Page 3310 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One of our first moves, of course, was to set up a mechanism to ensure that ACT laws - and I quote from my speech in this house - are systematically and rigorously reviewed and tested for public relevance. The mechanism chosen was the Community Law Reform Committee. I am indebted to Mr Connolly for his bipartisan endorsement of that body. Certainly, in a very difficult self-government stage, we are dealing with the prioritisation of our objectives. Were Mr Connolly in my position he might understand more clearly the choices available to the Executive as to how it goes about its processes post-self-government.
The foremost task that the Government sees the Law Reform Committee undertaking, Mr Speaker, is to look at the body of law, particularly that part of out-of-date law, and those gaps in law that require and excite community concerns, particularly laws that require a Government policy. Weapons control legislation might be an example. Another aspect, of course, is the great emphasis and the enormous amount of effort in our legislative drafting area on the planning appeals and leasing and other Bills.
So, in a prioritised world, the Government took the view that the court had a number of structural concerns, which my colleague, the Chief Minister, will address - and we are talking about the fabric of the court - but from my Attorney-General's point of view I could see issues, and indeed the very issues that Mr Connolly speaks of as being important, to be raised in the public domain and assessed and requiring Government action as early as possible.
On balance, we decided to go the expensive route, you might call it, of having and paying for an eminent consultant, Mr Lindsay Curtis, to prepare this report. It is a very comprehensive report. If I could draw the attention of Mr Connolly to appendix B of Mr Lindsay Curtis' report, you will see that he says:
The existing court system in the Territory presents a picture of great complexity.
Then he attributes the complexity to structural issues, historical issues, cross-vesting concerns and the like. Certainly, to set a review process going for a court mechanism is a highly technical enterprise. It was our judgment that we should have it done by a consultant and that in the second phase, as I said in my speech to this house earlier, there would be joint implementation strategies developed. I believe I used words such as strategies or joint implementation teams or consultative groups being established.
I can well accept Mr Connolly's keenness on this issue. He has, as he said, taken an interest in administrative law particularly, and he has been a Government constitutional lawyer; but I do suggest to the house that he is a bit overeager. I am presently in the process of close
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .