Page 3503 - Week 08 - Thursday, 18 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But there was another element of this very tragic case that has caused considerable concern for the victims of that crime. Currently the act to be amended provides that the primary victims of criminal injury arising from the use of a motor vehicle and related victims of deceased victims of such crimes are not entitled to any financial assistance under the victims of crime program. Currently the families of those killed in the accident I cited have no entitlement to financial assistance under the scheme.
This amendment will remove criminal injury or death arising from culpable driving offences from that exclusion. It also makes the changes retrospective to 29 July 2008, on the basis of a policy intention at that time which was given effect in the JACS Bill 2008 (No 2). This is a good outcome for the people concerned and for those who have suffered as a result of a tragic incident like the one that I mentioned earlier. It may even assist those victims directly, due to the retrospectivity of this amendment.
Finally, this bill makes a simple amendment to four acts to reflect the change of name of the National Institute of Accountants to the Institute of Public Accountants.
The amendments proposed by this bill are sensible and in some cases deliver better justice for people in our community. Some of them are a bit late in coming, but that seems to be par for the course for this government. Notwithstanding that, we will be supporting this bill.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.22): The Greens will be supporting this bill. It makes mechanical amendments to the law which are important but which are non-controversial and do not introduce substantive policy.
I would like to make mention of two particular aspects of the bill. Firstly, I would like to discuss human rights compatibility—not because I think that any parts of the bill interfere with human rights but because this is the first time the Assembly will debate a bill that was tabled after the June 2011 cabinet meeting. At that cabinet meeting it was decided, and I quote from the published summary, that “compatibility with the Human Rights Act 2001 must be addressed in the explanatory statement for every bill presented in the Legislative Assembly”. As members will be aware, some explanatory statements do not adequately discuss human rights issues and this draws comment from the scrutiny of bills committee and members themselves.
For this reason I am pleased there has been a decision by cabinet that human rights compatibility must be addressed in each explanatory statement. We are a human rights jurisdiction and that is something to be proud of. One of the concrete and measurable ways in which we see that in operation is here in the Assembly when the attorney is required to sign a compatibility statement asserting his belief that the bill is compliant with human rights.
That statement is a two-line pro forma and it is the reasoning behind the conclusion that is most important. I think the explanatory statement that accompanies the bill is of a good standard because it assesses each change and determines whether or not it affects any human rights. A statement has been made against each amendment that it does not affect human rights. And I agree with the conclusions that the bill does not interfere with any human rights.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video