Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 3:14:12 to 3:19:59
The committee examines the decision to proceed with legislative amendments before the final Ombudsman report was publicly released, questioning the impact on parliamentary oversight.
Topics: Health, Law reform
Speakers: Senator The Hon Anne Ruston, Senator The Hon Jenny McAllister, Mr Blair Comley
Okay, so here's here's another question. There was an offer on the table two weeks ago for Schedule 4 to be considered in the November settings. Did you not think it prudent to advise the government or did you advise the government that maybe it would be prudent to wait to do this until the November sittings so as that the Ombudsman's final report could have been transparently seen and ventilated in the context of negotiation in relation to that amendment?
Well, clearly, Senator, that goes the nature of our advice to government.
Okay, well maybe the minister could take it. Did you did your government ever consider um the merits of allowing the Ombudsman's view to have to be seen prior to forcing this through the Senate? Um and in effect really misleading the Senate by the exclusion of very relevant information in relation to the amendment to the bill that was before the Senate two weeks ago.
Senator Ruston, the way you put that question to me, and indeed I think your questions to Mr. Comley misunderstand the relationship between a government and indeed uh department uh to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has wide powers to inquire into matters of government administration, the Ombudsman uses those powers and it the Ombudsman uh makes their own decisions about information that is released to the public and to the parliament. Um the responsibility of the Department, as Mr. Comley has explained to you in his evidence just now, is to provide information to the Ombudsman as requested. It's also actually to support the department by providing explanations about the work of the Department. It would be wrong to assert that the responsibility of the Department is to provide explanations to the Parliament about the work of the Ombudsman. No, but indeed, if you have questions about the work of the Ombudsman, you probably should direct them to that person.
I am not no questions about the work of the relation to the work of the Ombudsman. So maybe I could ask you both. Do you think that the advice of the Ombudsman was relevant to the decisions in relation to amendments Schedule 4 Senator?
The Department has provided a response to the Ombudsman's report and indicated that they had accepted the advice, and indeed, as that um response indicates that we're in the process of implementing many of the recommendations provided by the Ombudsman. But also simply I don't think, Senator Ruston, that there is a single time that the Ombudsman has provided a draft report to Parliament. And if you can identify such a time, you should name it.
Minister, I asked you a very simple question. Do you believe the advice that was contained in the Ombudsman's report in any way was relevant to the decisions that were before the Parliament in relation to Schedule 4 of the amendment to the age care aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commissioner Bill?
As I indicated in my answer to you before, Senator Ruston, I think the way that you're formulating these questions suggests some a conception of the obligations of a minister or of a department that are incorrect. The Ombudsman is responsible for the work that they undertake and for communicating about the work that they have.
So you're not going to answer my question.
Senator Ruston, I don't suggest or maybe Mr.
Comley, you could answer my question. In the view uh the Department, do you believe there that the advice from the Ombudsman in this report, even though in draft form at the time was relevant to Schedule 4 of the amendment to that bill?
Senator, I I think I've already answered this. I think there's a range of things that people, both Ombudsman and others, made commentary about the system, which is relevant in terms of the way in which the decisions are made. But at the point in time we are talking about we had a draft non-final report, there was no certainty as what should be done, and I think the Ombudsman, it's a matter for them, but they followed the process that they have of ensuring their due diligence on the way through before publishing a report.
Okay. Um between the um the 13th and the 15th of October, the government negotiated amendments to the bill with the opposition, including the independent review and an expiry date. Um at that time, the Department and presumably the Minister held the Ombudsman's draft recommendation in relation to human override. We've already established that.
So I'm not sure I quite understand the question because human overridden. If I may finish. From the time that the government announced that there would be an escalation pathway, which we've already given in evidence here was the 2nd of July was foreshadowing that there would be consideration with the government was intending to have a human override through an escalation pathway. From the 2nd of July onwards, the government internally and engaging with stakeholders considered what would be the appropriate way to implement such a human override, and that was the deliberations which, as you've already raised in evidence, I meant there were 21 versions of the draft rules.