High Court tells lawyers to play fair

Play fair and double-check what you send to the other side are the two lessons for litigators coming out of the recent High Court decision of ERA Group v Armstrong.

In the course of discovery in a commercial dispute involving some 60,000 documents, the ERA Group’s solicitors mistakenly provided Armstrong’s solicitors with documents that were confidential and subject to client legal privilege. 

Oops. 

ERA Group’s solicitors then sought return of the material and an undertaking from Armstrong’s solicitors not to use the privileged material in the litigation.  But Armstrong’s solicitors refused to return the documents, arguing that the privilege attaching to the documents had been waived.

The trial judge found for the ERA Group and ordered return of the documents.  But the Court of Appeal sided with Armstrong.  The High Court overturned that decision with a very clear message about lawyers’ professional and ethical obligations to support the proper administration of justice. 

In doing so, it noted that mistakes are more likely to occur in discovery in ‘heavy litigation conducted by large teams of lawyers of varying experience and the indiscriminate use of photocopying’ so the good faith of the parties is paramount in such matters.

The Court noted that the new Australian Solicitor’s Conduct Rules (not yet incorporated in Victoria) require a solicitor to return material which is known or reasonably suspected to be confidential, where the solicitor is aware that its disclosure was inadvertent.

The Court suggested "such a rule should not be necessary," as "in the not too distant past it was understood that acting in this way obviates unnecessary and costly interlocutory applications…  It is an example of professional, ethical obligations of legal practitioners supporting the objectives of the proper administration of justice.”

It is a fundamental principle of legal professional practice that, as lawyers, our duty to the court trumps all of our other duties.  Fortunately, such behavior is rare in government lawyers as they must also follow the Model Litigant Guidelines.  These require government litigants to (amongst other things):

• act fairly in litigation
• not cause unnecessary delay
• keep litigation costs to a minimum.

But this reminder by the High Court to think twice about adopting a win-at-all-costs approach is still a useful read for government lawyers, even just for the reminder to do one last proofread before hitting ‘send’…

If you are in the Victorian Government and would like advice on the ethical obligations applicable to government litigants, please contact:

Andrew Suddick
General Counsel (Litigation)
t 8684 0458
andrew.suddick@vgso.vic.gov.au

10 tips for drafting top witness statements

1. Interview witnesses alone (or with an interpreter only, if necessary).  Otherwise, it is open to suggestion later that there was collusion between witnesses.  It also makes it easier to assess the impression a witness will ultimately give when in court. 
2. Use the first person and the witness’s own words.  The witness may be cross-examined on the statement and needs to be able to understand their own evidence.  Draft the statement in chronological order.  It should tell a story. 
3. Use the past tense – the witness is describing the state of affairs at the time of the relevant incident. 
4. Use short sentences and short paragraphs.  Each paragraph should be numbered and should cover a single point.
5. Where a witness makes a statement in their professional capacity, the statement may state their business address rather than residential address.
6. You generally need to avoid hearsay evidence (that is, evidence based on what someone has told the witness and not of direct knowledge).  You can however include hearsay evidence in witness statements for interlocutory hearings, provided the witness identifies the source of the evidence given.  The best way to avoid including hearsay evidence is to draft the statement so the witness’s evidence is confined to what they actually saw, heard, or smelt.
7. Statements such as ‘I understood’ or ‘I thought’ or ‘I intended’ should be avoided unless state of mind is an issue.  If state of mind is an issue then set out the words of a conversation or describe what the witness saw from which the court can conclude that the witness had the relevant state of mind.
8. Similarly, avoid conclusions in a witness statement.  
• Just describe what the witness did.  The lawyer can ask the court to make the necessary conclusion during argument.  
• For example, rather than ‘I would not have said something like that because it is not written in my notes’, try 'I always take my notebook with me when I meet with a client.  My practice during any meeting with a client is to write in my notebook any recommendations that I make to a client about the next steps they should take'.
9. Where possible, conversations should be expressed in the actual words used by the relevant people.  
• For example: On 24 December 2012, I met with Mr Claus at his business address, and we had a conversation to the following effect: ‘Rudolph would be available to work this week’. 
• Otherwise, use words describing the nature of the recollection of the witness, for example: I met with Mr Claus on 24 December 2012 at his business address.  I do not recall the actual words used.  I asked him a number of questions.  One thing I asked him about was the staff numbers he expected over the holiday period.  In his answer, he referred to Rudolph, Dasher and Dancer as employees who were confirmed to work the following week. 
10. A witness statement needs to be signed by the person who made the statement, but does not need to be witnessed by someone else.  Australian legal practitioners, plus the following categories of Victorian public servants, are able to witness affidavits and statutory declarations:
• Non-executive employee grades 2 to 6 (inclusive) and Senior Technical Specialist
• Solicitor, Senior Solicitor, Principal Solicitor and Principal Solicitor (Team Leader)
• Executive (Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3)
• Principal Scientist or Principal Scientist Level PS-1 and PS-2
• Science A to D (inclusive)
• Forensic Officer Level 2 to Level 7 (inclusive)
• Child Protection Practitioner CPP 2 to CPP 6 (inclusive)
• Children Youth and Families CYF 2 to CYF 6 (inclusive)
• Housing Services Officer HSO
• Senior Medical Adviser SMA
• Disability Development and Support Officer DDSO4 to DDSO9 (inclusive)
• Custodial Officers COG4 to COG6 (inclusive).

If you are in the Victorian Government and want more information about drafting witness statements or litigation strategy, please contact:

Martin Pike
Principal Solicitor
t  8684 0413
martin.pike@vgso.vic.gov.au

8 things you need to know about the Open Courts Bill

The Open Courts Bill kicks off in December 2013, popping all the suppression order powers of the Victorian courts and VCAT into one convenient piece of legislation.

In case you don’t know, a suppression order is a court order restricting publication or other disclosure of information in connection with a court proceeding.  A closed court order is an order restricting who can be in the courtroom during a proceeding.

Whilst it is primarily a consolidation of the current law, there are some important differences for Victorian litigators to keep in mind:

1. The Bill creates express presumptions in favour of disclosure of information and holding hearings in open court.  A court or tribunal must have regard to these presumptions when considering whether to make a suppression order or a closed-court order.
2. The Bill expressly provides that that suppression and closed court orders can only be made in specified limited circumstances where there is a strong and valid reason for doing so.
3. Where a suppression order is made, the information that is restricted from disclosure must be limited to that which is necessary to achieve the purpose for which the order is made.  The information to which the order relates must also be clearly stated in the order.  Also, the order must be limited to achieving the purpose for which it is made.
4. Suppression orders must be limited in their duration.  A court or tribunal may only make an order for a fixed or ascertainable period, or until the occurrence of a specified future event.  If it is possible that the future event will not occur, the order also must contain an expiry period of less than five years.
5. Before making a suppression order, a court or tribunal must be satisfied on the basis of sufficient credible information that the applicant has satisfied the grounds for making a suppression order.  
6. The Bill expressly protects the right for news organisations to be heard on and contest an application for a suppression order.  News organisations are also given express statutory rights to seek review of orders that are made.
7. The Supreme Court does retain its powers to make suppression and closed-court orders in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, but subject to:
• The presumptions in favour of disclosure and public hearings; and 
• The procedural requirements regarding duration, limited scope, evidentiary basis and review.
8. The Bill proposes grounds on which a suppression order may be made.  These include:
• Preventing prejudice to the proper administration of justice
• Preventing prejudice to national or international security
• Protecting the safety of any person
• Avoiding undue distress or embarrassment to a party to or witness in criminal proceedings involving a sexual offence or family violence offence
• Avoiding undue distress or embarrassment to a child who is a witness in any criminal proceeding.

This consolidates the existing grounds, except for the last two, which are worthy additions.

If you are in the Victorian Government and want more information about suppression orders or the Open Courts Bill, please contact:

Dianna Gleeson
Acting Managing Principal Solicitor
t 8684  0404
dianna.gleeson@vgso.vic.gov.au

Giving good reasons: a how-to guide by the High Court

The High Court’s recent decision of Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Eyup Kocak was eagerly awaited by government lawyers and decision-makers. Although primarily a decision about the interaction between the statutory and common law personal injury regimes, it provides helpful guidance on the standard of written reasons required by different government decision-makers.

Facts and procedural background

The case involved the assessment of the injuries of a worker by a medical panel appointed under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (AC Act).  The panel was referred questions about the worker’s injuries.  It then provided a report of its ‘written opinion and a written statement of reasons for that opinion’, as required by s 68(3) of the AC Act.

The worker claimed the reasons of the panel were inadequate.

That claim was rejected by the trial judge but accepted by the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal agreed the reasons were inadequate and held that the opinion should be quashed by the remedy of certiorari.

The employer appealed to the High Court, arguing that the reasons given by the panel were adequate in the circumstances and that even if the reasons were inadequate, this should not lead to the opinion being quashed.

The High Court agreed.

Certiorari and its availability

By way of background, the writ of certiorari is a judicial review remedy that sets aside an unlawfully made decision or a decision tainted by an ‘error on the face of the record’.  At common law, the ‘record’ of a decision does not include its reasons unless they are incorporated into the order itself. However, in Victoria, the definition of the ‘record’ has been expanded by s 10 of the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic) (AL Act) to include any statement of reasons.

This means the certiorari remedy is available to quash a decision made by a Victorian government decision-maker with inadequate written reasons, so long as the decision continues to have legal effect.

Did the opinion of the medical panel continue to have legal effect?  This was the issue of most interest to personal injury lawyers awaiting the decision, as it turned on the use of panel opinions from proceedings under the AC Act in other types of personal injury compensation proceedings.

In this case, the Magistrates' Court had procured the panel opinion for its statutory compensation proceedings.

The question was whether s 68(4) of the AC Act compelled the County Court, in determining its common law compensation proceedings, to adopt the opinion, or whether the opinion had ceased to have legal effect once the Magistrates' Court proceedings were complete.

The Court of Appeal held that the opinion did continue to have legal effect.  The High Court, however, disagreed, holding s 68(4) only compelled a panel opinion to be adopted for any further questions arising under the AC Act. This meant the s 68 medical panel opinion had no continuing legal effect to quash, and certiorari was not available.

Thus, the orders made by the Court of Appeal were set aside, and the order of the trial judge (dismissing the worker's application) restored.

Standard of reasons

Despite having allowed the appeal on the above basis, the High Court went on to consider the more interesting issue of standard of reasons.

It started by noting that there is no common law obligation to provide reasons for a decision but, in this case, the panel was obliged by the AC Act to provide reasons for its opinion.

The Court held that where there is such an obligation and the statute is silent on the requisite standard, the standard could be determined by a 'process of implication' from the statute.  It identified two considerations to help determine this standard:

• the nature of the function performed by the decision maker in making their decision; and
• the objective, within the scheme of the relevant legislation, of the requirement for written reasons to be provided.

The Court noted that the nature of the function of a medical panel is to form and give its own opinion on the medical question referred for its opinion.  In doing so, it will consider the material put forward by the various parties.  However, its function is not to make up its mind by reference to competing arguments, but to form and give its own opinion on the medical question referred to it by applying its own expertise.

The objective of the requirement for written reasons is to allow people affected by the opinion to automatically be provided with the statement of reasons, rather than having to request it under the AL Act (as used to be done using the power under s 8).  This enables such a person to ask the Supreme Court to remove the legal effect of the opinion if the panel made an error of law in forming the opinion, as the error will appear on the face of the decision.

Combining these considerations, the High Court determined that the medical panel's statement of reasons must explain 'the actual path of reasoning' by which the panel arrived at their opinion, in sufficient detail to enable a court to see whether the opinion involved any error of law.  The Court held that the panel’s opinion in this case met this standard.

This can be contrasted with the higher standard that the Court of Appeal required of a medical panel, which was the judicial standard of reasons.  This would require the panel to provide an explanation, were it to form an opinion that did not accord with an expert opinion put to it.

Consequences for Victorian government decision-makers

This case did not provide the opportunity to reconsider the position that there is no common law duty to provide reasons, because of the express requirement in s 68 of the AC Act.

However, it does provide government decision-makers with useful guidance on what standard of reasons are required when an obligation does arise, be it through a request under the AL Act or because of an explicit requirement, as here, to provide reasons with the decision.

The Court reiterated that the standard of reasons required for a particular decision turns on the particular statutory context.  Decision makers must consider the specific legislation (particularly, the nature of the particular decision and the objective behind the requirement to give reasons) in determining the standard required for the written reasons they provide.

If you are in the Victorian Government and seek further information about this case, please contact:

Elsie Loh 
Principal Solicitor
t 8684 0419
elsie.loh@vgso.vic.gov.au

Water law changes in the pipeline

The Water Act 1989 (Vic), one of the longest Acts in the statute book, is under review.  Changes are not expected to significantly impact water users, however, it will change the way the Government manages water so it is important for government officers who work in areas affected by water law or the emergency services (as the review affects flood mitigation infrastructure) to keep abreast of the changes.

The Act provides the framework for allocating surface water and groundwater across Victoria.  It details the Crown’s entitlements to water and private entitlements to water from all rivers, streams and groundwater systems in Victoria, providing Water Authorities with bulk entitlements to water for urban supply or irrigation.  Authorities allocate a volumetric water entitlement to licenced individuals or companies for commercial or irrigation purposes.  It also gives individuals the right to take and use water for domestic and stock purposes.

The Act was developed over 20 years ago when the pressures on the State's water resources were very different.  Its predecessor was enacted in the 1800s to allow the development of irrigation in northern Victoria.  Environmental considerations are a much more recent addition.  In particular, in 2005, the Act pioneered the use of the environmental water reserve, which was designed ‘to set aside a share of water in rivers and aquifers across the State for the environment’. This was the first time that rivers and aquifers gained a legal right to a share of their own water.

The purpose of the review of the Act is to streamline the legislative framework for water management and use.  This includes considering whether changes are needed to implement the Commonwealth's Murray-Darling Basin Plan, released in November 2012.  The review will also implement new water policies adopted by the Government, including the Living Melbourne Living Victoria urban water plan and the land use change policy developed through the Western and Gippsland regional sustainable water strategies.

Currently, we are waiting with baited breath for the release of a discussion paper outlining proposed reforms to the Act and an exposure draft.  An expert panel established by the Minister is preparing this.  A six-week consultation process will occur following the release of the paper.

The discussion paper will consider the following issues:

• Whether the way water resources are managed and allocated can be simplified, without having an adverse impact on entitlements.
• Whether public dams that could present a hazard if they fail should be licensed in the same way as private dams.
• Whether any further refinements to the water corporation governance reforms of 2012 are required.
• Whether the current water service delivery functions and powers of water authorities can provide sustainable and integrated water services.  This includes ensuring the rights to alternative water sources are clear enough to enable greater use of recycled water and stormwater.
• Whether the functions and powers that aim to protect and improve river health, floodplain management and regional drainage are sufficient.  This includes making legislative changes needed to implement the government's response to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee inquiry into floodplain mitigation infrastructure in Victoria, some of which are discussed in the recently released Government’s Response to this inquiry.

If you are in the Victorian Government and require advice about how the water law reforms could affect your area, please contact:

Eliza Bergin
Principal Solicitor
t 8684 0267
eliza.bergin@vgso.vic.gov.au

Occupy Melbourne – lessons for decision makers

27 December 2013 update: the VGSO newsletter on this case is now online. Happy holiday reading!

Remember the 'Occupy Melbourne' protests?  The Federal Court recently handed down its decision in the 'Occupy Melbourne Case' – Muldoon v Melbourne City Council.  We note that the protestors have just lodged an appeal to the Full Federal Court, so watch this space...

In Muldoon, members of the 'Occupy Melbourne' protest failed in their constitutional challenge to the response by public authorities to their occupation of public gardens.  The decision is a win for equitable use of public space and reasonable regulation.  It also guides administrative decision makers seeking to protect their decisions from constitutional challenges based on free speech.

Facts

Muldoon arose from the 2011 occupation of public gardens in the City of Melbourne by a group of protestors called 'Occupy Melbourne' and the response by public authorities to those actions.

Two protestors challenged the exercise of enforcement powers by officers of the Melbourne City Council. The exercise of these enforcement powers prevented Occupy Melbourne from continuing its protest through constant occupation of public space.

The relevant enforcement powers were located in Melbourne City Council Activities Local Law 2009 and Melbourne Parks and Gardens (Joint Trustee Reserves) Regulations 1994. 

The laws prohibited:

• a person camping, without a permit, in a public place in a tent or any type of temporary or provisional form of accommodation; and
• erecting signage in a public place, without a permit.

The Council issued a number of Notices to Comply to Occupy Melbourne for the removal of tents, temporary accommodation and signage from the gardens, and, with police assistance, removed tents and other accoutrements of the occupation.

Arguments

The Muldoon decision considered the constitutionality of both the enforcement provisions and the specific exercises of powers under those provisions, in light of the constitutional implied freedom of political communication.

The applicants also unsuccessfully argued that the Local Laws and Regulations were incompatible with their rights to freedom of expression or peaceful assembly or freedom of association under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Reasons

In Australia, whether a law infringes the implied constitutional freedom of political communication depends on the answers to two questions.

• First, whether the law in its terms, operation or effect, burdens the freedom of communication about government or political matters?
• Secondly, if the law does burden the freedom of communication it will be invalid unless it is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner that is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.

 

First limb - did the law burden the implied freedom of communication?

The applicants won the first limb, the Court finding that the Local Law and Regulations did burden the implied freedom of political communication.  This was because the tents and banners were symbols of the cause of the Occupy Movement, conveying a message about political matters.

The fact that the Local Laws and Regulations were found to burden the implied freedom is not a surprising result.  When applying the implied freedom courts almost always reach this outcome.  Indeed, this led Heydon J to observe in early 2012 that

[t]his common practice of concession or assumption that the first [implied freedom of communication] limb is met tends to generate an insidious belief that it will always be met.  

Lawmakers and decision-makers should therefore focus on the second stage of the required analysis: what is reasonable regulation?

 

Second limb - was the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate end?

Justice North held that the Local Law and Regulations were valid as they were reasonably appropriate and adapted to the legitimate end of providing for the preservation, care, and maintenance of the gardens and for the equitable use of them.  His Honour found:

First, the extent to which the provisions restricted political communication was limited.  They prohibited camping in tents without a permit and bringing certain items into the gardens without a permit.  But the impugned provisions left open a wide range of other forms of political protest in the gardens.

Secondly, the extent of the restriction on political communication was not absolute.  Protesters could apply to the Council for a permit to camp in tents in the gardens or bring specific items into the gardens.  The ability for the Council to grant or refuse such a permit must be exercised in accordance with the purpose of the power, namely, to preserve the gardens and ensure accessibility to them (including taking account of rights of free expression). 

Thirdly, the applicants failed to demonstrate how the Council could have protected the gardens with any less restriction on the freedom of political communication.  In reaching this conclusion, North J rejected the argument that the Local Law and Regulations could be drafted to exclude political communication, as defining this concept was not practical.

Finally, North J rejected the argument that the Local Law enforcement procedure was immunised from judicial scrutiny due to the haste in which enforcement could occur.  His Honour noted that the courts were 'available every day and for 24 hours in each day, including during holiday periods and on public holidays'.

 

The intersection between constitutional law and administrative decision-making

The decision of North J in Muldoon demonstrates how the implied constitutional freedom of political communication affects administrative decision-making.  More specifically, the decision is important for at least three reasons.

First, it shows how non-verbal methods of communication can be protected by the implied freedom.

Secondly, it reinforces that even broad powers are limited by:

• the implied freedom; and
• the requirement that administrative powers be exercised for a proper purpose. (Note: the Charter imposes similar limits on seemingly broad powers).

Thirdly, it explains how administrative decisions can be protected from constitutional challenges based on free speech. Lawmakers and decision-makers need to ensure:

• that administrative decision-makers exercise powers in accordance with the proper purposes for which they were conferred; and
• that evidence exists in each case as to why an administrative power was exercised in a particular manner.

If you are in the Victorian Government and require advice on whether administrative decisions or laws are consistent with the implied freedom of political communication, you can attend our client seminar on Monday, 11 November 2013.  Details of the seminar can be found here. 

Alternatively you may wish to contact:

Sky Mykyta
Managing Principal Solicitor
t 8684 0220
sky.mykyta@vgso.vic.gov.au

Nicholas Tiverios
Solicitor
t 8684 0430
nicholas.tiverios@vgso.vic.gov.au

How to give your prosecutions the best chance of success

Regulators don’t prosecute lightly.  So when they do, it is important to get it right.

This involves more than good investigation.  As the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office has noted in a number of its recent reports, good regulatory outcomes come from agencies having clear and comprehensive systems in place for their enforcement activities. 

VAGO's reports include recommendations such as:

• establishing a compliance framework for determining appropriate enforcement action;
• documenting the procedures and standards required of staff carrying out compliance and enforcement activities; and
• ensuring staff understand the legislation and rules for their regulatory area.

Here are some tips for building your agency’s capacity to conduct prosecution casework and achieve good regulatory outcomes.

Know the law

Investigators and prosecutors should have a good understanding of the regulatory laws that they apply, including relevant acts, regulations and other rules (such as Ministerial orders).  This can be developed through training, information sharing and reference material as much as through experience.

Investigators and prosecutors should be particularly familiar with the criminal offences under their legislation, the 'elements' or 'points of proof' for those offences, and the evidence required before a prosecution can be commenced.   Template investigation plans for these offences help investigators identify the evidence to be gathered and inquiries to make.

Companies and other organisations may operate in your regulatory space. Proving criminal offences against companies can be complex.  Investigators and prosecutors should know how relevant laws apply to companies as well as to individuals.

Develop appropriate investigative techniques and use statutory powers carefully

Successful prosecution outcomes start with good investigations.

Basic investigatory techniques, such as effective communication and interpersonal skills, are important for any investigation.  However, some offences require specialised investigative techniques or resources to gather the required evidence. 

This may include:

• developing information systems or databases to store, manage and access information;
• using appropriate interviewing or questioning techniques (for example, when dealing with children or persons from different social, cultural and linguistic backgrounds); or
• obtaining technical support for gathering evidence (such as a forensic computer analyst or accountant).

Operational training is important to ensure staff can use these techniques and resources.

Investigators sometimes have special powers, for example, to enter buildings, search for items and seize possible evidence.  It is very important to know the limits of these powers, not only because their improper use can affect the admissibility of evidence, but also because they can infringe important civil rights.  Agencies should develop guidelines for the use of these powers, and regularly audit how they are being used.

Prepare well-organised and comprehensive briefs

Investigators ordinarily compile all of the evidentiary material they obtain into a brief.  A well-organised brief allows a prosecutor to easily:

• understand the alleged offending;
• assess the evidence against the allegation;
• identify what further evidence the investigator should attempt to obtain;
• provide appropriate disclosure of the prosecution case to the defence; and
• prosecute the case in court.

Investigators should make sure the brief includes:

• well-prepared witness statements for all witnesses (in coming weeks, we will write in more detail about witness statements, watch this space!)
• a complete list of exhibits (including copies of all relevant evidentiary documents and details of any 'real evidence', such as items seized during a search);
• details of any prior criminal history of alleged offenders; and
• any other documents which may need to be disclosed under the pre-hearing disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (for example, the investigator's notes, relevant documents that will not be relied on in evidence). 

A covering memorandum from the investigator to the prosecutor, explaining the substance of the allegations and any other relevant matters, is always helpful.

Original evidentiary documents and 'real evidence' should not be included with investigation briefs, but should be kept safely.  The investigator may need to demonstrate the 'chain of custody' of particular evidence, and include these details in his/her witness statement.  Agencies should ensure that there are procedures for handling and storing important evidence, particularly seized documents or items.

Agencies should have a standard format for investigation briefs.  Investigators should work with prosecutors to create a useful format, and discuss proposed prosecution briefs at an early stage.

Make good decisions about when to prosecute offences

Having clear guidelines for making decisions about whether or not to prosecute offences is especially important.  It is not in the public interest to prosecute all offences. 

Good guidance as to the range of considerations in making such decisions can be found in the DPP's policy on prosecutorial discretion).

Agencies have a range of regulatory compliance and enforcement tools available, of which criminal prosecutions are only one option.  Most agencies that conduct compliance activities will have an established, risk-based framework for determining the appropriate enforcement action.

Some good resources for establishing a risk-based compliance framework include:

• the Department of Treasury and Finance's 2011 Victorian Guide to Regulation;
• the Department of Premier and Cabinet's 2010 Improving Governance of Regulators: Principles and Guidelines; and
• the Chartered Secretaries of Australia’s 2009 Good Governance Guide: Compliance in the Public Sector.

If you are in the Victorian government and would like advice or assistance with any aspect of your agency’s regulatory compliance and enforcement activities, please contact:

Greg Elms
Managing Principal Solicitor
t 9247 6790
greg.elms@vgso.vic.gov.au

Matt Carrazzo
Senior Solicitor
t 8684 0497
matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au