Page 897 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEFANIAK, by leave: I wish to inform the Assembly that on 26 February 1991 the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs resolved to inquire into and report on: (1) the benefits or otherwise on the administration of justice in the ACT if majority verdicts in jury trials are introduced; (2) what should constitute a majority verdict in both civil and criminal proceedings; (3) the circumstances in which majority verdicts would apply; (4) the circumstances in which courts in Australian States and Territories have recourse to majority verdicts and the effect of majority verdicts in the administration of justice in those States and Territories; and (5) any other aspects of jury trials which the committee considers to be of concern to the community.
By way of brief explanation, a number of Australian States, namely, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania, have majority verdicts in both criminal and civil jury trials. New South Wales is going down that track. Victoria, like New South Wales, does not have them at this stage. There has been concern in the ACT legal profession and, indeed, among a number of other people involved in the administration of justice over the years with this question. Accordingly, the committee thought it was time for the inquiry to be undertaken.
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
MR MOORE (10.42): I move:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Collaery from presenting the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Amendment) Bill 1991.
I will say just a couple of words. I think it is quite appropriate for the Government under these circumstances to be able to present that Bill. I cannot see any reason why not. I do not want to see us get bogged down in that sort of bickering.
MR BERRY (10.43): This is another demonstration of the Government's inability to manage the business paper. It was unable to give proper notice on this Bill. That is why leave was denied. The Labor Opposition will support a suspension of standing orders to allow this Bill to be dealt with; but the record has to show that, again, the Minister opposite, Mr Collaery, has failed to manage his portfolio properly in the presentation of business before this house.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .