Page 481 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEFANIAK: Very funny, Mr Moore. They are very professional. It is an impressive organisation, albeit it a small one, set up ideally to counsel people and to try to resolve disputes. I think that that body, if it is properly used for disputes such as might arise between landlords and tenants, would be even quicker and more effective in solving disputes at that stage than even something like the Small Claims Court, because there is obviously some timeframe involved with the Small Claims Court. You file your action, and then there is a time set down to talk to the registrar or the clerks to try to resolve the problems there. But that does involve time.
The Conflict Resolution Service is indeed a lot quicker, and has a very good track record in terms of getting people together and actually solving disputes, and solving disputes very effectively. I think that that organisation should not be denigrated, and, indeed, it could play a real role here. That is something which I think should be considered in this community consultation period, because this would be an ideal situation in which that body could play a further useful role and enhance its already excellent reputation within the Canberra community.
Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by stating that, whilst being supportive of many of the motives no doubt underlying Mr Connolly's concern and introduction of this Bill and whilst being a little bit disappointed, too, at some of Mrs Grassby's churlish and rather stupid comments in relation to the Liberal Party, I think there are a number of problems in this Bill. I would like to see, and I am heartened to see, the community consultation engaged in by the Attorney-General. I look forward to seeing the results of that consultation and to seeing effective legislation brought in. I really think that this Bill should be adjourned so that we can discuss and vote on both Bills, if Mr Connolly wants to persist with this one, after the relevant community consultation has taken place.
MR CONNOLLY (11.23), in reply: I heard two speakers from the Government say that debate on this Bill should be adjourned; but no-one from the Government sought to adjourn it. So I take it that they do not really want it adjourned; they want to dismiss the Bill out of hand. At least in Mr Stefaniak's comments there was an attempt to look at the detail of this Bill and to make some criticisms and some suggestions as to how the Bill might be improved. The Attorney-General's speech, however, was disappointing in the extreme. It was merely a high-handed dismissal of this Bill. Most disappointing of all was his concession that he had merely had a quick perusal of the Bill.
When this Bill was introduced in September, I did make the comment that we did not purport that this was perfect legislation. I think the phrase was, "This Bill does not purport to be the greatest Bill ever introduced". Mr Collaery sought to make some cheap political points about that, saying that that was an extraordinary concession. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .