The last word -- L-aħħar kelma

In this Australian federal legislature, and the one before, both led by the Liberal-National coalition, sometimes declarations are made, indicative of a thinking that the administration should have the right to take all decisions, without review.

 

In Australia, there are two federal entities often in the news in this space.  The first is the Ombudsman, which receives complaints by people believing they were unfairly treated by an Australian Government department or agency.  The Ombudsman is not able to stop decisions having been taken, or provide directions to employees of the agency, but tries to resolve the matter by dialogue and consultation with them, including making recommendations to government.1

 

The second entity is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which is similar to the Ombudsman, where it can review independently administrative decisions taken according to the law of the land.  Nevertheless there are major differences too: (a) it is limited as to what decisions can be considered and (b) has the power to change decisions or set them aside definitively, except for some migration cases.2

 

This week, there was a call for the scope of definite decisions by the AAT to be reduced by citizenship cases.  Ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott also asked rhetorically whether the people wanted decisions made by politicians, elected and therefore accountable to the people, or the AAP, whose members appointed according to law are unelected and therefore not accountable to the people.3

 

This argument has wide ranging implications.  If we don't want decisions by unelected people, why not do away with the AAT altogether?

 

Why not remote the Ombudsman as well?  Well actually we can let him/her let off steam, or simply ignore him/her, given the decisions can be considered advice only!

 

If we had to extract a principle from Tony Abbott's reasoning, it is that Ministers should have the final say in decisions that are taken.  Is this what citizens want?

 

It is true that decisions can be taken to Court, however this generally looks at the application of law, not the merits of the matter.

 

I've also noted pressure on the courts.  Also in these days, there have been strong criticism from some elements of the government on magistrates in Victoria, as this state seems to take more into consideration the personal circumstances of criminals in passing sentence, compared to courts in NSW which seem to emphasise more the message sent to the community by the sentence.  They were even accused of making 'ideological experiments'.4

 

In other words, these government elements are exerting pressure on courts to provide harsher sentences, especially in cases linked to terrorism, even if a few days later their comments were taken back.  Naturally, I appreciate the disgusting problem of terrorism and the need to fight it, however is it good for our country's leaders to pass comments that diminishes faith in our justice institutions?

 

It's true that this kind of pressure is not new, however  the so-called 'western' democratic countries generally boast about the independence of certain country institutions and judiciary.

 

I have to say I feel uncomfortable hearing this kind of criticism, which I would expect more from an autocratic country.

 

---------------------------

 

F'din il-leġislatura federali fl-Awstralja, u f'ta' qabilha, it-tnejn immexxija mill-Koalizzjoni tal-Partit Liberali u dak Nazzjonali, kultant isiru stqarrijiet indikattivi ta' tendenza ta' ħsieb li l-amministrazzjoni għandu jkollha d-dritt li tieħu d-deċiżjonijiet kollha, mingħajr ma jkun hemm possibiltà ta' reviżjoni aħħarija ta' dawn id-deċiżjonijiet.

 

Hawnhekk fl-Awstralja, hemm żewġ entitajiet federali li spiss jissemmew f'dan il-qasam.  L-ewwel wieħed huwa l-Ombudsman, li jisma' ilmenti mingħand nies li jemmnu li ġew ittrattati mhux bil-fier minn dipartiment jew aġenzija tal-Gvern Awstraljan.  L-Ombudsman ma jistax iwaqqaf deċiżjonijiet li saru jew tagħti direzzjonijiet lill-impjegati tal-aġenzija, imma jipprova jirriżolvi l-problema b'konsultazzjoni jew djalogu magħhom, inklużi rikommendazzjonijiet lill-gvern.1

 

It-tieni entità huwa t-Tribunal ta' Appell Amministrattiv (AATP) li huwa simili għall-Ombudsman, fejn jirrevedi b'mod indipendenti deċiżjonijiet amministrattivi magħmula f'isem il-liġi tal-pajjiż.  Madankollu, hemm dawn id-differenzi prinċipali: (a) huwa limitat f'liema deċiżjonijiet jista' jikkunsidra u (b) għandu l-poter li jibdel id-deċiżjoni jew ixejjinha b'mod definittiv, ħlief għal xi każijiet ta' migrazzjoni.2

 

Din il-ġimgħa, instemgħet l-għajta biex id-deċiżjonijiet definittivi tal-AAPT jitnaqqsu minnhom każijiet ta' ċittadinanza.  Sar ukoll l-argument tal-eks Prim Ministru Liberali Tony Abbott jekk il-poplu jridx deċiżjonijiet tal-politikanti, li huma eletti u għalhekk jagħtu rendikont lill-poplu, jew tallill-AAPT, li l-membri tiegħu, maħtura skont il-liġi, mhumiex eletti u għalhekk ma jagħtux rendikont lill-poplu.3

 

Dan hu argument b'implikazzjonijiet wiesgħa ħafna.  Jekk ma rridux deċiżjonijiet minn nies mhux eletti, għax ma nneħħux lit-tribunal AAPT għal kollox?  

 

Għax ma nneħħux l-Ombudsman ukoll?  Le, għidli, lil dan dejjem nistgħu inħalluħ iħambaq, jew sempliċement ninjorawh, ladarba d-deċiżjonijiet tiegħu huma kkunsidrati pariri biss!

 

Jekk irridu noħorġu prinċipju mill-argument ta' Tony Abbott, dan hu li l-Ministri għandu jkollu l-aħħar kelma fid-deċiżjonijiet li jittieħdu.  Aħna ċ-ċittadini hekk irridu?

 

Veru li d-deċiżjonijiet jistgħu jittellgħujitressqu għall-kunsiderazzjoni tal-Qorti, imma din tħares ġeneralment lejn l-applikazzjoni tal-liġi, mhux lejn il-merti.

 

Innutajt ukoll pressjoni fuq il-qrati.  Ukoll f'dawn il-ġranet, kien hemm kritika ħarxa minn xi elementi tal-gvern għall-maġistrati u imħallfin f'Victoria, għax dan l-istat jidher li meta jagħti sentenza jieħu in kunsiderazzjoni ċ-ċirkustanzi personali tal-kriminal, filwaqt qrati f'NSW jidher li jagħtu iktar emfasi fuq li s-sentenza tagħti messaġġ lill-komunità.  Saħansitra qed jiġu akkużati li qed jagħmlu 'esperimenti ideoloġiċi'.4

 

Fi kliem ieħor, dawn l-elementi tal-gvern qed jagħmlu pressjoni fuq il-qrati għal sentenzi iktar ħorox, speċjalment f'każijiet li għandhom x'jaqsmu mat-terroriżmu, anke jekk ftit jiem wara irtiraw il-kummenti tagħhom.  Naturalment, jien napprezza l-problema skifuża tat-terroriżmu u l-bżonn li din tiġi miġġielda, imma huwa tajjeb li l-mexxejja tal-pajjiż jgħaddu kummenti li jnaqqsu fil-fiduċja fl-istituzzjoni tal-ġustizzja?

 

Veru li pressjoni ta' dan it-tip mhux minn ewl id-dinja, imma l-pajjiżi demokratiċi hekk imsejħa 'tal-punent' ġeneralment jiftaħru bl-indipendenza ta' ċerti istituzzjonijiet tal-pajjiż u tal-ġudikatura.  

 

Nistqarr li ma nħossnix komdu nisma' bi kritika ta' dan it-tip, li iktar nistennih minn pajjiż awtokratiku.

 

 

1http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/about/office-of-the-commonwealth-ombudsman, retrieved 13/6/2017

2http://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/what-we-do, retrieved 13/6/2017

3Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, No. 91

4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-13/federal-government-says-victoria-is-weak-on-terrorism/8612496, retrieved 13/6/2017

1http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/about/office-of-the-commonwealth-ombudsman, retrieved 13/6/2017

2http://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/what-we-do, retrieved 13/6/2017

3Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, No. 91

4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-13/federal-government-says-victoria-is-weak-on-terrorism/8612496, retrieved 13/6/2017