Page 1881 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
committees for discussion, in the hope that resolution will be possible. On these occasions there is a sort of convention that the beliefs of members of the Assembly, be they on the committee itself or in the Assembly otherwise than on the committee, are suspended while that inquiry goes on. Examples from the First Assembly included things such as the casino inquiry, the fluoride inquiry, the inquiry into the needs of the ageing, the inquiry into hospital bed numbers, and the inquiry into the National Aquarium. On almost all of those occasions strong views were expressed by members of the Assembly that were put aside for the duration of the inquiry by the particular standing or select committee. That was to enable members at least to attempt to view these matters objectively, apart from their own party policies or positions.
The difficulty that has arisen for the Legal Affairs Standing Committee is that, although this inquiry has been commenced into the cost of justice and conveyancing, there has been a continuance of the debate outside that committee, on the political level, on the question of conveyancing. Specifically, the Attorney-General has released a discussion paper on the question of conveyancing property in the ACT and the licensing of conveyancers in the ACT. It is a very good paper, and I think the issues raised in it are quite proper and contribute to the debate. The question arises as to where that debate should be carried on. It seems to me to be both a waste of resources and a discourtesy to the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs that the inquiry should be conducted through the agency of the Attorney-General's Department at the same time as it is being conducted in a standing committee of the Assembly.
The Attorney has pointed out that he has a party position on conveyancing in the ACT, and that is well acknowledged. I remind the Attorney that other parties perhaps have positions on conveyancing - certainly my party does - and the raising of this issue to stimulate public debate in the community causes me, in particular, some difficulty. I am my party's spokesman on legal matters. My party members, both inside and outside this Assembly, would expect me to respond to issues of this kind when they are raised in the public arena for debate. But, if I were to enter into that debate and comment from a party position on matters that had been raised in the Attorney-General's discussion paper, members of this Assembly would quite rightly be outraged that I was abandoning my hat as chairman of the Legal Affairs Standing Committee and taking on the same issue at a political level as Liberal Party legal affairs spokesman.
I do not want to make too much of this point, Madam Speaker, but I will say that I think it is appropriate for us to discharge this particular reference. The committee will proceed with its inquiry into the cost of justice. Those are important issues, and will be handled by the committee as best it can. I indicate that the committee might see fit to come back and suggest some rewording of the issues that have been put on the plate of the committee. It is a very wide topic area, and we feel that there may be some need to better define the issues we pursue on the cost of justice matter. I hope to come back to the Assembly on behalf of the committee at the earliest opportunity, namely, in the September sitting, to do just that. I also indicate that, because of the nature of the committee, its members would still be interested in knowing what is going on with the Attorney's inquiry into conveyancing of property. We would very much welcome a summary of the submissions and other papers that emerge from that inquiry in due course. We hope that the Attorney might be able to forward those matters to us when they become available.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .