Page 4586 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 27 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
does not believe it appropriate to attempt to put a deadline on Mr Jackson, QC. I think it is, quite frankly. You are paying for this advice, are you not? I believe that it is more than reasonable for the people who are requesting Mr Jackson's advice, and who are entering into a form of contract with him as to payment for that advice, to also seek to put a deadline on it. Why would you not?
I can conclude only that members opposite have no interest whatsoever in genuinely pursuing this matter. That is the only possible interpretation that can be placed on their actions outside this Assembly. The fact is that we already have two legal opinions on this matter.
Mr Jensen: Wayne did not like the second one.
MS FOLLETT: We loved the second one, I beg your pardon. We are now going for two further opinions. Once we have them, is it the Government's intention to go for yet another pair of opinions?
We cannot continue in this way. I believe that the Federal Attorney-General, whose opinion is one of those being sought, would be sympathetic to a request that the matter be treated urgently and would make every attempt to provide it by the date that we have requested. I also believe that it is perfectly competent for a person contracting with Mr Jackson, QC, for that advice to put a date on the receipt of that advice. It will not be cheap advice, I have no doubt. To do otherwise - to leave the matter totally open-ended, as the Government is attempting to do - is to destroy any credibility that they may be able to retrieve from this situation. They run that risk if they do not adhere to some kind of a timetable, which Mr Berry's motion quite responsibly suggests.
MR KAINE (Chief Minister) (3.24): I find it rather odd that the Opposition is suddenly imbued with a sense of urgency on this matter. As the Attorney-General has properly pointed out, he brought this to the attention of the then Chief Minister a year ago. Not only did she not address the matter; she made no attempt whatever to get any legal advice. Now, this Government must do this immediately.
I agree, in principle, that it is a matter that needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible. I also agree that it is a matter that needs to be resolved. But it is a matter of precedent, and it seems to be lost on people in the Assembly that the Commonwealth deliberately used words in the self-government Act that are different to those that apply in the Commonwealth sphere. One has to ask the question: Why did they use different words? If they meant them to mean the same thing, why did they not use the same words? The fact is that they did not. So one has to assume that they meant something different.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .