Shambolic hung parliament defeats bill

A shambolic week in the Legislative Assembly led to the defeat of the Napthine Government’s Jury Directions Bill. The chaos began on Tuesday, when independent MP Geoff Shaw missed a vote. With the chamber hung at 42-42,  the Speaker, Christine Fyffe, used her casting vote to support the Government. The Opposition claimed  this was in breach of a parliamentary convention that the independent speaker should vote for the status quo, and its six acting speakers resigned in protest. The Speaker’s vote passed the government business program, which set a deadline for debate of 4pm on Thursday. The lack of time to debate the Jury Directions Bill prompted Labor to vote against it, and Geoff Shaw voted with them: “It goes against what Parliament stands for, which is a discussion and a debate of legislation. This bill was not afforded that opportunity. And therefore I did not vote in favour of it.” The Government blamed the lack of time on the Opposition filibustering during the week.

Controversial “baseline” sentencing bill introduced

The Sentencing Amendment (Baseline Sentences) Bill 2014 has been introduced to the Victorian parliament, with the aim of increasing penalties for certain crimes. The legislation sets out an intended median prison term for an offence, and requires judges to “act compatibly” with that intention—without setting out a process to follow. Senior judges responding to a draft version of the bill told the government it was “unworkable”. The introduction of baseline sentencing was an election commitment made by the Coalition in 2010, which has been controversial. The incoming government sought the Sentencing Advisory Council’s advice on implementation, but its report observed: “The Attorney-General has not asked the Council for advice on the merits of a baseline sentencing scheme or whether a baseline sentencing scheme should be introduced. The majority of stakeholders expressed strong opposition to a baseline sentencing scheme.” The Law Institute of Victoria says the bill would “unduly limit judicial discretion, over-complicate the sentencing process and, ultimately, fail to act as a deterrent.”

Queensland restores gendered language to law

Throughout the Crime and Misconduct and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Qld), the Queensland government has included amendments what would omit the word “chairperson” and replace it with “chairman”. James Cook University lecturer Kate Galloway argues that although this has no legal effect, it is nevertheless “not only a retrograde step, but an indefensible one.” She argues: “There is certainly no harm in retaining the existing ‘chairperson’. The proposed change reinforces masculine norms that form an implicit barrier to women in achieving leadership roles within the law, and a precedent for wider use of masculine language as a means of excluding and potentially discriminating against women through the law.”

VCAT losers will soon pay winners’ fees

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill 2014 was passed by parliament this week. It will allow VCAT to order the losing side to pay the fees of the winner (but not their full legal costs). The Tenants Union is concerned that this will “cause further harm to a frequently economically disadvantaged section of our community”. On the other hand, the Consumer Law Action Centre says the impact of last year’s fee increases may be reduced, because winners could now have their fees reimbursed. A proposed amendment to require VCAT to specifically consider “financial hardship” before making a fees order was defeated.

Mounting complaints about Speaker’s bias

Question Time today was interrupted for an unusual procedural matter: “For the first time since 1949, an opposition was trying to move a motion of no confidence in the Speaker of the House of Representatives.” As the MP charged with ensuring that parliamentary debates and votes run fairly and smoothly, the Westminster system requires the Speaker to carry out her functions impartially. Shortly after Bronwyn Bishop’s appointment last year, Dr Paul Williams expressed concerns: “her decision to reject the tradition of Speakers staying clear of party room meetings where parliamentary tactics are discussed [means] Bishop will now be privy to Coalition attack plans.” Last week, Professor Peter van Onselen complained that “she has gotten worse”: “Bishop throws Labor MPs out of the chamber with gay abandon. … She enters the partisan debate, throwing quips and smirks into the equation in a way that should be beneath the Speaker.” However, the Opposition’s motion was doomed to failure due to the balance of power in the chamber.

New laws to prevent child abuse cover-ups

The Napthine Government has introduced a bill to create new criminal offences to ensure that organisations protect children from abuse, remove known child abusers, and report suspected abuse to authorities. The Premier said, “This sends a clear, unambiguous message to the Victorian community: if you are aware of child sexual abuse you must speak up, you must report it to the police. The era of cover-up and silence is over.” The proposals are a response to the report of a parliamentary inquiry, which recommended changes to the criminal law. The Crimes Amendment (Protection of Children) Bill 2014 was read for the first time on Tuesday.

Double dissolution trigger “just in case”

The Abbott Government is setting up a double dissolution “trigger” by putting the same climate change-related bill before the Senate more than three months after a previous rejection. Section 57 of the Constitution allows the government to request an election to overcome a deadlock between the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, the Australian Financial Review reported that a “senior source” within the government said the trigger was there “just in case”, and “[i]t’s not our intention to use it”. Professor Anne Twomey said the government would be reluctant to call a double dissolution election because “it would be likely to make it even harder for the Coalition to negotiate bills through the Senate. Because 12 Senators would be elected in a State, rather than six, the quota for winning a seat would be lower… [T]he likely outcome of a double dissolution in the next 6 months would be to increase the number of cross-benchers holding the balance of power in the Senate”.

Improved sex education would reduce sex offences

Gender experts argue that the current “risk-focused approach” to sex education, “teaching only about preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease”, is leaving young people unprepared for issues that arise in their relationships. Professor Catharine Lumby says, “Our sex education needs to teach the ‘no means no’ message, but we also need to teach what does ‘yes mean yes’ look like? And how do you know when you want to say yes?” The experts are calling for a new approach, which would “include lessons on sexual assault, consent and ‘sexting’ in a bid to address rising rates of violence against women”.  The Victorian government is preparing new laws to address the increasing prevalence of teenage sexting, which is currently treated as child pornography. It is also reviewing the element of consent in sexual offences such as rape, due to concerns that the law is “highly complex and difficult to explain to juries”.

One week to consider 50,000 pages of laws

The Abbott Government yesterday tabled regulations and introduced bills to the House of Representatives to “repeal  more than 10,000 pieces and more than 50,000 pages of legislation and regulations”. Political commentator Lenore Taylor has questioned the government’s approach: “regulations dubbed ‘red tape’ can be useless or outdated rules worthy of extermination, or really important rules that people want and demand… By all means do a legislative stocktake and toss out the unnecessary ones. But please make sure they really are unnecessary.” While many of the changes will fix grammatical errors and update drafting style (replacing “facsmile transmission” with “fax”) or repeal obsolete laws (like rules for the Snowy Mountains Scheme that finished in 1974), other changes are more significant. Victims of financial collapses have urged the government to keep rules designed to protect them; fifty-four charities wrote an open letter asking for the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission to be retained. MPs will have just one week to review the 50,000 pages of proposed changes before a vote.

Ethnic leaders oppose weaker anti-racism law

The only Indigenous MP in the federal government’s caucus has threatened to cross the floor if Attorney-General George Brandis’s plan to water down anti-racism laws goes too far. He joins representatives of the Indigenous, Greek, Jewish, Chinese, Arab, Armenian and Korean communities, who said the proposals were “morally repugnant”. The government’s move is in response to a Federal Court finding that Andrew Bolt breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). In a series of articles, Bolt questioned whether “fair-skinned Aboriginal people … are sufficiently of Aboriginal race, colour or ethnicity to be identifying as Aboriginal”, and this “offend[ed], insult[ed], intidimidate[d] or humiliate[d]” Aboriginal people. He could not rely on the “free speech” defence in section 18D because his reports were “erroneous”, “mocking and derisive”, and were therefore not published “reasonably and in good faith”. Press reports suggest the government is proposing to amend both sections 18C and 18D. The Australian Human Rights Commission has published an explanation of how the laws currently work, with case examples.