Page 474 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That leads me to the next issue, and that is the proposal to set up a separate court of disputation - another tribunal in this town - that seems to be permeating some of the respondents in the media. Mr Speaker, our Government is in the midst of doing a court restructuring process. There is, at the moment, a proposal before the community for comment, that at this stage we use the Small Claims Court. Legitimate comment is being made about that proposal. The Government is still in its consultative mode, and we are making no definitive statement today as to which way we are going on that matter. We are waiting for community comment, and I find it strange that Mr Connolly and his crowd should bring their Bill forward today. They know that it is doomed. They know that it cuts off the community consultation and the very useful debate that is going on right now in the media - including the electronic media - on the proposals that have been put forward. I can say this, in generosity, on the "joint" proposals being put forward.
Why pursue your Bill - through you, Mr Speaker, to Labor - when we are in the middle of consultation and the middle of quite interesting community comment on the structures? If the Labor Party was committed to getting the best for the community, it would have sat back and not listed this Bill for discussion today. But what does it want? It wants the cheap political capital of a news release this afternoon saying, "Alliance Government conservatives committed an atrocity today and knocked out Labor's Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Bill". I put it through you, Mr Speaker, to this Labor Party: If ever it is going to learn to work with the community and the Government, then it must withdraw the Bill for the time being, or adjourn the debate on it so that the proper community consultation process can continue. It is an active community consultation process. It should be allowed to continue.
Mr Speaker, nevertheless, I am prepared to make some other comments. Going back to Mr Connolly's statement, "We in opposition have limited resources", he said the same thing when he introduced his Subordinate Laws (Amendment) Bill last week. He bemoaned the fact that he was "not in a position to be working with the full resources of the Law Office". Mr Speaker, we have set up a process in this Assembly whereby members opposite can avail themselves of the services of the Legislative Counsel's office. That is run by a queen's counsel; it is run in a very ethical manner, and never once have I ever heard any suggestions concerning anything any member opposite has ever proposed to them for drafting by way of a private members' Bill. Mr Connolly well knows the very strong legal and ethical position of that. Nor would I ever seek to know. So, why does not this Opposition give drafting instructions to the Legislative Counsel, as it should, and why is my Law Office time taken up with going through these erroneous, wrongly and poorly drafted documents that are coming out of the Opposition?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .