Page 1551 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY: A most regrettable event has occurred. I trust the media do not report - - -
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, Mr Collaery. I will take advice on that. Mr Collaery, I understand that you wish to table those papers.
MR COLLAERY: Yes.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may do so, as you indicated. If you wish to make any comments about personal misrepresentation, you can do so at the end of the debate.
MR COLLAERY: Thank you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker; I am indebted. I now table the following papers:
Australian Federal Police -
Community survey - Copy of a letter from Assistant Commissioner B. Bates, Australian Federal Police, to Mr B. Collaery, Attorney-General, dated 26 April 1990, together with an AFP media release and survey form.
Review of move-on powers - Letter from Assistant Commissioner B. Bates, Australian Federal Police, to Mr B. Collaery, Attorney-General, dated 20 April 1990, together with Police Regional Instruction 10/89 and Annexures.
MR CONNOLLY (4.06): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I rise generally to support the matter of public importance. Mr Collaery may not be able to remain present in the chamber while the Opposition makes these remarks, but he can no doubt read them later. The Opposition welcomes the statement by Mr Collaery that the review of the ACT court structure will not proceed at the breakneck pace previously anticipated but, rather, will be referred to the law reform committee of the Australian Capital Territory for a longer process of deliberation and a consultative process in which all sectors of the ACT community, both those directly affected by this proposed major reform - the legal profession, the courts and the magistracy - and wider sectors of the community can take part.
We are not here debating the merits of the reform proposed by Mr Collaery. Rather, we are debating the form in which those reforms and proposals were announced. Today the Curtis inquiry is being referred to as merely a discussion paper, but in my examination of both the media statement and the brief to Mr Curtis the term "discussion paper" does not appear.
When that announcement was made it was taken by important sectors of the community, including the Law Society - Mr Phelps is reported in the paper this morning - and the Chief Justice, as a concrete proposal locking into the New Zealand system. Indeed, after reading the brief to Mr Curtis it is abundantly clear that he is instructed to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .