Page 5851 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clauses, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR PROWSE (10.14): I move:
Clause 19, page 9, line 13, after "decision", insert "within a period not exceeding 30 days".
The most common area in which requests are made for review of decisions is in cases of invalidity. In these cases it is most likely that very costly medical fees have been incurred and that severe hardship has been encountered by the member and the member's family. Therefore, in this time, it is essential that there be a timely - in fact, a speedy - reply by the board to any request for a review.
It is understood that in some circumstances a final review may not be possible because of the time required for a lengthy medical review, et cetera. However, we are asking that a reconsideration of a decision be addressed within 30 days. I do not see that that is at all unreasonable. In most cases the board would get on with the job as quickly as possible. Board members, in their day-to-day activities, will be very busy. It is essential to bring to their attention that they have a responsibility to quickly get back to the member asking for a review in a time of possible severe stress and severe financial difficulty. I think it would be most appropriate for the board to be given a little bit of a hurry-up to get back to the member and give some indication of the likelihood of a review succeeding or whatever. I propose that members accept my amendment.
MR COLLAERY (10.16): I hope members understand what Mr Prowse is seeking to achieve. You cannot force the board to make a decision.
Mr Prowse: But I am not asking them to take a decision; I am asking them to notify.
MR COLLAERY: You are simply wanting the board to come up with something within 30 days, but really this requires some further drafting to make the failure to make a decision a decision. I think Mr Connolly and Mr Stefaniak know what I mean. I think what is being proposed will need attention in the future. Mr Prowse's amendment is nothing more than an enjoinder. I do not say that with disrespect to Mr Prowse. You cannot force a board to make a decision. I believe, sadly, that we will need to relook at this proposed section at some future time.
Other implications of making decisions reviewable are just occurring to me. Third parties can seek to intervene if a member appeals a matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and we as parliamentarians become compellable before the tribunal. They are issues that escaped me until tonight.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .