Page 1545 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To those members of the public who may be puzzled by the Chief Justice's stance, all I can say is that our move to achieve public debate on this matter was motivated by our wish to review the delivery of justice to the ordinary litigant - for example, to the builder who needs an urgent design and siting response and to the person accused of an offence, perhaps wrongly, who wants to be vindicated quickly. I regret that this aspect was not addressed in the Chief Justice's remarks.
Conscious of the need to achieve stability between the legislature and the judiciary, I therefore propose to reconsider the brief to Mr Curtis. The outcome may be a review over a longer time frame. It may well be that a reference will be made to the law reform committee that the Alliance Government recently established. Clearly, that would be a broad-ranging, long-term inquiry, not the focused inquiry that Mr Curtis was briefed to undertake. I add that, if the model that it was proposed Mr Curtis look at was not acceptable, that focused inquiry may have led to a brief to another consultant to examine another model and another model and so forth. Nevertheless, I accept that for those who are anxious for change and reform in the law processes there may be some years to the process now. I regret this outcome but believe it is in the best interests of the Government and public confidence in the judiciary that this controversy cease forthwith.
I emphasise that the Government stands by its issued documentation. It was regrettable that speculation mounted as to the preferred position of the Government. Its preferred position, at the most, was that the question of a unified court be examined, and I believe there was quite some interest in the general legal profession that it be done. The Government put it no higher than that, and it is regrettable that there has been, as I said, a somewhat pre-emptive response to that. The response may well be that we will go back to traditional Law Reform Commission processes, which may not report in the lifetime of this Government or perhaps even the next, given the fact that a brief to the Law Reform Commission would involve a much different review.
I say therefore that there is no dispute between the Chief Justice and me, and I had a lengthy, amicable discussion with him not quite an hour ago. There is no dispute between the Government and the judiciary and certainly no dispute between us and the magistracy, for whom I have the utmost respect.
Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, there has been no lack of consultation. It is ironic and sad that an attempt to set a consultative process going has resulted in this situation. Who would not be disappointed? Who would not feel a bit of grief at coming unstuck in this way? I think that those who follow me may well learn a lesson from this process and determine how better to approach a program of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .