Page 5020 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
judiciary is so absurd. The fact is that in this modern age we need the judiciary to protect the individual from abuses. Mr Fitzgerald - the former Mr Justice Fitzgerald, who was a great decision maker and a great judge, and I am sorry that he is lost to the judicial system - said, firstly, again quoting from that text:
The fact that Parliament has vested decision making processes in an administrator -
a Minister, for example -
does not mean that review of his decision is anti-democratic.
I repeat: "does not mean that review of his decision is anti-democratic". He continued:
After all, Parliament has provided for review by the various means available under Federal law.
What I say to you is that it was our parliament, and the Federal Parliament, which provided for the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Two people in this house have argued for the repeal of it, or the non-existence of it. You have missed the debate.
What I am doing in subclauses (3) and (4) is merely clarifying whether one could seek a statement of reasons. If members do not want to see Ministers giving a statement of reasons, for example, for decisions taken in this context, they should move to omit subclauses (3) and (4); but they should at least leave subclause (2) in. It gives us a North American standard. It is advanced. It gives us a good legislature. It does something that has not been done in Australia, and you should not be afraid of it. It simply ensures a fair and reasonable standard.
Mr Connolly: Why has nobody ever done this, Bernard?
MR COLLAERY: Mr Connolly says, "Why has nobody ever done it?". Why had no-one brought in a model weapons Bill? Why had no-one brought in some of the law reforms that I am interested in? The fact is that I am a voice in the wilderness tonight. Maybe there are one or two sympathetic souls. I accept that. You are going to vote against it. So what? I was wanting to assist the standing of our community and the standing of decision making, and I cannot see how you could possibly reject subclause (2); it is merely an enjoinder.
We have endless pieces of legislation containing such phrases as, for example, "the decision maker shall", "the tribunal shall act reasonably", "the Minister shall", "a person shall", or "if a person has reasonable grounds for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .