Hansard Speech Ombudsman Jurisdiction

Ombudsman: jurisdiction
Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) -- I direct my question to the Minister for WorkCover and the TAC, Mr Lenders. The minister introduced legislation in 2005 that he claimed would extend the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to provide an independent and impartial review of the management and handling of compensation claims. As he is aware, the convener of medical panels is now challenging in the courts the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to conduct investigations into probity and conflict of interest issues involving medical panel decisions on claims. I therefore ask the minister what action he personally has taken to resolve this jurisdiction issue to avoid the waste of taxpayer funds to sort out a demarcation dispute between two government agencies?
Mr LENDERS (Minister for WorkCover and the TAC) -- Mr Atkinson raises a serious issue about demarcation between government agencies and about any costs associated with a dispute. It is a serious issue and I do not wish to belittle it, but I remind Mr Atkinson that in a Westminster system, with its separation of powers, I am not about to intervene between the Ombudsman and the convenor of the medical panels who are in Supreme Court action with each other, to purport to tell the courts or the independent agencies on behalf of the executive what to do.
We know the Ombudsman is an independent officer of the Parliament, and the convener of the medical panels is clearly a step removed from executive government. It is a serious question, that governments need to be focused on how you have things in the courts that can be resolved between internal government agencies. Once it is in the courts, it is not the role of a minister to be a commentator or to intervene to try to stop actions being held in a court.
Supplementary question
Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) -- The Victorian WorkCover Authority funds the medical panels, and the 2005 legislation extending the role of the Ombudsman in WorkCover provides VWA funding for the Ombudsman's office as well. The minister is funding both government agencies in the court proceedings that will resume with trial directions on
Page 320229 August. This legal action could take years, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and disadvantage WorkCover claimants. Will the minister intervene in this dispute and resolve it by negotiation or by legislation to clarify the jurisdiction in order to avoid unnecessary, costly and protracted legal frolic by two government agencies which the minister funds?
Mr LENDERS (Minister for WorkCover and the TAC) -- As I said in my principal answer, it is a serious question Mr Atkinson raises about this issue, but on his analogy that I am responsible for funding both the medical panels and partly the Ombudsman, on that basis the Attorney-General funds the Supreme Court and should direct the court what to do. We have independent bodies and processes under law, and Mr Atkinson raises a serious issue, but I am not going to intervene in a Supreme Court case.
This has not happened since the Star Chamber in the United Kingdom, and I would suggest that it would be inappropriate for a minister to intervene in a court decision where independent bodies are legitimately contesting questions of law.

My Questions;

Q. Why are these departments fighting each other?

Q. What does the supreme court have to do with answering the question which was: that he is responsible for the funding of both departments?

Q. Who funds these independent bodies?

A. The government

Once again the minister has blown off answering this question and of course he can intervene in the case as it is his department that funds these departments and cases.

Q. Why are they wasting money on fighting each other when there are workers out here that have not received a cent from workcover for their injuries.
A. Injured workers are loosing their homes and families due to their injuries and here we have the government departments fighting each other and wasting money that can go to the workers injured in the kennett era who have no common law claim rights!

Do they honestly think we are that stupid!