Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 340 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Government's decision to proceed with the Belconnen swimming pool have paid for the inquiry when the issue had implications for all private pool operators in the ACT and the complaint was found to have some substance?

The approach of the Government in this Bill is inconsistent with investigation mechanisms in other pieces of legislation. For example, people who make complaints to the Commissioner for the Environment do not have to pay for the commissioner's inquiry. A person who makes a public interest disclosure does not have to pay the cost of the investigation of that disclosure. A person making a complaint to the Ombudsman does not have to pay the costs of the Ombudsman's investigation. A person making a complaint to the ICRC should not have to pay for the inquiry into that complaint.

I understand Mr Quinlan will move an amendment to allow the commission to waive the costs that would be payable by a person for an investigation only if the commission considers that the person's financial circumstances warrant it. But this is weaker than our amendment and would also require the person to prove to the commission that they are too poor to pay the costs, which is very undignified and leaves complete discretion to the commission on judging whether a person is poor enough, and it will still discourage people from putting in complaints. It also goes against the principle that inquiries being done in the public interest should be paid for by government and not the individual who raised the issue.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (11.45): Mr Speaker, I understand Ms Tucker did not seek a briefing on this Bill. She certainly has not approached any member of the Government to ask about the reason for these provisions appearing in the Bill. As a result I think she has misunderstood what these provisions were designed to achieve.

First of all, I want to make it clear what the structure of the inquiry process is. There are a number of ways in which the commission can initiate an inquiry. It can do it of its own volition. It can do it because it is urged to do so by the Government. It can do it in circumstances where the community - indeed, members of the Assembly - raise particular issues for investigation. In looking at all those issues, there is an important question. I hope Ms Tucker is listening to this very carefully. There is an important question about managing the resources of the commission.

If, for example, paragraph 19B(2)(c) is removed from the Bill, the commission will not be able to conduct an inquiry that it considers to be in the public interest or that it considers has legitimate grounds for complaint, the matters dealt with in paragraphs (a) and (b), if it does not have the budget to be able to conduct that inquiry. Members need to appreciate that there are a very large number of issues which the commission could, and over a period of time will, have to deal with in relation to competition in the ACT. I name a few off the top of my head. There are issues to do with the way that the professions in the ACT operate - medical-related professions, doctors, solicitors, barristers.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .