Page 4584 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 27 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Of course, it is appropriate to have a legal position; there has never been any argument about that. But I believe that the legal position is now clear. The extra legal advice which is being sought is, of course, an add-on and will delay the matter unnecessarily. I think the issue becomes a matter of public concern mostly because of the topical issues of the Royal Canberra Hospital and, of course, the school closures. There are many in the community who would like to see those Bills debated, with a view to seeing where people in this Assembly sit in respect of those matters. It is important that the issue be pursued quickly, and I look forward to support from the Government in respect of this matter.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (3.17): I am sure that all members would share the hope that we could have an answer on this matter by 11 December, but I speak only to that part of the issue that involves a brief given by this Government to Mr Jackson, QC. The other matter, Mr Speaker, is perhaps for you to respond to because it is a matter for you, as Speaker, in terms of the advice that you are seeking of the Commonwealth. Certainly, I do not know the terms of what you communicated to the Chief Minister and I do not know whether you have asked the Chief Minister to request the Commonwealth to answer within a certain period.
Certainly, so far as I know, it is a year since I raised concerns about the interpretation of section 65 with the then Chief Minister, Ms Follett, and no advice was to hand when we came into government. The issue is important and needs to be resolved, but the Opposition shows its total naivety in suggesting that we would send a brief with provision for a date of 11 December or else to one of Australia's most eminent queen's counsel. That is a nonsensical proposition.
I am sure that the brief will express the hope that we can have the advice by 11 December, and I will undertake to indicate to Mr Jackson, QC, that we require the advice, if possible, to be available before the end of the sittings this year. I am quite happy to make evidence of that request available to the Opposition, but what is suggested in the motion is just not the way things are done. This is a naive proposition. It is grandstanding, and I believe it is an attempt to score points so that a press release, which is probably already up there in the hands of the acolytes, can be released in the next 30 seconds saying, "Government delays and gags legal opinion again". That is what it will say; I predict that, Mr Speaker. I do not think this is worthy of debate.
MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (3.19): I am yet again disappointed in Mr Collaery's response. I think it is only reasonable that we attempt to put a timetable on the obtaining of the advice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .