Transparent communication of conduct standards

The Commission received a complaint which, in part, alleged that the Officer avoided answering straightforward questions and did not explain complex legal terminology.

While reviewing the audio recording, the Commission identified several occasions when the Officer was unable to answer questions. However, this was in circumstances where the complainant frequently interrupted the Officer. The Commission determined that the complainant’s behaviour could reasonably be described as disruptive to the orderly conduct of the proceeding. This was further supported by the complainant’s tone and volume. 

The Commission found that the Officer endeavoured to explain the legal terms, corresponding orders, and sections of the relevant legislation. The Commission also considered the Council of Australasian Tribunals' Practice Manual for Tribunals, which provides that 'it is not a tribunal's role to run the party's case for them'._¹⁹ 

The complaint was dismissed, noting that the Officer’s approach in dealing with a difficult complainant demonstrated best practice behaviour.

In the interests of fairness and transparency, the Commission strives to be transparent about its role and function, including with individuals and stakeholders who are not involved in the investigation of a particular complaint. 

For example, while investigating a complaint made by the respondent in a civil proceeding, the Commission received correspondence from the legal practitioner representing the applicant in the proceeding. Among other information, the legal practitioner asked to be informed about the status of the investigation. The legal practitioner believed the outcome of the respondent’s complaint would impact their client’s position in legal proceedings with the respondent. 

Although the Commission is not able to provide this type of information under the JCV Act, it did help the practitioner understand the Commission’s role and function. This included explaining that investigation and complaint outcomes have no impact or legal bearing on legal proceedings, nor does the Commission have jurisdiction to review the merits or lawfulness of decisions or procedural rulings.

_¹⁹ Pamela O’Connor, Ian Freckelton and Peter Sallmann, Practice Manual for Tribunals (COAT, 5th ed, 2020) at 121.