Page 1485 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
present structure. We range from the Small Claims Court, where there are no costs, up to the Supreme Court, where the costs can be absolutely extraordinarily high in certain circumstances. I would support the exploration of some of the features of his report that suggest better ways of managing those cost structures.
I welcome this report, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is a very valuable, as I said, opening salvo in what I hope will be a very full-blooded community debate. I am very hopeful that we will get, at the end of the day, an innovative and relevant court structure for the ACT. There is no reason for us to apply, in an undiscriminating fashion, inherited structures in the ACT now that we are self-governing, and I sincerely hope that we end up at the end of the day with a much more flexible and relevant court system as a result of these changes.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (3.51), in reply: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their comments on this matter. I do not intend to retraverse that which has been said over such a lengthy period. It is clear that the Government is about to consider at Government level the various recommendations and the very learned, in parts, responses from the public, the judiciary and other sources, including such broadly spaced interests as the judiciary, as I have said, the legal aid community, ACTCOSS, the Bar Association, the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre, the Conflict Resolution Service, VOCAL - that is the Victims of Crime Assistance League - and individual members of the community, and so on.
The replies were quite varied, but there is a strain through them, on my analysis, that we need the types of reform that most of you have alluded to - in fact, if my recollection serves me right, that all of us support. There is a clear consensus in that regard. There are more profound issues to resolve with the judiciary, of course. I am sure members are aware that issues of tenure, constitutional issues, cross-vesting issues, and issues involved in defining jurisdiction with the Commonwealth are moot ones for debate in this Assembly.
I will not go any further, other than to say that the Government has, at the same time, prepared a Judicial Commission Bill which has been made available in one or other of its draft forms to relevant parties - of course, in confidence - for perusal prior to its introduction in this Assembly. At the same time, as I understand it, other matters are being pursued with the Commonwealth Government to ensure that we can come to an agreed position on tenure in relation to any reconstituted or transferred Supreme Court.
Coming down from those lofty issues to those of the people, there have been strong arguments in favour of reduced formality and so on in the report. The issues that we need to face in reaching a decision on this matter are the role
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .