Page 5235 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The rules of evidence are vital in our society when unlawful matters are being heard. Supposedly, people would stand in this Assembly and say that they talk about rights. Others would not have the courage to stand up and say what I know some people think. They would allow this clause to go through and allow the commissioner to not obey the rules of evidence that protect all Australians whenever they go before a court.
MR STEFANIAK (12.55): I will just point out a few things to Mr Stevenson and members.
Mr Berry: Not too many.
MR STEFANIAK: No, not too many. We in the Liberal Party have been very restrained in our comments in relation to this matter, but there are a couple of things we need to say. In relation to this, Mr Stevenson, there are, as Mr Connolly interjected, quite a number of quasi-judicial bodies which, for very good reasons, are not bound by the rules of evidence. They are bound by the rules of natural justice. Even courts, sitting in some circumstances, are not bound by the rules of evidence. The Coroner's Court is a classic case in point, and there are some very good reasons for that.
However, the thrust of this particular piece of legislation - it is similar to a number of other pieces of legislation, even things like the Small Claims Act, for example - is to take the lawyers out, to take the adversarial procedures out too, so that most of these complaints can be resolved without anything further happening. Most of these things can be resolved basically by people sitting around and just trying to be reasonable. I think that is eminently sensible.
There is a provision here in clause 106 for appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if, in fact, anything does go wrong. That is a quite good protection for all of this. There is a further protection there, Mr Stevenson, of an appeal to the Supreme Court if there are further problems with the AAT. Also, if someone is way off beam, there is a provision, and I think it is a very sensible provision, that costs and expenses be awarded for any vexatious complaints. There are protections in the Bill for persons wrongly complained against. That is absolutely essential, and I said that in the in-principle stage in relation to this Bill. I think that is a very sensible provision.
I hear what you have been saying and repeating ad infinitum in relation to this debate. In the in-principle stage I mentioned that I had heard from a number of ethnic people, prior to, I think it was, the Human Rights Office moving from Canberra in 1986, of complaints against that office. If this legislation does not work, Mr Stevenson, if this is as bad and draconian as you say it is, I am sure that the Liberal Party in government in the future will simply repeal it; but it has worked fairly well in other States.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .