Page 1552 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
report on the merits of the New Zealand system. The Canberra Court is referred to repeatedly as an alternative to the magistracy.
I do not propose to enter into the merits of the debate between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice. Mr Collaery referred the house to House of Representatives Practice and the longstanding convention that the merits or demerits of an argument with the judiciary generally not be canvassed. He then went on to canvass those issues. Our concern and the concern of all members of the community, and the reason why there must be a matter of public importance discussion on this issue today, are that in two days the Canberra community has seen headlines in its major morning newspaper referring to a dispute between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice.
Community confidence in the administration of justice in this Territory and these proposed reforms could not be maintained if this dispute were allowed to continue. The proposal for reform involves an inquiry by Mr Lindsay Curtis. This Opposition has no objection to the personnel involved. Mr Curtis is a most distinguished member of the legal profession, a former deputy secretary in the Federal Attorney-General's Department, with a long involvement in administration of higher courts throughout the Commonwealth, and would be an eminent person to use as a consultant or a commissioner on a Law Reform Commission inquiry into the general future of the ACT court structure.
We were concerned, rather, that we were to be locked into this Canberra Court model, the New Zealand model, and that the profession was complaining through the pages of the major newspaper that it had not been consulted, and the judiciary was complaining that it had not been consulted. The impression was there for the community that this is another reform that is merely shooting from the hip. Now it is a proposal, and you tell the community about it after you have signalled your intentions.
If we are now to have a Law Reform Commission reference, that will provide adequate time for this very important and, in some issues, rather technical and arcane question to be considered at length, with input from those who are technically and professionally interested and from the community. I hope that Mr Collaery suggests to his law reform committee that it adopt many of the practices that have been adopted in the past by the Federal Law Reform Commission - holding public meetings, circulating discussion papers and getting the full community, rather than merely the profession, involved.
The Attorney-General referred in his remarks to a briefing which he provided to the Opposition, to me and to members of the Opposition staff this morning. We appreciate the convention of offering and accepting briefings from Ministers. It is an appropriate way to proceed. Of course, that cannot, as Mr Collaery mentioned, lock in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .