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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2626 ..

ordinary citizens and assist them in their dealings with bureaucracy and with government.

So I do have some concerns that we may be trampling, for no particularly good reason, on the reasonable rights people already have. And I stress that. If someone can show me that there is a good reason, then I think I would accept that. But I just cannot think of any matters where the rights that people have at present and the ombudsman’s powers in relation to this have caused a problem. Accordingly, I will be opposing these clauses. I commend my remarks to members.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Arts and Heritage) (11.56): Mr Speaker, I am advised that this is what the ombudsman wanted, and I think it is a fair request. The scrutiny report—and I think the scrutiny of bills committee has had a reply to that report—did raise the question. But it is the government’s view, and I believe the ombudsman view as well, that the scrutiny of the deliberative decisions of tribunals in the ACT by the ombudsman is unnecessary because the procedural requirement of tribunals already provides substantial protections for citizens’ rights.

The tribunals that we have operate in accordance with principles of procedural fairness and protections for those appearing before them. They are generally open to the public and reasons for decisions are made available. They are constituted by independent members who make decisions at arm’s length from the government. Conclusions by a tribunal are already reviewable through judicial supervision, either as a direct right of appeal or under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Further, they are not subject to the same problems of access that attach to traditional means of challenging administrative decisions. For example, when performing deliberative functions, tribunals provide conclusions in a timely manner and minimise the time and cost required to make a decision.

If the ombudsman investigates the actions taken by a tribunal, it is likely to duplicate an already independent, impartial, accessible, efficient and transparent decision-making process. The decision to exclude the ombudsman from reviewing the deliberative functions of tribunals is consistent with laws in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. The amendment does not exclude the ombudsman from receiving complaints about the way in which a complainant was dealt with by tribunal staff. The amendment simply excludes the ombudsman from reviewing decisions made by a tribunal which are based on policy grounds.

It is a fair thing, I suppose, that the scrutiny committee should raise this question. After all, it is the role of the committee to do so. They raised it and the question has been more than satisfactorily answered. The amendment has the support of the ombudsman and I think it should also have the support of this Assembly.

MS TUCKER (11.59): I have listened to Mr Wood and I have to say that I have still got concerns. I understand the responses that have been made by the government. However, the scrutiny committee made the following point:

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