Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to amend four acts that fall within the justice portfolio. The acts amended in this bill and the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act, the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, the Legal Profession Act, and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act. I will detail the amendments in the order in which they are contained in the bill. The first set of amendments are to the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act. Under the bill, the existing 28 day time limit for bringing an application for adjudication of a payment dispute involving a construction bill has been extended to 90 days. This amendment is proposed following construction industry advice that most businesses work a 30 day invoice cycle. The current 28 day limit means that in effect these businesses have no time to lodge an application for adjudication should a payment dispute arise. The amendment will enable ample time for invoices to be issued as well as giving the parties an opportunity to resolve disputes themselves before lodging a complaint with the Construction Contracts Registrar. The bill also clarifies that applicants who have lodged at application for adjudication on a payment dispute are able to withdraw the application prior to adjudication. In addition, the bill ensures that once an adjudicator is appointed to hear a matter, they are entitled to be paid if the matter is withdrawn prior to determination if they dismiss the application for if they make a determination. Adjudicators often spend many hours preparing to hear disputes which may be resolved by the parties at the last minute. Under such circumstances, it is appropriate they should be paid for their time and effort. The final amendment to the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act will permit adjudicators to make decisions about costs should an application be withdrawn prior to determination. This will address the situation where a party institutes vexatious or frivolous claims against other companies and then withdraws at the last moment. It will also mean that companies who are inconvenienced by the failure of a client to pay a bill and to instigate proceedings need not be held liable for the costs of adjudication if they receive payment immediately prior to the adjudication hearing. I turn to the second set of amendments in this bill, which are to the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. The amendments have also come about as the result of feedback from stakeholders, this time from police and prosecutors who regularly bring proceedings under the act. The bill amends the scheme so that Interim Restraining Orders will operate for three working days. These types of orders are normally obtained by police in extraordinary circumstances where property suspected of being derived from criminal activity is at risk of being disposed of prior to proceedings being formally commenced in a court. The difficulty arises when police seek these and the date of expiration falls on a weekend or a public holiday. Interim Restraining Orders cannot be extended by amending the act to allow interim restraining orders to run over a period of working days. Police can now apply for such an order knowing that it will not expire over a period such as Easter or Christmas or when the courts are not sitting. The second amendment to the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act removes the three-month time limit for the operation of court-issued Restraining Orders. Those working in the field indicated that the task of serving Restraining Order notices often consumed disproportionate time and resources, particularly when the property and potential owners span several jurisdictions. By the time all interested parties are located and served with the notice of Restraining Order, the three month period had virtually expired and prosecutors have to start the process all over again. This is not an efficient use of resources which could be better spend examining claims to lawful ownership of property and challenging those who are unable to justify the existence or ownership of property in the courts. The proposed amendment will lift the time limit for the operation of a Restraining Order. It will be a matter for the court to determine how long a Restraining Order or an extension of a Restraining Order shall operate. It should be noted, however, that the amendment will not interfere in any way with the right to apply to the court to have an order lifted. Where a person is capable of establishing lawful ownership of property, the amendment will not affect their access to the courts. Madam Speaker, the third act to which amendments are proposed under this bill is the Legal Profession Act. A set of technical amendments is proposed to ease the transition to the new act when the costs assessment provisions commence in December of this year. Costs assessments relate to the cost of legal services in any disputes that may arise in relation to them. The new provisions enable specially appointed costs assessors to determine whether the amount of legal costs paid is appropriate or to impose an amount of costs that is a fair and reasonable substitute. If a particular legal issues arises in addition to the question of costs, the costs assessor may refer the matter to the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the costs assessor may issue a certificate stating exactly how much each party is liable to pay. If the parties remain dissatisfied with the decision of the costs assessor, they may apply to have the decision reviewed in relation to a determination, setting aside any initial costs agreement, the certification specifying the particular determination of a costs assessor, or for a certificate specifying the costs each party mush pay for the costs assessment. The bill also clarifies that any suitable lawyer may be appointed as the costs assessor. This ensures that the Supreme Court Masters and Judicial Registrars are included. The current provision states that a costs assessor must be a legal practitioner. This carries a requirement the lawyer holds a valid practising certificate. This is not something required by Masters and Registrars and so preclude them from engaging in this important task. The final act to be amended by the bill is the Victims of Crime Assistance Act. This is also a technical amendment which clarifies that bodies corporate, as well as individuals found guilty of criminal offences are liable to pay a victims’ levy if their sentence is not one of imprisonment. Corporate bodies are regularly prosecuted for breaches of environmental laws, road safety laws and work health and safety provisions. A penalty imposed on a corporate body is usually a monetary penalty. Government considers that corporations which commit crimes should not be exempt from paying a victims’ levy, particularly since the offending behaviour often has serious ramifications for community. The amendment ensures that those corporations, no matter how big or small, who engage in criminal activity will be liable to pay, not only whatever monetary penalty the court sees fit to impose, but also a levy, which is then used to provide much needed assistance to victims of crime. The amount of the victims’ levy to be imposed on corporations under the amendment is in line with general policy on the proportion of corporate fines and comparison with individual limits. I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement. Debate adjourned. |