Page 3391 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Corbell: Relevance.
MR MULCAHY: It is very relevant to this debate, and it relates to the matter of the formation of these tribunals.
Mr Corbell: On the amendments, on the amendments.
MR MULCAHY: The amendments are relevant.
MR SPEAKER: Continue with relevant remarks.
MR MULCAHY: I will indeed, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Do not be tempted to stray.
MR MULCAHY: Whilst the tribunals bill has a great deal of merit, it is still concerning that large numbers of last-minute amendments have become necessary. During the briefing today, my senior legal adviser pointed out to—
Mr Barr: Do you have a junior legal adviser?
MR MULCAHY: Yes, I do. We have got all sorts of advisers, Mr Barr. Sorry to disappoint you.
DR FOSKEY: There are only two people, but there are many guises.
MR MULCAHY: There are actually five, Dr Foskey, and three of them are in the legal field. There are some issues in relation to evidentiary sections covered during preliminary hearings, but I do not intend to dwell unduly on those matters. They were going to be looked into; I do not think we heard back again, but I do not think they are important enough to convince me that we should not be supporting the bill.
The amendments make both substantive changes as well as technical or drafting changes to clean up the main bill, and I will go through some of those changes proposed by the government and give my views on those changes. The government proposes to amend section 8 of the principal bill to remove subsections (2) and (3). These subsections direct that the tribunal will consider the rules of evidence in the commonwealth Evidence Act, despite the fact that these do not apply by law to tribunal proceedings. This was intended solely as a signpost for the tribunal to alert it to the usefulness of what are, in essence, commonsense rules of evidence. My understanding from the briefing provided is that there was some concern that these provisions might give rise to technical objections, notwithstanding the desire of the government to allow the tribunal to proceed without following the rules of evidence. But I am satisfied with the explanation provided.
The government also proposes to amend the time limits for the review of decisions in section 10 of the bill. The unamended section gives 28 days from the time of the decision for review. This may be inadequate in cases where a person does not become aware of a decision affecting them until later. The change will mean that if a person
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .