A parliamentary committee has released its report on the Future of Victoria’s Electoral Administration, including a recommendation to adopt optional preferential voting for Legislative Assembly elections. Under full preferential voting, people must number every box on the ballot paper. Under an optional preferential system, voters would have to indicate their first choice, and then choose how many further preferences to allocate. The ABC’s electoral analyst, Antony Green, suggests the proposal might be driven by politics, as it would advantage the Liberal party. Although the recommendation was included in the final report, it was only supported by the two Liberal MPs on the committee. The three Labor and National MPs submitted minority reports rejecting the plan.
Productivity Commission draft report on access to justice
The Productivity Commission has released its draft report on access to justice in the civil jurisdiction, and will now seek public feedback. The PC provides advice to the Commonwealth on economic issues. The terms of reference for its inquiry focus on the financial and social costs of the justice system, and possible reforms to improve efficiency and accessibility. For example, “The report heavily criticises time-based billing by lawyers, arguing that it leads to over-servicing, rewards inefficiency and lacks certainty for clients.” One of its more unusual proposals is for “a legal expenses loan scheme which would offer income-contingent interest-free loans to people who do not qualify for public legal assistance. The person would repay the loan through contributions of a proportion of their income, or from any award of damages.”
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.”
High Court recognises gender diversity
In a landmark ruling, the High Court upheld Norrie’s right to have hir sex recorded as “non-specific” in the NSW Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The opening line of the unanimous judgment rejected the idea that gender is binary: “Not all human beings can be classified by sex as either male or female.” Simon Rutherford of A Gender Agenda, which appeared in the case as amicus curiae, said, “This a fantastic decision for gender diverse and intersex people, who simply want to be recognised for who they are.” The case was based on interpretation of NSW legislation, so it will not be directly applicable elsewhere, but it is an important step in a trend towards “bring[ing] the law into line with social understandings of sex and gender diversity.”
Bans reduce passive smoking harm to children
New medical research based on the records of more than 2 million children shows that restrictions on smoking caused “rates of preterm births and hospital treatment for childhood asthma each [to fall] by more than 10 per cent”. Since 2006, all Australian jurisdictions have introduced bans designed to reduce the risk of passive smoking. The Tobacco Amendment Act 2013 (Vic) extended the ban to swimming pools, playgrounds, skate parks and children’s sporting events. The Transport Regulations were also amended to prevent smoking at bus shelters, train stations and platform tram stops.
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.
When can a killer inherit from the victim?
The Victorian Law Reform Commission has launched its inquiry into the “forfeiture rule”, following a reference from the Attorney-General. When a person unlawfully causes another person’s death, this common law principle says they forfeit any inheritance, insurance policy, or payment that they would otherwise have received. The VLRC explains the concern about the rule: “In Victoria, the rule applies equally and inflexibly in all circumstances but the outcome can be harsh. Both a premeditated murder carried out with the intention of obtaining a financial benefit, and a suicide pact in which one of the parties survived, would attract the application of the rule.” In addition, because the rule applies in civil proceedings, “The rule may be applied to a person who has been acquitted, or has not been prosecuted at all, if it is proved to the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the person unlawfully killed the deceased.” VLRC has set up a forfeiture quiz to highlight problematic scenarios.
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.
Council’s consultation over cat curfew causes concern
A group of Yarra Ranges residents has organised a petition opposing the council’s new “cat curfew”, which requires owners to keep their cats confined to the owner’s property at all times. The council advertised the proposed changes in local newspapers and online, and gauged support through a web poll, but cat owners say they weren’t consulted. “Good luck with the 24-hour cat prison,” one resident wrote. “How about I lock up your children in my laundry all day?” The council says the curfew is intended to protect native wildlife in the area.