Page 3412 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Perhaps a more proactive approach to maintaining the standards outlined in the guidelines would be for an independent legal auditor to undertake audits to assess whether the matters were handled in accordance with the guidelines. That may also be an approach worth considering. His auditors could approach welfare clients, private litigants and their legal representatives to gather evidence about the levels of compliance with the guidelines. Whether at an agency level or on a case-by-case level, this may be a way to improve accountability and adherence to the guidelines and drive the implementation of the guidelines more strongly through all agencies, including those that may have a reputation for taking all matters to litigation without realistic settlement strategies.
In summary, the Greens will be supporting this bill in principle, and we look forward to receiving support for our amendments and supporting those amendments that will be put forward today.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.25), in reply: Briefly, in closing, I want to thank members for their support of this bill in principle. I think that it is momentous that we join the commonwealth as the only jurisdiction in Australia to have raised the profile of model litigant guidelines to the level that is proposed in my bill. Most other jurisdictions have model litigant guidelines but they have a low profile. In most cases, only lip-service is paid to them. Mr Rattenbury has referred to some cases where that has definitely been the case.
This Assembly thus goes a long way to lifting the importance and the operation of the model litigant guidelines. It puts more onus on the Attorney-General to support that higher profile. It puts more onus on government agencies to comply with them. It gives the people of Canberra more assurance that the government, in matters of litigation, will behave in a way that does not put them at a disadvantage in the legal arena. On behalf of the people of the ACT, I thank the Assembly for this act today.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.27): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 3418].
I will briefly outline this amendment. The first amendment simply makes it mandatory rather than discretionary for the Attorney-General to issue model litigant guidelines. As we all know, there are currently model litigant guidelines but we do not ever want to find ourselves in a situation where an attorney might withdraw them and not replace them. It puts beyond doubt the requirement for the Attorney-General to take responsibility for the development of model litigant guidelines and to take them seriously. It does not allow the Attorney-General to ignore this responsibility.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .