Page 3311 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
consultation with the Law Society, the Bar, the judges, the magistrates and the ACT President of the AAT, and, of course, Mr Menzies of the Credit Tribunal. I am in the process of going through a consultative phase, contacting them and setting timetables for this consultative review. I am gaining their comments first. I certainly am gaining their comments on the question before the house today, which is whether the issue should go to the Community Law Reform Committee, from its point of view, or whether it should be pursued in all its technicalities at this stage within those groups and whether we have adequately aired community concerns. I believe Mr Connolly referred to the fact that we were going to look to have some public contributions by way of public seminars and the rest.
This MPI has been put on, Mr Speaker, in the middle of that process. I do not believe we are dragging the chain. Only today I spoke to the president of the Law Society and the Bar and others on some issues relevant to this. The fact is, Mr Speaker, that the Law Society and the Bar have formed their own special consultative committees. I have mentioned our court reform proposals in quite a number of community fora recently and yesterday, for example, in the Griffin Centre, and I believe that we need - - -
Mr Wood: Fora?
MR COLLAERY: We must tell the school teacher the plural of forum, Mr Speaker.
Mr Wood: It is a bit archaic, like the law itself.
MR COLLAERY: We are on an appropriate subject, aren't we, Mr Wood?
Mr Wood: We are, indeed. Maybe in this area it is justified.
MR COLLAERY: Certainly we milked that one too, didn't we, Mr Duby?
Mr Duby: I suppose you think agendi is the plural of agendum.
MR COLLAERY: All I am saying is that I want to be extremely careful about being drawn out to pass judgments on the review itself. I do not believe at all that the Government has locked in the consultant to doing away with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I suggest that Mr Connolly read again the section of Mr Curtis' report on the administrative appeals structure and the quite proper questions Mr Curtis raises about issues relating to merit and judicial review. Mr Connolly and other lawyers here are familiar with those issues but others may not be. I will not detain the Assembly with that debate other than to say that clearly the consultant was asked to examine the desirability of establishing an administrative division of the courts. In other words, the AAT is translated, in all
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .