disputing parties but exclusion of legal representatives would only adjudication is not. disadvantage students. In the course of investigating or resolving a dispute via Instead, disputing parties should be made adjudication, the DRS of the conditions of entering this scheme, as Operator may report systemic listed in the new proposed section. issues or serious misconduct by a provider to the Code Administrator, education quality assurance agencies or government agencies as relevant. The adjudicator is not by the rules of evidence or previous decisions. The adjudicator is not bound to give effect to strict legal obligations, forms or technicalities. 10(1) The DRS Operator may decide to The DRS Operator may decide to use To be consistent throughout the as use any 1 or more of the methods any 1 or more of the methods to indicated earlier in relation to 8(b), it is best to resolve a dispute: resolve a dispute: that the same set of terms are used to refer to Negotiation; Negotiation; the processes in the DRS rules. Conciliation or Conciliation or Mediation; medication; Arbitration Adjudication. Arbitration. 10(4) The DRS Operator (a) is not The DRS Operator (a) is not bound by The Human Rights Commission considered bound by the rules of evidence or the rules of evidence or previous 10(4)(b) went too far, but the policy intent is previous decisions; and (b) is not decisions; and (b) is not bound to give that the law should be followed broadly but bound to give effect to strict legal effect to strict legal rights, obligations, cases should not be dismissed due to rights, obligations, forms or forms or technicalities. paperwork errors and the like. Removing the technicalities. reference to rights” should suffice. “legal
disputing parties but adjudication is not. In the course of investigating or resolving a dispute via adjudication, the DRS Operator may report systemic issues or serious misconduct by a provider to the Code Administrator, education quality assurance agencies or government agencies as relevant. The adjudicator is not by the rules of evidence or previous decisions. The adjudicator is not bound to give effect to strict legal obligations, forms or technicalities. exclusion of legal representatives would only disadvantage students. Instead, disputing parties should be made of the conditions of entering this scheme, as listed in the new proposed section. 10(1) The DRS Operator may decide to use any 1 or more of the methods to resolve a dispute: Negotiation; Conciliation or medication; Arbitration. The DRS Operator may decide to use any 1 or more of the methods to resolve a dispute: Negotiation; Conciliation or Mediation; Arbitration Adjudication. To be consistent throughout the as indicated earlier in relation to 8(b), it is best that the same set of terms are used to refer to the processes in the DRS rules. 10(4) The DRS Operator (a) is not bound by the rules of evidence or previous decisions; and (b) is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights, obligations, forms or technicalities. The DRS Operator (a) is not bound by the rules of evidence or previous decisions; and (b) is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights, obligations, forms or technicalities. The Human Rights Commission considered 10(4)(b) went too far, but the policy intent is that the law should be followed broadly but cases should not be dismissed due to paperwork errors and the like. Removing the reference to “legal rights” should suffice.
Changes-made-to-draft-DRS-rules-following-sector-consultation.docx