Page 1575 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In mid-2007, my department released a paper examining options for reform in this area. The paper concluded that having no single structure for ACT tribunals causes five main problems. Firstly, the existing ACT structure does not promote access to justice. Access to justice requires ease of physical access to tribunals. It means having hearing rooms, registry and public waiting areas and other tribunal facilities that encourage participation. It requires tribunals to be capable of communicating with users and the public about their processes and matters such as costs and enforcement. In the ACT, there is neither a standard layout for a hearing room nor standard facilities for tribunals. Having to attend a court building can be intimidating for some applicants and can give an impression that the tribunal will be run in a legalistic and formal manner.
In some cases, involving the delivery of specialist services, tribunals often benefit from multi-member panels, including members with specialist knowledge. In other cases, such as those involving people with a mental illness, a tribunal must be capable of addressing the needs of the person before the tribunal or dealing with urgent matters or convening at a particular location.
The second difficulty that was identified, Mr Speaker, relates to the fact that the ACT structure does not reduce the cost of justice. The structure of tribunals should ensure an efficient use of ACT resources. Tribunal secretariats should be fully utilised, registry processes should be efficient, and hearing rooms should have a high level of utilisation. Bringing the tribunals together under one roof should reap significant benefits in this regard. It would see a reduction in the duplication of resources and lead to better utilisation of staff, tribunal members and hearing rooms. This means a more efficient, fairer and faster dispute resolution for the community.
The third issue that was identified was that the current structure does not support members consistently. The current tribunal structure has differences in the level of training offered to members, limited opportunity for members to further their experience, and differences in the number of hearings each member conducts. There is also disparity in the current tribunal system in terms of remuneration, ranging from some tribunal members with conditions set by the Remuneration Tribunal right through to others being unpaid.
The fourth problem that was identified is that the existing structure does not support officers in registries or secretariats. Currently, there is no standard training offered for members of the registry. Officers working for tribunals located outside the Magistrates Court may not have an opportunity to work for more than one tribunal jurisdiction, reducing opportunities for career advancement and job satisfaction.
Finally, the fifth identified problem was that existing legislation is inconsistent. Across ACT tribunals, it is evident that many of the factors just described are exacerbated by the fact that there are differing legislative frameworks governing tribunals that have been created at different times. To deal with these problems, the paper examined a range of options and concluded that most of the problems could only be overcome through the consolidation of most tribunals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .