Page 3309 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Magistrates Court into a court presided over by a judge is the abolition of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which again Mr Curtis was locked into by the terms of reference. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is a fundamental reform of which Australia can be justly proud. It is a non-legalistic tribunal to provide merit review of administrative decisions. It is a reform which was introduced originally by a Labor government but it has been supported by Liberal governments. It is a reform that has been copied in other States and Territories, including this Territory. It is a tribunal which enjoys the confidence of the community. It is a tribunal on which the whole structure and future of planning legislation in this Territory is premised, because the innovative planning and land management package, which is presently before the Assembly, is predicated on Administrative Appeals Tribunal merit review. To abolish this effective and efficient tribunal and vest its jurisdiction in a court is, in our opinion, extremely dangerous.
The AAT works well, it is understood by lawyers and lay persons alike and it has an unparalleled record of providing justice to the lay person without the need to be represented by lawyers. Many actions are successfully conducted in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal without the need for lawyers. I practised in that tribunal myself for some years and can testify that the unrepresented applicant is treated with extreme understanding by the tribunal and is assisted in getting justice; cheap justice and accessible justice which is the goal of this Opposition. To lock ourselves into a position where that tribunal was to be abolished would, in our view, be extremely dangerous. This is a very important and fundamental issue of law reform. It ought to go to the Community Law Reform Committee, as previously indicated by the Attorney-General. It will be very disappointing, Mr Speaker, if the Government tries to avoid putting this matter to the Law Reform Committee. I see no advantage to the Government in avoiding the Law Reform Committee on this. It is an appropriate body to look at the matter. It would reassure the community and the profession and it would assist us all in our, I would hope, bipartisan goal of effective court reform.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (3.36): I thank my colleague, Mr Connolly, for his restrained comments. I believe that this debate is premature but, all the same, I think the Government should give a response to the matter before it. Let me set the record straight on a number of issues. Firstly, Mr Speaker, section 37 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act requires the Executive of this Territory to, among other things, execute and maintain the laws and the subordinate laws of the Territory. As everyone knows, we inherited a great deal of out-of-date legislation; laws that are not only anachronistic but also inequitable in their impact, and are having unintended results.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .