Chauvel Charles: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1891. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am going to take a short call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill to respond to what the Minister of Justice has just told the House. The first thing that it is important to say is that the substantive legislation responded to at least a perceived need at the time. But clearly it was an experimental piece of legislation and if the House needs any evidence for that in addition to the speeches that were given at the time concerning what is now the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act then it simply needs to look at the fact that a sunset clause was applied to that legislation. Clearly the House’s intention was that there would be a review of whether or not the substantive Act had merit and whether or not it was required to continue past the date of the sunset clause either in full or with modification based on experience with the legislation. 
 Well it is instructive to look at experience with the legislation. There is a special procedure set out under the Act for victims’ claims in the particular context that this Act deals with. In response to a written question from me the Minister’s office has indicated that that procedure has been invoked precisely one time—on one occasion since the Act came into force. So it has to be said that the case for the Act has proved to be despite the apparent need at the time for some sort of measure somewhat questionable.  
I have some sympathy for the position that the Minister is in. Clearly because there was a sunset clause expressed in the principal Act it was intended that there should be a review of the Act prior to us getting anywhere near the date that the sunset clause would be triggered but no review was commissioned by the Government. And I think that I do not need to say anything about what that says about the record of the Minister’s predecessor and his conduct of the portfolio—we are where we are. The review was not commenced and now the sunset clause is about to take effect.  
So the question is what ought Parliament to do. There are a couple of alternatives. We could allow the Act to expire and review the situation to which it applies consider whether or not special legislation is required and apply it or simply allow the Act to fall into abeyance. Or we could do what the Minister proposes which is to extend the existing legislation for a period of time and allow the review that should have been commissioned a good year or so ago to now occur.  
The Minister has consulted me. She has given me some assurances in writing about the short period of time for which there will be an extension of the legislation. And I have said to her that I agree that the position is such that we ought to allow the legislation to remain in force for a short period of time—that is another year—and during the course of that year we ought to conduct the review that should have been conducted. That is what I propose. Certainly members on this side of the House will support that as a course of action.  
I am concerned that the Minister feels that it is necessary for this particular piece of procedural legislation to be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for a very very short period of time and for leave to be sought from the House for the committee to meet at all times except during question time. The committee is capable I think of managing its own business without that sort of leave from the House. I see that the chair of the committee is here and I will be interested in his views later in the debate.  
But given that at least the principal Opposition party has signalled to the Government that we will cooperate in respect of this matter those sorts of expediting resolutions which as we know can be applied in a heavy-handed way and circumvent the freedom of our committee system to conduct itself in the way that it should are undesirable. I am disappointed that although the Minister was prepared to consult about a number of issues she did not see fit to disclose that it was her intention to have the committee directed by the House in the way that she has.  
So that is really all I want to say about this legislation. There needs to be a review. That was always the intention of the original Act. It is an indictment on the Government that notwithstanding it has been in office for over 3 years the review was not conducted. But it does need to happen now and we will facilitate participation in that review. We think it is an important exercise and we think that it is important to listen to all sides of the debate as to the question of what ought to if anything replace the prisoners’ and victims’ claims legislation. Thank you.