Page 2790 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
dealing with individual review applications. Applicants can still make a complaint to the Ombudsman and all other investigatory functions of the Ombudsman’s office remain in operation. This retains the role of the Ombudsman in the current FOI Act as the investigator of complaints and reviewer of administrative and process deficiencies.
The bill places cost uncertainty on the government by proposing that the role of the Ombudsman be expanded to replace internal review and some functions of the ACAT. Internal review is critical for strengthening the government decision-making process. It saves costs by avoiding technical issues and mistakes being unnecessarily referred to an external decision-maker.
In regard specifically to amendment 62, this amendment omits part 4.1 in schedule 1 to the bill. This part of the bill introduced new consequential amendments to the ACAT act to provide for the ACAT to make orders that the government pay costs of applicants where they are unsuccessful in a review of a decision not to disclose documents. Earlier, I moved amendment 33, which restored the current provision in section 76 of the FOI Act where the ACAT can recommend to the minister that costs are awarded in certain circumstances rather than making a costs order.
Removing costs orders from the ACAT’s jurisdiction aligns more closely to the function and purpose of the ACAT, that is, being a low cost and accessible forum for parties in civil matters. Providing for cost orders in ACAT also encourages the use of expensive legal representation, which is contrary to the objectives of ACAT as a low cost, accessible forum.
Omitting part 4.1 will also make changes to clauses 4.2 and 4.3 in schedule 4 which are consequential to the move away from the Ombudsman review scheme. As I mentioned earlier, this will retain existing tribunal appeal decisions.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.17): Perhaps we should put these numbers in Powerball or something and then split the prize if it comes up.
Madam Assistant Speaker, the Canberra Liberals will be opposing these amendments. These amendments are part of a tranche of amendments proposed by the government which fundamentally attempt to dismantle the architecture of this piece of legislation. Therefore we will not be supporting them.
It is a new role for the Ombudsman, but Mr Rattenbury has made it quite clear that it is an appropriate role for the Ombudsman and it is perhaps a shorter cut role than creating a stand-alone commissioner for information, which has been the case in many other jurisdictions.
This change to the role of the Ombudsman, along with a couple of other things that have happened recently, like the reportable behaviours scheme, raises the serious question for the next government as to when it becomes time for us to have our own Ombudsman rather than contracting services from the commonwealth. As we put more responsibilities onto the Ombudsman, it may become more cost-effective for us to go it alone. That is not a reflection on the commonwealth Ombudsman; it may be just an example of our coming of age.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video