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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 25 May 2004) . . Page.. 2143 ..

oversight and legal compliance of the ACT government. These are all changes that offend the core values of the Democrats. For more than a quarter of a century my party has been committed to ensuring that governments are accountable for their actions and preserving the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. This bill is the exact opposite of that. It is shameless political opportunism at its most brazen and demonstrates that this is a government that is only willing to obey the law when it suits it; when it does not suit it, it will just change it.

This bill blatantly quashes the role of administrative and judicial review in our democratic system. The judiciary cannot be seen as some sort of optional extra in a free society. It is not something that can be removed when inconvenient, sidestepped to save time or squashed when irritating. We need to make it clear that this legislation is not necessary to build a road. The building of the road can progress if it complies with current laws. This law is not in the public interest. This debate is not about whether or not to build a road or where to build it. All that is needed under the current law to build the road is for the government to comply with current laws.

Obviously, if there are questions about the legality of government decisions, it will take some time to have those questions answered. Justice does take time, especially when the courts are presented with difficult questions about the application of laws. Responsible governments usually understand this and allow the courts the time to investigate questions of process and the law brought before them. This is the crux of this issue. The government does not want to see those questions answered. This debate is about whether the judiciary should be allowed to interpret the law, as is its role.

However, it appears that other members of this Assembly have decided that the executive government will interpret the law—not the courts, not the tribunals. Under this bill the government is appointing itself judge and jury at its own trial. The AAT forms an essential part of the structure of governance of the territory. It is a semijudicial body established by legislation to review the actions of government decision-makers and to ensure that decisions are legal and executed reasonably. One of the main aims of the tribunal is to encourage and bring about compliance by administrators with territory law. The government’s bill takes away the alternative mechanisms of appeal through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. This act allows people to apply to the Supreme Court. The act states:

(1) A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies … may apply to the Supreme Court for an order of review in respect of the decision on any 1 or more of the following grounds:

(a) that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the decision;

(b) that the procedures that were required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed;

(c) that the person who purported to make the decision did not have the jurisdiction to make that decision;

(d) that the decision was not authorised by the enactment under which it was purported to be made;

(e) that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment under which it was purported to be made;

(f)

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