Page 1554 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
members both on this side of the house and on the Government benches agree is the most appropriate and efficient.
The goals announced by Mr Collaery are not ones with which we would quibble; efficiency and openness of the administration of justice is an ideal that would be shared by members of both sides of the house. But, if you want to achieve that in an important and sensitive area such as this, you need to be much more careful in your process of consultation. This is not the way to do it. The Attorney's protestation of frustration is not, I would put to the house, a condemnation of his critics but rather a condemnation of his understanding of the consultative process. You have to be open at the outset. You cannot announce your objectives and expect the community to swing behind you. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, we welcome the change in policy announced by the Attorney today and will support the process of inquiry by the Law Reform Commission.
MR STEFANIAK (4.15): I was delighted to hear the comments made by the Attorney-General, Mr Collaery, and some of the comments made by Mr Connolly in this debate. As Mr Collaery has indicated, the paper that is to be prepared by Mr Curtis is a discussion paper. He has announced today an extended process in relation to the various proposals regarding the ACT court system. We are meant to take over the Magistrates Court on 1 July and the Supreme Court in 1992. The process that he has announced today, I think, is most welcome, and I look forward to being informed of further progress in relation to this very important matter which affects the ACT. It is very important because one of the fundamentals of our democratic system is the system of justice. It also has relevance in terms of such matters as the cost involved, because justice is not a cheap process, and it will not be cheap for the ACT.
My remarks will be confined basically to the ACT taking over the responsibility for policing from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth retains for the time being the responsibility for policing in the ACT. That is due to be taken over by us on 1 July. It is for Senator Tate to propose suitable arrangements for the provision of police services, which this Government will then consider. The Attorney-General has outlined a number of discussions that have taken place to date and a report, which we all eagerly look forward to seeing, that will be handed down in several weeks.
Mr Wood: Surely it is for us to propose. I would have thought it would be what we want.
MR STEFANIAK: We need to ensure that these arrangements are appropriate, Mr Wood, for the ACT community and that the Government is able to determine the manner in which the police services are required for the benefit of the ACT community. In the ACT we are very lucky to have a local
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .