Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 November 2011:

In regard to breaches of model litigant rules (MLR):

(1) What processes does the department have to monitor all Commonwealth litigation to ensure that agencies comply with the MLR.

(2) What is the cost of monitoring compliance with the MLR.

(3) When were the MLR last reviewed and by whom.

(4) Can a copy of the review report be provided, if one exists.

(5) Why did the department fail to include key data on breaches of the Legal Services Directions (LSD) in its 2010-11 annual report, and was this:

(a) an administrative oversight and at what level in the department; or

(b) a conscious decision and at what level and for what reason.

(6) In relation to the 2010 and 2011 release of the breaches of the LSD data which the Attorney-General made in August 2011, is the department concerned about any trends that appear to be forming.

(7) Can a breakdown be provided of the data into the breaches of the LSD, including what the breach was for and how many of the breaches related to agencies failing to act as model litigants.

(8) Why did the most recent release of the LSD breaches data not include data on the 'still under investigation' category.

(9) In relation to the criticism in the Denlay v FCT case which was decided in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland in 2010: (a) what lessons have been learnt in relation to taking steps towards bankruptcy against a taxpayer engaged in objecting to an Australian Taxation Office (ATO) assessment; and (b) does the department's area with responsibility for MLR outcomes have an involvement in the prosecution of such cases; if so, did it challenge the course taken by the ATO.

(10) In relation to the decision by Edmonds J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Metcash (August 2011): (a) what action has been taken by the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner and/or the ACCC in relation to the judge's comment that certain government witnesses gave 'unreliable evidence'; and (b) does this comment alone constitute a breach of the MLR; if so: (i) what investigation has occurred and with what results, and (ii) what was the cost of this case to the Commonwealth.

(11) Given that the MLR procedures refer to certain sanctions for breaches of the MLR: (a) what are these sanctions; and (b) how many times have the sanctions been imposed.

(12) For all MLR breaches in the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided by agency and/or department, along with the action and/or outcome.

(13) Do departments and agencies each appoint an MLR contact person so that that person can independently assess whether all available evidence has been handed over to the party against whom an agency might be taking legal action; if so, with what effect; if not, has this been considered.

(14) Can a breakdown be provided, by case, of the costs for each of the 20 most expensive pieces of litigation (civil and criminal) finalised during the 2010-11 financial year.