OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT — LEGAL SERVICES
COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
1243. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the parliamentary secretary
representing the Attorney General:
I refer to the answer to my question
without notice 1090 regarding the Attorney General's request that the
Ombudsman consider the handling of complaints by the then Legal Profession
Complaints Committee.
(1) Why did the
Attorney General falsely tell the house on 27 October 2022 that ''there
is no such document'', when in fact he wrote to the Ombudsman on 27 August
2019?
(2) Does the
Attorney General still maintain that it is reasonable and appropriate to not
provide that document to Parliament because of section 23(1a) of the Parliamentary
Commissioner Act 1971?
(3) Is the
Attorney General aware that the Office of the Auditor General is not aware of
any instance in which that office has had to consider a non-disclosure decision
made for that reason?
(4) Will the
Attorney General comply with section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006 so
that his decision can be tested, particularly given his press release on 23 November
2022 about granting the Auditor General unprecedented access to sensitive
information?
(5) If yes to (4), when will he do
this?
Hon
MATTHEW SWINBOURN replied:
I
thank the member for some notice of the question. The following answer has been
provided to me by the Attorney General.
(1) The Attorney
General's request for the Ombudsman to conduct an inquiry into the then
Legal Profession Complaints Committee's handling of complaints was made
verbally on 28 August 2019. On 15 November 2022, the member sought access to
the first document created by the Attorney General or his office related to the
request after it had been made verbally, including a letter. This search by the
Attorney General's office produced a letter dated 29 August 2019, which
confirmed in writing the verbal request made the previous day. The answer was
clarified in good faith at the first available opportunity on 15 November 2022.
(2) The Ombudsman
advised the Attorney General today that in accordance with, and having regard
to, section 23(1b) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971, he is of the
opinion that it is in the public interest for the letter to be publicly
disclosed, with a redaction to remove the name of a particular legal
practitioner. I table the document.
[See paper 1888.]
(3)–(5) Not applicable.