Page 309 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Now if, as we hope, Mr Speaker, the bill is passed by the Assembly shortly, it is the intention of the department to prepare a standard form to be used for requests for information. That form will include the warning required by section 338 of the Criminal Code. This will ensure that applicants are put on notice that they run the risk of prosecution if their application for information is not genuine.
I was pleased to note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, in its scrutiny report No 18, agreed that no issue of incompatibility arose with the Human Rights Act 2004. The committee, in quoting the explanatory statement, acknowledged that the bill was meeting a legitimate purpose and that the safeguards included were appropriate. We thank the committee for its favourable comment. Mr Speaker, in summary, I believe that the new section 55A will greatly assist victims of dog attacks when they seek to exercise their statutory right to compensation.
I now turn to the second concern of the registrar, which is ensuring the safety of Domestic Animal Services officers and families. Section 124 is proposed to be amended to remove the requirement for names to be included on identity cards. In place of their names, a unique identifying number will be inserted. It is unfortunate that today we have to take measures such as this one to protect public servants when they are performing their duties.
The Registrar of Domestic Animal Services has been raising serious concerns about threats that have been made against officers and their children over a number of years. After two incidents went to court in the last 12 months, the government felt it was time to protect our officers by taking this important step. I should emphasise that officers will still be obliged to give their names for the purpose of making formal statements and giving evidence in court.
The ACT Law Society raised this concern during development of the bill: officers’ names were still to be provided for statements of evidence. It was never, though, the government’s intention to remove the fundamental requirement of a person knowing their accuser. The government is satisfied that the criminal justice system provides sufficient protection for witnesses in judicial proceedings.
The bill also takes the opportunity for some housekeeping. Consistent with current drafting practice, the phrase “authorised person” will be replaced by “authorised officer” in the act and in subordinate legislation. As the act also gives powers to police officers, some of the amendments have replaced “officer” with “police officer” where that phrase is appropriate.
These technical amendments also include a transitional arrangement to ensure that existing authorised officers will be treated as authorised people for the purposes of the act. With that, Mr Speaker, I thank members for their support of the bill and look forward to its successful passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video