Page 2642 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
comments to make on this bill, and if at the end of my remarks he is not here I shall take the liberty of imparting Mr Smyth’s comments on these two issues as well, because I understand that he is held up with budget deliberations at the moment.
In relation to burning off, approval for permits will be required under each law. At first glance this may be seen as an increase in red tape, and to some extent it is. But the risk associated with burning off far outweighs the small inconveniences of having to satisfy the requirements of both acts.
The second aspect of this bill relates to amending the Victims of Crime Act 1994. This is a relatively minor amendment that excuses from the scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety appointments to the victims of crime board of judicial officers and representatives of the Australian Federal Police. This already applies to appointments of public servants to the board.
I have some residual concerns about this approach, because judicial officers are, as it were, one step removed from the public service. Representatives of the AFP are perhaps even further removed by virtue of the fact that the services of the AFP are contracted to the ACT government. I hasten to add that this does not diminish in any way the integrity or credibility of judicial officers or the AFP. It is simply to point out that public servants have already gone through a process within government and more easily qualify for government board appointments.
Judicial officers, on the other hand, are the embodiment of the separation of powers and, whilst their eminence and experience are highly valued on boards such as the victims of crime board, it may be more appropriate for their appointments to be subject to a process different from that applying to public servants. Similarly, representatives of the AFP perhaps should go through such a process—possibly even more so than for judicial officers, given the contractual relationship between the AFP and the ACT government.
Unlike as applies to public servants and judicial officers, the government has had little to say on who the AFP engages in its workforce. It is possible that a more rigorous process of appointment to the victims of crime board is appropriate. Nonetheless, I understand that the approach that this amendment contemplates is not unusual and has worked reasonably well in the past, so we are willing to support it, with the caveats that I have outlined. I continue to be grateful for the work that the JACS directorate do in identifying and adjusting these minor issues, and we support the bill.
I will rely on Mr Smyth’s notes to make specific comments about the matters raised in this bill in relation to the Emergencies Act and the Environment Protection Act. Mr Smyth did receive a briefing on this bill on 28 May and it was useful in contemplating the issues that arose in the bill.
The opposition will be supporting the bill, even though at one stage Mr Smyth did contemplate moving an amendment to oppose parts 1 and 3 of the bill. The reasons for the proposed amendment related to a critical question that Mr Smyth asked in a briefing: in the event of the ESA commissioner and the delegate to the EPA disagreeing about the proposed fuel reduction burn during bushfire season, how was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video