Page 1278 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The first amendment removes regulation and licensing for travel agents, a move which is designed to reduce red tape and is in line with national changes led by ministers for fair trading. The rationale is that the modern business model of travel agents has outgrown the existing system, which is now 28 years old. The changes are in line with the national agreement made by fair trading ministers.
This level of deregulation raises a concern about appropriate protections for consumers. I note that consumers will have the ongoing protection of the Australian Consumer Law in relation to the travel industry. While I accept the change, I will put on record that I think it is important to ensure that consumer protections remain adequate. The government should monitor how the industry operates following this deregulation and ensure that the Australian Consumer Law is not too blunt an instrument to provide the necessary protections.
A second amendment will replace a reference to “the” coroner with “a” coroner in the Coroners Act. This removes an unnecessary limitation on the authorising of certificates, which will allow the body of a deceased person to be buried or cremated. It reduces an unnecessary delay which could cause distress to a grieving family. Amendments also remove a requirement that the coroner’s annual report is to be part of the JACS annual report. This actually undoes an earlier amendment which was supposed to make life easier for the Chief Coroner. In practice, apparently it has made it more difficult. The change is now being reversed, and the Chief Coroner will once again produce an individual annual report. I understand that the Chief Coroner has been consulted about both of these amendments and is satisfied.
The amendment to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act clarifies that the DPP can appear for an applicant for a forensic procedure order whether or not the proceeding was initiated by the director. I understand there was some uncertainty in practice, and the amendment clarifies this.
The changes to the Family Provision Act reduce the time in which a family provision claim can be made against a deceased estate from 12 months to six months. The reason is that a claim will mean a delay for distribution of the estate while it is sorted out, which can cause hardship. I agree that this approach balances the rights and interests of the potential claimants and the interests of the estate’s beneficiaries. The change is relatively consistent with the time limits in other jurisdictions. The changes have been requested by the Public Trustee.
The Public Trustee also requested the changes to the Public Trustee Act. The minor amendments ensure that the Public Trustee is able to advance the whole of a trust’s funds to assist a beneficiary in situations other than one ordered by a court. Apparently the Public Trustee has limits in these circumstances; the update will allow it to more appropriately deal with certain intestate estates, which are becoming more common. As the explanatory statement outlines, these include estates with infant children or superannuation trusts with no advancement provisions. The bill also changes the amount of time that creditors have to make a claim against an estate from six months to three months. The concern expressed by the Public Trustee is that the present six-month period is delaying the finalisation of estates and causing distress and financial hardship to estate beneficiaries, particularly if they have been reliant on the deceased for financial support.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video