Page 3119 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is often the case, the processes of the AAT have become very legalistic. It is very common, in Federal AAT matters where issues such as Customs tariffs or rebates are subject to appeal, for applicants who are seeking to dispute perhaps millions of dollars worth of Customs duty or excise duty to march into the AAT with half-a-dozen queen's counsel and the Commonwealth Government will respond similarly; and arguments will go on for days and days in a very technical and legalistic manner.
The ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal has, by and large, avoided that. Through the presidency of Mr Curtis, it is a quite user-friendly tribunal. We do get reports that applicants in person do not have that much difficulty in having their matters heard. Nonetheless, there is always the danger that a tribunal which is meant to be simple becomes complex. The intention of this legislation is to try to ensure that it is simple. The mediation provision which Mr Humphries particularly referred to is very important. I need to caution the Assembly, though, that to some extent there is a more limited scope for mediation in an Administrative Appeals Tribunal context than there would be in general litigation. Where you have a dispute between private parties, it is always a question for parties to come to whatever mediated arrangement they want. Appeals under the AAT are generally questions of statutory entitlement.
The Government is a little constrained, in the sense that the Government cannot sit down and do a deal that is mutually convenient to the Government and the applicant, a mediated matter, if doing that deal would take the applicant outside their statutory entitlement. While we think it is important to put a mediation provision in there and while we hope that it will be used to the maximum extent possible, I think the Assembly has to understand that we are not, in doing so, giving the Government, as a litigant, the ability to do deals that provide for outcomes that are in excess of statutory entitlements. The Government lawyers or agents for the Government - because in some matters we do not use ACT Government Solicitor lawyers; we have departmental advocates present - will not be able to negotiate as would a private party in private litigation; they will have to abide by the statutory entitlements. Nonetheless, it is an important principle. I thank members for their support in principle.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .