Page 3315 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
understand it. So you can imagine how most people going to the court feel about this. I think this is what the magistrates feel and I am sure Mr Collaery would love to prance around in a wig, or a gig and a gown. I think it would look good on him.
Mr Collaery: Do you mean I would like to prance around in a wig and a gig?
MRS GRASSBY: Yes, I would not be surprised if you did want to do that too, Mr Collaery. I feel that to move this into a higher court and make magistrates judges is a big mistake. Labor favours an open and acceptable justice system. To rush into a unified court model would be expensive and confusing for the community. I know that Mr Collaery has said that this is not so, but I would like to point out to him that in attachment A of the review the Attorney-General has directed the development of a unified court system as a model for reform. The unified court system the Attorney-General has in mind is a structure that would consist of two complementary parts - a Supreme Court and a lower court, styled as the Canberra Court, that would amalgamate the Magistrates Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Mr Collaery: But not abolish them; amalgamate, not abolish.
MRS GRASSBY: But why change a system that we have?
Mr Kaine: Because it could be better.
MRS GRASSBY: Most people in Australia envy the system we have. It makes me think that Mr Collaery is not going to be here for long. I think he sees himself as a judge, sitting up there in his wig and gown and in all his glory. He would not want to be just a magistrate; it would be too low for him.
Mr Speaker, I do not see any reason to change the system we have. I think it is a very good system. I have spoken to a lot of people in the field of law who come here to practise from time to time and others who are practising here, and they think the system is an excellent system. Why should we change it? Should we change it just because Mr Collaery went to New Zealand and saw this system in New Zealand? I do not want to be rude about New Zealanders; but I understand there are about nine million sheep over there and three million of them think they are people. I do not think we need to follow their system. If we are so far advanced, why do we need it? I understand the sign at the airport in New Zealand says, "Would the last person leaving please turn off the lights". If they are all leaving, obviously the system cannot be terribly good, and I think we should stick to the system we have. We as members of the Labor Party think it should be made simple and less costly to the people of Canberra because, as I say, anybody who goes to court learns very quickly that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .