Page 2696 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 13 May 1993, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.25): My comments on this Bill will be brief. The Liberal Party will support the Bill, in particular because in fact it entails no change at all in the law applying in this Territory as far as I can tell. The only change which is occurring with the passage of this Bill is that the statute under which the ACT participates in the national cross-vesting scheme will become an ACT enactment rather than a Commonwealth statute. That is a reflection of the fact that we are now a self-governing Territory with full responsibility for our own court system and that we need, therefore, to have control over matters to do with the jurisdiction of our courts.
The Bill which is before us is, I understand, based on the Northern Territory legislation, but it closely reflects legislation which has been enacted in all other States and the Commonwealth. Effectively, it allows for reciprocal arrangements as between those jurisdictions. Effectively, it allows for matters to be transferred to the court of most appropriate jurisdiction. It confers complementary jurisdiction on all Supreme Courts, the Federal Court and the Family Court of Australia and the Family Courts of the States so that those courts can, in effect, transfer matters between them to make sure that the most appropriate court is located. It is also possible that matters can be transferred from one court to another elsewhere in the country so that several matters which might be going on in different courts can be consolidated in the one place in the one most appropriate court.
I might put on the record, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that I do have some reservations about the operation of the national cross-vesting scheme, but they are not matters which are very serious or matters in respect of which I wish to suggest amendments to this Bill. There is no right of appeal, for example, as I understand it, against a decision to transfer from one court to another, but that is not a matter which should be dealt with by amendments on the floor of this Assembly. It is a matter which should be dealt with by negotiation at the national Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Perhaps we will be able to talk to the Attorney about the appropriate direction of those sorts of changes.
I might say that I am slightly puzzled by some of the drafting in the document. I realise that it reflects that in other States and the Northern Territory, but I am still a little bit puzzled, and perhaps the Minister can explain what it is that he is trying to achieve. I see that in the interpretation clause, clause 3, "Territory" does not include the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory, which is slightly bizarre. I am not sure what Territory it does include. I am even more puzzled when I read subclause 4(3), which says:
The Supreme Court of another State or of a Territory has and may exercise original and appellate jurisdiction ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .