Page 3337 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 12 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, the Government was concerned to put into place a mechanism that provided for the operations of the Land Act and was seen to be accessible to members of the community; a mechanism that would quickly, informally, and in a cost-effective way, resolve what are, in the main, disputes between neighbours - disputes which should not be resolved by an adversarial process.
The concerns about informality are addressed in a number of ways: An oath or affirmation will not have to be made before giving evidence to the board. This is not to say that the board does not seek the truth, as there are severe penalties for persons who are found to have given false or misleading information. Further, the legislation will provide that the procedures adopted by the board are to be as informal as possible. While the establishment of the procedures is a matter for the board, I believe that the inclusion of this provision indicates the emphasis that is placed on this requirement. I can assure members that the views of the Government on this issue will be made known to whomsoever is appointed as chairperson. I will also be taking a continuing interest in the operation of the board so that the procedures do not become formalised over time.
Another important aspect of informality adopted in the legislation concerns the appearance of parties before the board. The objective of any hearing is to ensure that the parties have an equal opportunity in representing their case. It is considered that it would not be in the public interest if the parties were represented by another person. However, there may be circumstances where it would be in the best interest of a party for it to be represented, and this is set out in the legislation. I should point out that this does not impose a restriction on the use of witnesses before the board. Rather, it imposes an obligation on the decision maker and applicant to appear and conduct their case before the board.
The time taken to process an application is important, and this is addressed in a number of ways. For instance, it will be an objective of the board to complete a hearing, where practicable, within two days, and hand down a decision within five days of the completion of the hearing. The intent is to prevent the board from becoming involved in exhaustive investigations. The objective of speed of process as a means of minimising delay will be met in other ways. Where the chairperson calls a meeting of both parties in an attempt to seek a conciliation of the matter under review, that meeting is to be held within 14 days of receipt of an application for review. Also, the decision maker is required to provide the necessary documentation within five days of being advised that a decision is subject to review. Thus the proposed amendment imposes a discipline on the operation of the department to ensure that it meets the timeframes that are imposed.
While the Bill establishes the board and puts in place the necessary framework within which it will operate, a number of amendments are also proposed to the Land Act and the Design and Siting Act. Generally, these involve replacing the tribunal with the board as the review body. This is the case in all matters except where appeals concerning valuations are made. There are broader issues associated with the valuation of land, such as rates and land use matters. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal handles appeals in these cases and it would not be appropriate to split the jurisdiction, as it were, between two separate bodies. It is intended that appeals on valuations will remain with the tribunal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .