Page 1553 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Opposition to a bipartisan approach on all issues, and I am sure that on reflection he would not really expect that, but it can assist the deliberations of this house. It cannot prevent us, nor should it - nor, I am sure, would Mr Kaine expect it - raising issues of public concern. When the judiciary is in apparent conflict with the executive it is a matter of public concern.
After the matter was raised by the Opposition yesterday at question time, in remarks to the house last night and in public remarks to the media in the last few days, the apparent turnaround or back down from the quick report by 30 June, with Mr Curtis locking into a New Zealand-Canberra Court model, to a Law Reform Commission inquiry is welcomed, albeit a retreat forced under pressure in the house and in public.
The Attorney indicated in his remarks frustration at the opposition that confronts a law reformer. We on this side of the house would dispute that the way of reform is necessarily full of frustration. If a reform is proposed, particularly on such an important issue as the future structure of the court system, the appropriate course is to announce that the issue is to be examined. We need to look at the future of the court structure in the ACT, then open the matter for debate in the community, bringing in both the profession and the community generally, not announce a particular model, a consultant to report within six to eight weeks on that model, clearly announced as the favoured model, and give the impression that the Government is locked into that position.
If the Attorney were present - I am sure that Mr Kaine, who is present, would do this - he would say that they are not locked into that model. It is an inexperienced government and one whose competence could be questioned that leaves the clear impression that that is so. If you want reform, if you want to bring the community with you, you have to make it clear at the outset that the options are open. You have to make it clear at the outset that you are wanting to bring everyone into the reform process. If you announce a favoured proposal, give a short deadline and leave the impression that that is the degree of consultation that is appropriate, you cannot then expect the community to be with you when the community reads that significant figures in the interest groups affected - in this case, the Law Society and the judiciary - and all other areas of government administration announce opposition to what, perhaps mistakenly, they see as a locked-in position.
The retreat from the Curtis inquiry as the sole means of consultation and the announcement of a Law Reform Commission inquiry is a much more appropriate method, in our view, of dealing with a matter which is of crucial concern to the community and over which, at the end of the day, the Opposition and the Government may have very few differences. We may well emerge from that Law Reform Commission process with a proposed new court structure that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .