Page 156 - Week 01 - Thursday, 9 April 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
independence, and that arrangement, I think, would be a fortuitous one for us. As I think the Attorney mentioned the other day, it would give the ACT's Supreme Court the same status, as it were, as the other arms of government of the ACT.
Madam Speaker, as I indicated, this motion has the complete support of the Opposition. I hope that it will result in quick action by the Commonwealth and a successful transfer of the Supreme Court of the ACT to the place where it rightly belongs, that is, to the control of the ACT citizens through their government and their parliament.
MR MOORE (11.53): I am delighted to rise to give my support to this motion by Mr Connolly. I think it would be an appropriate way for all members to indicate their support for the motion if they passed it without dissent. Mr Stevenson is not here today, but I discussed this matter with him yesterday and at that stage he said that he would not be opposing the motion. I did not actually ask him whether he would be supporting it, just whether or not he would be opposing it, and he indicated that he would not be at that stage. I do not pretend in any way to speak for him - nor will I ever - but it does seem to me that this is an excellent opportunity for us to begin this Assembly in a spirit of cooperation and to indicate to the Federal Parliament that this Assembly as a whole believes that this is the most appropriate way to go.
There is no need for me to go into the details that have been raised by both Mr Connolly and Mr Humphries about the independence of the judiciary and so forth. That is entirely appropriate and I support what they have said. I think it is appropriate for this motion to be carried without dissent, and that that information go to the Federal Parliament so that they understand that it is the wish not just of a majority of members of this parliament but of the parliament as a whole.
The approach here contrasts greatly with the approach taken by the Alliance Government under the previous Attorney-General in the negotiations for the police force, which I have criticised time and again and will continue criticising. I believe that the ACT would have been far better off had we adopted the model of a contract police force that was originally suggested by Colin Winchester. No doubt that contract still would have been with the Australian Federal Police, who I believe offer an excellent service to the ACT.
However, the relationships that we have with the Federal Police and the difficulty of those relationships were demonstrated in the very sad affair at the Iranian Embassy the other night. The expectation is that the community policing function of the ACT police, in effect, is also responsible for some of the Federal responsibilities. No doubt the inquiries that will be conducted into that situation over the next little while will clarify the position. It is a sad way to have to have it clarified, but it will at least clarify the position and the relationship between the two roles of the Federal Police.
In the case of the judiciary, an attempt is being made to avoid all those sorts of problems; to put it at arm's length and to deal with it in a most appropriate way. I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General for providing this motion and I encourage all members to support it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .