Motions

Prescribed Scale of Costs

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (16:00): I move:

That the regulations under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1978 concerning Prescribed Scale of Costs, made on 11 August 2016 and laid on the table of this council on 20 September 2016, be disallowed.

I speak to this motion partly in my capacity as Acting Presiding Member of the Legislative Review Committee. The committee had regard to these regulations and noted that the consolidation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Regulations 2002 that was relied upon to prepare the regulations was not a correct consolidation. As a result, the regulations do not operate as intended.

I note that the Attorney-General in a letter to the Presiding Member of the Legislative Review Committee, dated 16 October 2016, has indicated his support for the disallowance of the regulations. I read his letter, addressed to the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, into Hansard:

I understand that the Legislative Review Committee is currently considering the following regulations, which relate to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Regulations 2002 ('CIC Regulations'):

the Criminal Injuries Compensation Variation Regulations 2016 (No 191 of 2016), which were made on 11 August 2016 ('CIC Variation Regulations No 191'); and

the Criminal Injuries (Scale of Costs) Variation Regulations 2016 (No 224 of 2016), which were made on 8 September 2016 ('CIC Variation Regulations No 224').

As noted in the Report to the Legislative Review Committee in relation to the CIC Variation Regulations No 224, the consolidation of the CIC Regulations that was relied upon to prepare the CIC Variation Regulations No 191 was not the correct consolidation. The result is that the CIC Variation Regulations No 191 did not have the policy outcome that was intended, namely to increase fees payable to lawyers in relation to victims of crime matters under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1978.

To address this issue, the CIC Variation Regulations No 224 were prepared. The CIC Variation Regulations No 191 had purported to make amendments to the schedule in the CIC Regulations. The CIC Variation Regulations No 224 deleted and substituted that schedule.

I understand that there is potential for some ambiguity in relation to the transitional provision in the CIC Regulations having regard to the CIC Variation Regulations No 191. For this reason, and given that the Regulations did not achieve the policy outcome that was intended, I would support the disallowance of the CIC Variation Regulations No 191.

Motion carried.