Page 4992 - Week 13 - Thursday, 12 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that are missed during initial amendments. Amendment bills such as this are a chance to make sure all cross-references continue to be accurate. It may seem minor, but a consistent statute book is something to be valued, and the Greens support those provisions of the bill.
Other aspects of the bill show greater analysis and a proactive approach to improving the statute book. A good example I will mention is the amendment suggested by the Office of Regulatory Services to the Agents Act. The current operation of the act requires all real estate agents to operate a trust account, regardless of whether they are actually receiving trust money from clients. The amendment allows for a waiver from the requirement for a real estate agent to operate a trust account when they are not receiving or holding trust money.
The requirement to operate a trust account is vital to protecting the rights of consumers who provide real estate agents with advance finance. The money is provided on trust, and the most appropriate way to track and monitor that money is, of course, through a trust account. However, should the real estate agent not receive or not hold trust moneys, for whatever reason, the compliance activity is unwarranted. This amendment is a good example of the forward-looking way that government can reduce compliance costs without undermining overall policy objectives.
The vast majority of amendments are similar proactive refinements that better achieve the original policy objectives, and I support them on that basis. There are, however, two specific amendments that I believe do not so clearly follow the original policy objective. I raise them here as an invitation for the Attorney-General to provide some further information and clarification. I believe that, in both cases, divergence from the original policy objection is slight but important enough to raise and seek clarification on.
Firstly, I refer to the amendment to the Court Procedures Act. The issues I will raise have also been raised in scrutiny report No 14. The amendment will broaden the scope of screening and search requirements at court premises. Where previously a security officer had to be satisfied that such a search was necessary on an individual-by-individual basis, the amendment will allow far more general application of screening and search requirements. This goes against the original intent of the section stated in the original explanatory statement. There it was said that the screening and search powers were “not to be used in relation to all persons who are on court premises” or all proceedings taking place in court.
This proposed amendment represents more of a change in policy than is indicated in the explanatory statement. This may be a necessary change in policy, but we need the supporting reasoning from the Attorney-General. The scrutiny report suggests that this could be achieved by the Attorney-General making available the fuller reasoning underlying the human rights compatibility statement. I would support that action by the attorney.
The second issue I wanted to touch on is the changes made to the referral process from ACAT to the Supreme Court. In the explanatory statement these are said to improve and clarify the existing procedure. I am not so sure that it is as simple as
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video