Page 3312 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of its role, in its exact role for that matter, into another structure. There has never been a suggestion that we would abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. How, for instance, would I - and Mr Connolly knows my background - ever suggest that I would abolish administrative merit review and the like? That is unthinkable. But surely, Mr Speaker, I have had to be very careful, as Attorney, about judging these issues.
One of the other issues is the committee's naturally limited resources. Already the Law Reform Committee has two complex and important issues referred to it; namely, defamation law and residential tenancy law. Other important issues are in the process of being referred to the committee. If a project of the size of the court restructuring proposal were referred in toto to the committee - I stress "in toto" - along with these other major references, this could risk the timely consideration and implementation of these much needed reforms in landlord and tenancy and defamation - much needed reforms endorsed by the Opposition.
This is not to say that particular elements of Mr Curtis' proposals could not be referred to the committee; for example - and I believe I have said it publicly - the alternative dispute resolution machinery proposals, committal proceedings and any number of other issues. It is my view that we require informed comment on the consultant's report as our next phase of a careful and prudent restructuring of the courts before we rush into referring the whole thing in toto and thus paralyse the Law Reform Committee with that great undertaking.
There will be a process of consultation at the widest level with members of the public and various representative community groups. The Community Law Reform Committee will, no doubt, be one valuable conduit for community views. I have no doubt, Mr Speaker, that in this process that committee will not hesitate to present its views. Indeed, as Mr Connolly knows, the committee in fact is free to take on board its own references. It could, indeed, take the issue itself and decide to review aspects of the proposals before the community.
And, of course, there will be ample opportunity. There will be advertisements. There will be public seminars. Much of that will be conducted, I hope, in an atmosphere of orderly debate, not in an atmosphere of political point scoring. It was for that reason that I thanked Mr Connolly for his restrained comments. There was much in what Mr Connolly said that I would not cavil with. I believe we are talking about a procedural difference of opinion across the floor of this house about how the Government should tackle the challenge of restructuring what we have inherited. I think my colleague Mr Kaine can comment on the implications of the inheritance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .