Page 794 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
cast so wide, the net captures Nemo-like small fry and real estate sharks alike. Amendments such as this one help to limit the class of innocent people who, through no fault or illegal intent of their own, end up as by-catch in the net of legal liability.
Another amendment that may in time prove to be more substantive than merely minor and technical are the provisions which give the Attorney-General the power to make a product safety order in relation to a potentially dangerous product. Presumably, this would cover the case of Bindeez beads and similar products, but I half seriously wonder if it would also cover alcohol and tobacco products, which cause so much trouble and distress when used improperly. I wonder if, in more enlightened times, this power will be used to minimise the dangers inherent in relaxing the supply of these currently legal and highly addictive drugs and of governments becoming so dependent on taxing their consumption.
Another amendment, or rather innovation, which pushes the boundary of what is of merely a machinery or technical nature are the provisions that amend the Public Trustee Act to enable the Public Trustee to make payments or hand over personal items from a small estate without requiring letters of administration or the grant of probate. These are not insignificant concessions, and for some grief-stricken people the process is time-consuming, costly and stressful at a time when such legal technicalities seem to be utterly insignificant compared to the feelings of loss that they are experiencing.
One wonders why, if these are merely minor or technical amendments, they were not enacted sooner. The fact is that they are not merely technical amendments; they represent a change of policy, albeit a desirable change in policy. I understand the problems with fraud that can arise when disbursements are made from an estate before probate is settled, and I am glad that the government has seen fit to deal with such problems on the rare occasions that they may occur and to stop penalising the overwhelming majority of honest beneficiaries who will now be spared the stress and/or expense of obtaining probate and who will be able to benefit from the full value of the deceased estate. Odds are that these are people whose circumstances are such that they will need the benefit of a small estate more than those who inherit from large estates.
I cannot let this occasion pass without commenting on the seemingly innocuous amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act repealing section 26 (8) and section 62. These are certainly not minor technical and uncontroversial amendments and it is either mischievous or naive for the department to characterise them as such. Section 26, paragraph 8 is worth highlighting. This bill severs the link between the commonwealth Attorney-General’s power to issue conclusive certificates and the operation of the tribunal in the ACT. The argument is that this is a redundant provision as the ACT government now has that power for itself. This is a power which the Greens, the Liberal opposition and most independent commentators consider the current government has proven itself unable to resist abusing.
In opposition, the federal Labor Party expressed its determination to remove the provision for the Attorney-General to issue certificates and to put it in the hands of the courts or some other arm’s length body. I expect it will pursue that course of action.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .