Page 4125 - Week 14 - Thursday, 25 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
doing. The terms of reference do, in fact, imply that there is a better way of setting up the administrative arrangements for the courts. If you have half a dozen courts with half a dozen different sets of administration, it is clearly going to be more costly and less effective, in the public interest, than having one system of administrative support. That is what a unified court system means.
I know Mr Moore will try to interpret that as something sinister. But that is what was intended; and that is a legitimate term of reference to give to somebody who is doing a study and writing a discussion paper - I repeat, a discussion paper - on the subject. Mr Moore attacks us because, he says, in terms of public consultation this is "not enough". Now, I do not know what is enough.
The fact is that this is a discussion paper that is out there for public consultation - and that is what it is about. That is how Mr Moore knows about it, and that is how he has the opportunity to get up here and criticise instead of saying something constructive. But, apart from the fact that it is a discussion paper prepared for the very purpose of generating public debate on the matter, the Attorney-General has organised a seminar for special interest groups; in other words, for people who are practising the law. That will be held on 7 November. He is also arranging an open seminar at University House on Saturday, 1 December 1990, so that anybody, including Mr Moore if he wants to take the trouble, can go along and participate in a public discussion on the matter.
What does Mr Moore want? Does he want us to send out the press-gangs to grab people off the street and bring them in to make sure that they actually discuss it with us? Is that what he is on about? Is that what he is on about when he says that this open discussion that the Government is involved in is "not enough"? Perhaps he can suggest some more creative ways, other than press-gangs, whereby we can force some people to discuss this whether they want to or not. Perhaps that is what he wants.
From where I sit, this is a valuable document. It raises issues of great concern - great concern to this legislature, great concern to the people of the ACT and certainly matters of great concern to the judges in the courts themselves. For example, it raises the question of the relationship of our judges to other courts with which they are associated and whether or not a judge of the Supreme Court, under the new arrangements, will continue to be, for example, a judge also of the Federal Court or other courts with which they are currently related. It has to do with the degree to which - - -
Mr Berry: They are very sensitive about this because Bernard has been found out again for duplicity.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Berry!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .