Page 1544 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
principles of justice, due process and independence of the Judiciary.
Together with that statement, I issued a copy of a brief given to a retired senior government lawyer, Mr Lindsay Curtis, whose task was to prepare - and I stress this for Mr Moore's benefit - a discussion paper by 30 June 1990 so that there could be wide public consultation with all interested parties on this important issue. That was with a press release of 19 April.
Prior to making this statement, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I had extended discussion with the Chief Justice of the ACT Supreme Court, Jeffrey Miles, and the Chief Magistrate of the Australian Capital Territory, Ron Cahill. I also spoke to a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Robert Todd, and also alerted the president of the Law Society, Michael Phelps, and the president of the Bar Association, Graeme Lunney, who is well known to me, to the Government's proposal to commission a discussion paper.
I have made clear throughout these discussions that I have no decided view. Indeed, I am sustained in the view that there should be a full public debate by having a retired former member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the Residents Rally executive. I share the views expressed by that member on issues concerning how best merit review and questions of law can be resolved. I was therefore quite surprised at the end of last weekend to hear that the Chief Justice, Jeffrey Miles, had moved in a somewhat pre-emptive fashion to can the debate before it could start.
I accept that precautionary comments of the president of the Law Society have been seen as support for the Chief Justice's stance. I am assured by the president of the Law Society that his purpose in providing a press release was to caution the Government - and quite properly so, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker - against making any unilateral decisions. I believe that the president of the Law Society can now accept, from what I have said and from the records, that there never was any intention by the Alliance Government to make any decisions until those full public consultative processes were complete. Of course, that would have been well into the latter part of this year.
I believe that the Government needs to look very carefully at the question of how we take over the Supreme Court prior to the deadline of 1 July 1992. There may be reason to believe that more time is needed to foster in the mind of the Chief Justice confidence in the legislative processes of this Assembly.
Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, much of my focus has been on the role of the Magistrates Court and the AAT. I have spent much of my practising life working for the ordinary litigant in those and other jurisdictions. Perhaps in issuing this brief for a discussion paper to be prepared - I stress, a brief for a discussion paper to be prepared - I have moved too fast for the Chief Justice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .