Attorney-General has determined that justices of the peace should not certify copies of electronically produced documents but ask the applicant to sign a statutory declaration to the effect that this is a true copy of the document, even if it has been made by electronic means. Time expired.