Page 3692 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Members, I think, are right, up to a point, to say that limiting the involvement of legal practitioners certainly keeps the cost down. There is no doubt about that. But it has another effect, and that is that sometimes people who do not feel sufficiently confident to appear before a quasi-judicial body, a quasi-judicial tribunal like this appeals board, may not feel able to bring an appeal to this board at all. It may be that a particular individual in the community is not aged, is not facing an unduly complex matter and is not from a non-English-speaking background, but nonetheless may feel insufficiently confident to appear before highly qualified people, in the presence of other people making a contentious argument, and be able to explain his or her case with clarity and to the best advantage. In fact, some people are so terrified by these experiences that they would rather avoid them, in all circumstances, but would feel that the assistance of a lawyer would enable them to adequately appear in those circumstances and make their claim or make their appeal.
I realise that we cannot have both low cost and the regular involvement of lawyers; but, Madam Speaker, we must recognise in dealing with the situation in this form that we do it at some cost; that lawyers are not necessarily an expensive luxury, but sometimes provide the only means whereby a person can have their case properly put to their satisfaction before a tribunal, court or body such as this.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.46), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions and for their assurances of support. Your support is not surprising because it came out of the committee which most of you belong to. It is to be expected.
Mr Humphries: It is a big committee.
Mr Kaine: The important ones amongst them.
MR WOOD: The important ones, yes. It is a very good committee; may I say that? I am not sure what I need to get through after your next meeting, but it is a good committee. May I join with David Lamont and other members and say how sorry I am that Peter Harrison is not sitting over there as he usually is. We do wish him well. Indeed, he framed the amendments that I will be moving shortly, and he was very instrumental, with others, in producing the legislation generally. I think Mr Lamont, to give him his credit, is unduly modest.
Members interjected.
MR WOOD: I was going to go on to say that Mr Lamont usually is not regarded as being modest. I know from my point of view that Mr Lamont pursued avidly - you agree that he can do that quite effectively - the idea of the planning appeals board and utterly convinced the Government of its desirability. He was a strong advocate and I think the point of view he expressed was entirely legitimate. We see the benefits of that today. I congratulate Mr Lamont and the committee for their work in that respect.
Mr Lamont mentioned some of the outside comment. It is one of my disappointments that such public comment - I use the word "comment" rather than debate - as I have heard is generally very misinformed. For example, the other day, after we had launched this new Territory Plan I saw a so-called expert, and then the TV used film to back up what he was saying, saying, "Look at these garages. We are going to have streets of double garages and the like".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .