Page 1016 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 May 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Rattenbury just said, that the committee may authorise that a meeting be held using a method of communication or a combination of methods of communication that allows a member taking part to hear or otherwise know what each other member taking part says without the members being in each other’s presence. This is an important change in the days of social distancing.
I am aware that many clubs and associations have been seeking clarity, and this approach provides a practical way forward. I am also aware that some organisations, such as strata management companies, have already made public statements in support of these changes. As a practical solution to the current restrictions, we support this change.
The next changes are those to the courts or the criminal justice system, which allow for those areas to operate in a socially distant environment. These changes include to the Bail Act 1992, which will allow that an undertaking may be taken in writing or given before the court, and to the Crimes Act 1900, which will allow for information on oath to be given by an electronic version or affidavit. There are similar changes, for example, to the Drugs of Dependence Act, In general, we support these types of changes, especially noting that they are all time limited.
There are slightly more complex matters, such as those in the Court Procedures Act 2004. The court may adjourn a proceeding for a period longer than 15 days if the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances. I know this raised some questions, including from my colleague Mrs Kikkert. In our briefings from Mr Ramsay’s office we were informed that these were requested because staff have found they cannot physically get all the material together for hearings within the normal 15 days during COVID-19 restrictions, and we accept that reasoning.
It is similar with the Public Trustee and Guardian Act 1983, in that it raises slightly more complex issues. Currently, the public trustee and guardian may only delegate the function of acting as a guardian or manager when appointed by the ACAT or applying to the ACAT for an appointment of a person as a guardian or manager. This will be replaced with a clause that allows the public trustee and guardian to delegate the following functions: making a decision in relation to medical treatment involving treatment, care or support under the Mental Health Act 2015; buying, selling, realising or mortgaging real property, or granting a lease of real property; or borrowing money, with or without security.
At first this appears to give the public trustee substantially more delegated powers. This was confirmed in the briefing from the A-G’s office. However, we were also advised that this followed a request from the public trustee to meet the increased calls on their services. In their words, there will just not be enough people to do everything needed otherwise. It is worth noting that other jurisdictions have similar delegations for the same reasons. In the circumstances, we support this change.
The last area worth noting is one that has crossover with an important, ongoing policy challenge. The change to the Human Rights Commission Act 2005 inserts provisions that relate to vulnerable persons .The change will allow a person to apply to the commission when a person believes on reasonable grounds that the vulnerable person
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video