Page 4746 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The rationale behind this Bill is commendable, and we will look with interest to see how it continues to apply in practice. I was talking earlier today to the Attorney, who indicated that the Government too would be looking at how the law applies in practice. If there are problems of the law applying in such a way that some sort of mischief occurs that is not really intended, this can be looked at again. Mr Connolly is confident that that will not happen in law and, more reassuringly as far as we are concerned - no offence to Mr Connolly - Judge Kelly and the Community Law Reform Committee are confident that there will be no problems. That includes the Law Society and the legal practitioners represented on that committee.
The Griffiths v. Kerkemeyer situation, which has effectively applied in the Territory since the 1970s, will now come into legislative force. Accordingly, these Bills are supported by the Liberal Party.
MR COLLAERY (10.20): I rise briefly to commend the Community Law Reform Committee, firstly, for the work it did in its report, which was commissioned following a reference I gave as Attorney on 21 September 1990. The committee's report is a good overview of the law as it now stands in this area. It is a very useful compendium of where the authorities are and what the comparative legislation is. I commend the relatively short but informative report of the committee.
In an appendix to the committee's report, as a draft prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, is the Bill before us today. My colleague Mr Stefaniak put the issues, and they were set out clearly by the Attorney in his introductory speech. I make one practical observation. This may seem to be a somewhat obscure issue, for the lay persons in our midst, as Mr Moore said earlier in the debate; but it is a Bill very much for the lay person. It is a Bill that rectifies the injustice and discrimination that some of us, particularly me, have seen in practice in the Territory.
I am very pleased to endorse this further process of law reform in the Territory. I think the cynics, particularly those in the Canberra legal fraternity, who are not always complimentary about the self-government process or about the workings of this Assembly and its parliamentarians, will note that within a relatively short time of self-government we have put an end to a long-running issue of concern to the community. Again, this is a gain for self-government, and I welcome the legislation.
MR HUMPHRIES (10.22): My party has decided to support these two Bills, and I will loyally support the view of my party. However, I must confess that I have serious reservations about the thrust of these two Bills, and I thought I might indicate the nature of my reservations. It is a matter that will not affect my vote, of course, because my party has decided to support these Bills.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .