Page 2280 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: The grant of a fiat.
MR HUMPHRIES: Granting a fiat, that is right. So, Madam Speaker, obviously, if a judge of our Supreme Court is sufficiently concerned to make those comments, there is a demonstrated need for us to pass a Bill of this kind. Therefore, we on this side of the house will support this Bill.
One of the things which I think we should bring to the attention of the Assembly is that subclause 4(2) of the Bill gives the Attorney "the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done in connection with the performance of his or her functions". One would assume that that power included, for example, the capacity to appear in a court in the ACT and argue the case for the Territory's position, whatever it might be. The Attorney pointed out in his introductory speech that the role of Attorney-General evolved from a person who appeared in court on behalf of the king. Even in these days it is not unknown for Attorneys to actually appear in court. I understand that our own Attorney indicated his desire to appear in the High Court some time last year over a matter which affected the ACT's interest, and perhaps we will see that in due course. I am sure that he would do that very well if he had to appear in that capacity; but obviously this clause gives anybody, even a non-lawyer, the right to appear in a court in that capacity as Attorney for the Territory.
We have not had a non-lawyer as Attorney for the Territory - with one exception, and that, of course, was the very first Attorney that the ACT had, namely, Ms Follett. She did not seek to exercise the power of appearance in any ACT or other court that I know of; but, under this Act, she or somebody else who is not qualified - should Mr Connolly lose his seat under the Hare-Clark system, for example, and Ms Ellis become the Attorney-General in the next government; something of that kind, you never know - whoever it might be, would have the power to appear in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Territory. Although I am not personally in favour of unqualified people doing that type of onerous job on behalf of the Territory, I am sure that certain leniency would be shown by judges and magistrates towards that person if they were fighting the good fight on behalf of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, the Opposition, as I said, supports this Bill and we hope that it will clear up any ambiguities and doubts about the role of the Attorney in the ACT.
MS ELLIS (8.08): Madam Speaker, before I turn to the Bill that is before us, I think that this debate provides an opportunity to reflect on how well this Territory's law officers have served its interests, and on the fine tradition of impartiality they have inherited and furthered. Law officers have not always been so well thought of. I should explain that the term "law officer" is usually understood as including not only the Attorney-General but also the Solicitor-General. Madam Speaker, members are aware that at this time the Territory does not have a Solicitor-General; but no doubt, at the appropriate time in the Territory's development, consideration will be given to establishing such an office. The Northern Territory, along with all of the States and the Commonwealth, fills both offices.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .