Page 2010 - Week 07 - Thursday, 13 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that wording can be quite confusing and clunky and may not add to the application of the legislation.
The scrutiny committee raised some concerns with the legislation. They noted that by drawing a distinction based on age and other attributes of a person, the offences in question may limit the right to equality before law protected by section 8 of the Human Rights Act.
While I recognise the concerns surrounding the limit on the age of a vulnerable person, I am supportive of the age threshold of 60. Sixty is the age at which most Canberrans are characterised as a senior, although in some cases it is even 55 or 55-plus. We know—and this is exactly what this legislation is getting at—that as a senior you may be more susceptible to abuse, whether by a carer, a friend or a family member.
Another concern raised was that in a case where a carer at an institution was charged with one of these offences, the defendant may not be able to prove that they were complying with the institution’s procedures and practices or at the direction of a person in authority. I acknowledge that the Attorney-General has now provided further information explaining that, in circumstances where an institution and an individual employed as a carer are charged with an offence, several defences relating to the employee acting in accordance with the employer’s directions or procedures will be available solely to the individual and not the institution. There are also concerns about how a defendant may be able to prove that they were in compliance with an institution’s procedures.
Having outlined those concerns as raised by others, I reiterate that, as shadow minister for seniors, protecting senior Canberrans is my main priority. That is why we are supporting this bill today.
The scrutiny committee also raised concerns regarding the ambiguity and point of difference between terms such as “person in authority in an institution” and “person associated with the institution”. The term “in authority” was not defined in the legislation. I understand that certain considerations are likely to be made, given an individual’s circumstances, to define whether they were in authority and to what degree. However, this is another example of somewhat confusing language in the legislation.
Similarly, the scrutiny committee was unclear about whether it is sufficient that a carer is required to provide a necessity of life as part of the arrangements under which they provide care or whether it is even possible for a carer to provide the necessity due to their ability to control that aspect of the care provided. The Attorney-General has provided a response to this, saying that section 36C(2) is not intended to render a person liable for providing only some of the necessities of life. I hope that this poor wording will not lead to unintended consequences.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the amendments put forward by the government—in particular, moving forward the review process to 12 months after commencement, as opposed to two years. This is important legislation. There is some confusing language and some clunky wording and phrases. I hope that the review will identify whether
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video