Senator O'CHEE —At the request of Senator Abetz, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the role and function of the Administrative Review Council, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator O'CHEE —I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

I am pleased to present this unanimous report of the Committee into the optimal role and function of the Administrative Review Council.

The ARC's main role is to provide advice to government on administrative decision-making and review. It does this by letters of advice, reports based on research projects, comments on Cabinet submissions, and providing departments and agencies with advice on the administrative review aspects of initiatives they are undertaking.

The Committee found that it is difficult to identify objective criteria against which to assess the effectiveness of the Administrative Review Council. Nonetheless, the evidence received by the Committee supports the view that the Administrative Review Council has been an effective body, providing useful and timely advice on administrative review matters. The Committee did, however, receive some suggestions that the ARC could give greater attention to identifying the costs entailed in adopting its advice and recommendations.

As our report notes, with one exception all the submissions we received basically supported retaining the ARC in something like its present role and shape. The one exception was a submission from Mr Anthony Morris QC, which argued that the ARC had largely fulfilled the functions for which it was established over 20 years ago, and that it should now be abolished.

The report recommends that the ARC should remain as a separate and permanent body, provided that it is making a significant contribution towards an affordable and cost-effective system of administrative decision-making and review.

The remainder of the eleven recommendations in the report relate to matters of detail.

Several concern the membership structure of the ARC. For example, the report recommends that in selecting persons for appointment, the Government should continue to have regard to the need for the ARC membership to contain a broad spectrum of qualifications and to represent a variety of interests. It also recommends that the qualifications required for membership of the ARC be broadened to enable the appointment of persons with direct knowledge and experience of the needs of groups or individuals significantly affected by government decisions.

The report further recommends that the legislation be amended to enable persons to be appointed as Council members for the purpose of a particular project.

However, the Committee does not endorse the suggestions it received that the Act should be amended to require the appointment of a person having any specific qualification or representing any specific interest.

Other recommendations relate to:

clarifying the definition of the ARC's functions in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975;

setting out the power of the Attorney-General to issue directions and refer matters to the ARC; and

formalising in the legislation the present informal practices under which the ARC's project reports are provided to the Attorney-General, are tabled in the Parliament, and are responded to by government.

Madam President, I would like to conclude by making some personal comments about the appropriateness of inquiries similar to the one that is the subject of this report.

At the time the inquiry was instituted, the ARC had been in existence for twenty years and had not previously been subject to any review. The request for the Committee's inquiry came from the Attorney, who was quite properly concerned to have the ARC's continuing relevance and effectiveness examined.

However, with the benefit of hindsight I believe that assessment of the optimal role and effectiveness of bodies like the ARC is probably better done by management consultants. The ARC has not been the subject of controversy or widespread criticism in the community. As a result, our inquiry did not benefit from receiving the broad range of competing views and arguments I believe is essential to provide the foundation for well-grounded and well-considered committee reports. In the absence of the sort of controversy that ensures a committee receives a range of competing views, the investigatory techniques available to management consultants are better suited to evaluating bodies like the ARC than the process of submissions and public hearings that committees use.

Senator O'CHEE —I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.