Alert Digest No. 5 of 1997
22 May 1997

VICTIMS OF CRIME ASSISTANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL

1.1

This Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 14 May 1997 by the Honourable Jan Wade MP pursuant to a motion moved on her behalf by Mr Cooper MP with the Honourable Alan Stockdale MP.

1.2

The purpose of the Bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996.

1.3

Clauses 4 and 5 amend the Act so that the Tribunal must withdraw an application made to it on the request of the applicant prior to the hearing or determination of the application. The amendment enables the Chief Magistrate to delegate this function to the principal registrar, registrars and deputy registrars of the Tribunal. Clause 6 makes procedural amendments in respect of the striking out of claims. It substitutes the words "refuse to accept" for the words "strike out". Clause 7 gives the Tribunal the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of a witness who does not answer a summons to attend the Tribunal. Clause 8 allows for prompt payment for psychiatric treatment and payment for a medical practitioner's report that recommends such psychiatric treatment.

1.4

Clause 9 provides immunity for the performance of duties for the principal registrar, registrars and deputy registrars of the Tribunal. Clause 10 declares the intention of section 63(1A) to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech:-

"Clause 10 of the Bill amends section 71 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 to provide that it is the intention of section 63(1A) to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. I therefore make the following statement under section 85(5) of the Constitution Act 1975 of the reasons for altering or varying that section. Clause 9 of the Bill provides the same protection to the principal registrar, registrars and deputy registrars of the Victims of Crimes Assistance Tribunal from civil action arising from the performance of their duties as are provided to members of the Tribunal. These protections are required to enable the Tribunal to function effectively."

The Committee is of the view that the proposed section 85 provision is appropriate and desirable in all the circumstances.

MELBOURNE CITY LINK (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

2.1 Committee's comment

The Committee reported on the above Bill in Alert Digest No.4 of 1997 on 13 May 1997. The Committee commented as follows:-

"Clause 2 is the commencement provision. The Committee will write to the Minister in relation to the open-ended commencement provision. The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech:-

At this stage the Government has not made a final decision as to whether it will proceed with an extension of Exhibition Street and what role Transurban might take in this project. Whether the project proceeds will depend, among other things, on the satisfactory outcome of negotiations with Transurban and its financiers. These negotiations are dealing with possible integration of the extension with the City Link Project and the commercial, legal and financial implications of such integration. These discussions are continuing. The Bill provides the legislative framework for work to commence immediately if a decision is made to proceed."

2.2 Minister's response

The Minister responded by way of letter dated 16 May 1997. The relevant extract is set out:-

"I refer to your letter of 13 May 1997.

The main reason the Bill does not contain a forced commencement provision is that, as indicated in the Second Reading Speech, a final decision to proceed with the Exhibition Street Extension Project has not yet been taken. Most of the provisions of the Bill will be unnecessary unless that Project proceeds.

A forced commencement provision would also make excisions from parkland reservations which would be unnecessary if the Project is not to proceed. The Bill proposes to revoke parts of the Melbourne and Olympic Park reservations so as to make land available for the Exhibition Street Extension Project.

In particular, clause 6 proposes excisions from both Melbourne and Olympic Parks. Clause 7 contains a further excision from Olympic Park. These excisions will take effect on the date those clauses come into operation.

I trust this satisfactorily explains the issue raised by the Committee"

Committee Room
22 May 1997

Last update 2/8/99 ©Parliament of Victoria