Page 6154 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is supported by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights about equality before the law. There are provisions which say that in the ACT we are in breach of that convention at the moment in not giving defendants the right to a transcript, Mr Speaker.
We cannot give them a right to a transcript because it would offend section 65. I merely ask for a situation in which the Attorney can direct where someone has a most expensive transcript, so that they can get on with their defence.
Mr Connolly: You can do that administratively, anyway.
Mr Collaery: Mr Speaker, it is a serious matter, and I regret that I am being interrupted constantly by the Attorney. I heard him out.
Mr Speaker, it may be a small point, but at least one defendant recently, who was faced with a cost of many thousands of dollars, approached me and justified to me why he could not afford a transcript. In that case he had changed solicitors, and the new solicitor needed a transcript. I believe that it is related to the Magistrates Court Act, and I believe that it is related to the general subject of costs and the committal of people who might otherwise not accept the judgment from the court.
Mr Moore: Mr Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order for a very brief time. The precedent to which Mr Collaery referred, I think, is something that we should take into consideration. The precedent was a case in which Mr Collaery went to the Attorney-General and said, "I really wanted to raise something. I will not have another opportunity towards the end of this Assembly". He came to an arrangement with the Government and other members of the Assembly, who agreed that we were prepared to allow that exemption.
That was a very different matter from allowing somebody to come in with an entirely irrelevant amendment, suddenly throw it on the table, with two minutes' notice, and expect support. That is why the standing order exists. It is a good, important standing order. We ought not establish a precedent which is quite different from a situation that happened the other day when there was broad agreement to accept a situation, considering that the Assembly was drawing to a close. This is entirely different, and you ought to uphold standing order 181.
Mr Collaery: Mr Speaker, perhaps I could just comment briefly and assist the house. Standing order 181 uses the words, "provided it is within the title". I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to refer to the actual words, "provided it is within the title or relevant to the subject matter of the bill". It is within the title, and I have argued earlier - I will not repeat it - that it is within the subject matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .