Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I worked for a while as an ombudsman and limitations such as that are difficult because on particular occasions one has to ask people to extend the limitations. Senator O'Toole's point is well made. There is a certain irreducible minimum but if one has to exchange documents and information and gather the material, it is very difficult. However, as an example of good practice the board should begin to set a series of matters and after a while it may be able to typify or generalise cases. The pressure should be to complete the case, provided this is done properly and with equity. I recall when I first went into the ombudsman's office asking how long it took to deal with a case. It was as long as a piece of string. If one continues with that sort of attitude there should be pressure, benignly, to deal with cases as expeditiously as possible. An issue that arises from the difficulty here is mixing the court system and the PIAB in the sense of giving people two bites at the cherry. Is it possible to differentiate between the medical consequences, which may take some time to assess and to evaluate, and people's loss of earning power? Is it possible to make interim payments which would be taken into account if a case ever went to court? The staffing of the board should be sufficient to allow it to deal with the cases in the time allowed. This is one reason it is important to have a series of thresholds and deadlines, or benchmarks by which productivity can be measured.