Page 3117 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The AAT in the ACT was born out of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Some time ago, in fact between October 1990 and November 1991, a review into the operation of the Commonwealth tribunal was conducted. That review revealed a number of changes that needed to be made, particularly to correct omissions in the operation of the tribunal and in the way in which this legislation provided for particular procedures to occur. Those are mainly minor in nature.
It follows, of course, since our own AAT is modelled so closely on the Commonwealth one, that to make changes at the Commonwealth level probably necessitates our at least examining those changes here. As a result, some three years later, we are now considering those changes before the Assembly today. The sorts of changes that the legislation envisages, Madam Speaker, are, for example, defining more clearly the role of the president of the tribunal so that his or her role in determining the business of the tribunal, for example, is spelt out more clearly and simply places in legislation that power to lead and to govern the operation of the tribunal.
There are a number of procedures currently being conducted by our AAT to facilitate the quick passage of matters or the quick dealing with matters - things like directions hearings, which are a common feature of courts but which are not provided for at the moment in the legislation; and the capacity of the tribunal to hear evidence otherwise than viva voce, that is, with a person sitting in front of the tribunal. The amendments before the house will allow the tribunal to take evidence by telephone, by closed-circuit television or by any other means that the tribunal sees fit. There will also be, interestingly, a power inserted to allow the court to dismiss an application on the grounds that the applicant has not properly prosecuted his application; where there is not a reviewable decision in relation to which the tribunal has authority; or where the application is frivolous or vexatious. I have no doubt that there would be a number of such cases that would come before the tribunal from time to time. It is important to underpin legally the basis on which the tribunal might reject them.
Perhaps the most significant element of the package is that the Government intends to proceed with a code of practice within the framework of the ACT Government which would set minimum standards for notices of decisions and rights of review. It is an interesting question to pose as to whether those who are affected by a whole range of standard kinds of decisions by ACT government departments - ranging from a refusal to allocate someone a Housing Trust house to a decision about whether a person's car needs to have certain things done to it before registration, to a whole range of other areas - or people generally understand what the nature of their rights is in respect of the AAT. Therefore, it is certainly in the interests of those people, be they well informed or not, to have some kind of standard advice on, first of all, the nature of the decision that has been made that affects them, and then what their rights are in those circumstances to challenge that decision. Information in that sense, knowledge about the process, is of the essence in ensuring that the system operates properly and protects the legitimate rights of people to the maximum extent possible. Madam Speaker, that is not actually achieved by this legislation; the way is laid open for that to happen. I believe that that is an appropriate whole of government decision which needs to be made.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .