Page 1882 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT (10.48): As deputy chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, I indicate that the deliberations that took place in relation to the question of conveyancing and the position that the committee adopted occurred after discussions with representatives of the Bar Association, the Law Society, and so forth. Indeed, it was seen to be a far better use of resources. My own position, in arriving at the same conclusion as Mr Humphries on this matter, followed discussions with those groups representing the legal profession. Whether or not it is appropriate that there should be a discussion paper on this question - one that has been widely canvassed in the press, I might add - is something I do not intend to address. I think the Attorney has a right to issue such a paper, the industry, if you like, has a right to respond to it, and it would be a duplication to proceed with consultations through this committee.
I wish also to address the second part of Mr Humphries's proposal - that the committee will be reconsidering the terms of reference - particularly in the light of Senator Barney Cooney's inquiry into almost exactly the same thing as outlined in the reference this Assembly has made dealing with cost of justice questions, access and so on. We are attempting at the moment to arrange a briefing with Senator Cooney. Once we have been able to do that and gauge the full breadth of the deliberations of that committee, I believe, as does the chair of the committee, that it will be appropriate to come back to this Assembly, hoping to define more narrowly the terms of reference to give specific attention to the more physical access to justice questions encompassed in the original reference. Madam Speaker, I support the proposition that this motion by Mr Humphries be supported by the Assembly.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (10.51): Madam Speaker, I must say at the outset that the Government intended no slight or discourtesy to the committee by publishing its discussion paper. The reality is that the issue of deregulation of conveyancing, or opening it up to competition, was a policy we espoused during the campaign. It was in our policy statements. It was debated during the campaign. It copped a front-page story in the Canberra Times. We have always said that we would be proceeding down that path. We have had officials looking at the matter - Mr Humphries had the courtesy to commend them on the quality of their paper - and the paper was published as a discussion paper in due course.
I reject the view that there is a sort of convention - I think that was the highest it was put - that government activity ceases when an issue is before a committee. Taken to its extreme, as this committee is looking at the broad issue of the cost of justice - and it is a very worthwhile reference and I look forward to its report - that would mean that the Government ought not to move on cost of justice issues while the committee is looking at it. Of course, whenever we look at issues of law reform or reform of the courts, one of the centrepieces for our policy making would always be reducing costs and increasing access. I am sure that no member would think the Government should do nothing about reducing costs or improving access while this committee is deliberating.
I can give an undertaking that we would be happy to provide to the committee the outcome of our public consultation on the discussion paper. The Government's intended timeline for deregulation of conveyancing takes us into next year, or even the year after, before we actually have conveyancers operating
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .