Courts Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2006
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I comment on the Courts Legislation Further Amendment Bill. The object of this bill is to make a number of miscellaneous amendments to courts-related legislation. This bill makes some amendments to legislation relating to the courts as part of the Attorney General’s regular legislative review and monitoring program. These amendments are minor but important in nature and essentially tighten aspects of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. Amendments to the Drug Court Act 1998 extend the scope or reach of the Act to a larger number of offenders. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans said that was good, and the Christian Democratic Party encourages and supports it. I will mention some of the more salient reforms.
In relation to the Civil Procedure Act 2005, the bill removes an exemption that currently exists in favour of the Crown in relation to the payment of fees for services provided by the Sheriff. The exemption in relation to payment of filing fees was unintentionally extended to fees charged by the Sheriff for serving process and executing writs and warrants. However, the amendment will now allow the Sheriff to recover costs for services provided to the Crown. Amendments are also made to reinstate the court’s discretion to direct the payment of money recovered on behalf of a person under a legal incapacity to a person other than the Public Trustee in relation to a minor, or a manager in relation to a protected person. It may be appropriate for the court to direct payments to another person, for example, a parent, to cover certain medical expenses. These amendments will allow parties to receive their compensation sooner rather than later. This is an important development, as persons entitled to compensation in these scenarios are often frustrated by the amount of red tape involved when seeking to obtain their rightful compensation.
The bill will also clarify that the scheme of interim payments under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 does not apply to damages under part 6 of the Motor Accidents Act 1988. The Motor Accidents Act 1988 contains separate arrangements for interim payments once liability is admitted, thereby removing any possible ambiguity. Under the bill, the court will be able to issue an arrest warrant in reliance of provisions under Commonwealth or interstate legislation. As indicated by the second reading speech, “there are occasions when the court may wish to issue an arrest warrant in reliance of Commonwealth legislation”. As is often the case, Federal legislation applies to local scenarios, for example, Corporations Law and terrorist legislation. The proposed provisions will remove any doubt that the court may rely on Commonwealth law for the purposes of issuing an arrest warrant.
As mentioned by my colleague the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, the bill amends the Drug Court Act 1998 with respect to eligibility for the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre. Most importantly, in order to qualify for treatment by this centre, this bill will reduce the number of requisite prior convictions in the past five years from three to two. It could be said that if a person has been convicted twice in the past of drug-related offences it is sufficient reason for them to receive treatment by the centre.
The bill will enable offenders with an unexpired non-parole period of 18 months at the time of sentence to access the Drug Court program. Further, amendments will be made to remove automatic exclusion of offenders who have a conviction that involves serious violence, and instead will require the Drug Court to pay attention to the offender’s history of violence when assessing the offender’s suitability for the program. Finally, the bill amends the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to allow the court to join third parties to appeals against a consent authority’s decision to modify a development consent. I commend the bill to the House.