Page 4422 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (4.48): Madam Speaker, I support the comments made by the Attorney-General and I will not be supporting the amendment proposed by Mr Humphries. I think the Attorney-General's presentation speech outlined the situation quite well. The resources of our courts are fairly limited and we do appear to be dealing with lawyers in a very generous fashion. I, too, received representations about this matter from the Law Society during the week and considered very carefully the comparison between jurisdictions of disciplinary proceedings leading to suspension and cancellation of practising certificates or striking off. I agree with the Attorney-General's approach; namely, that we should have an interim step prior to the Supreme Court having any say in these matters. The setting up of a tribunal early next year, I hope, will go a long way to resolving this situation as it currently occurs. I will not be supporting the amendment proposed by Mr Humphries.
MR STEVENSON (4.49): Madam Speaker, I can understand why the solicitors would like as many judges as they can get. I note that Mr Humphries has diligently collected information from around Australia showing that there is always more than one person finding the facts, but I think it is important to take note of who those people are. In Canberra we are looking at making it a Supreme Court judge, whereas around Australia it is not a judge. Those people may be other solicitors and so on. I think it is reasonable to assume that a single judge would be well qualified to find the facts in disciplinary matters involving a solicitor. I tend to be more persuaded by the arguments presented by the Attorney-General than by the arguments presented by the solicitors. I had fairly detailed chats with them. I suggested that they get back to me and cover some of the arguments that were raised with new information if they had it, or specifically detailed answers to some points I raised; but there was no new information presented. Under those circumstances I favour the proposal for one judge to find the facts. They did raise the point that it would be difficult to sort out when the facts finished and the findings started. Apparently that is not the case. A Supreme Court judge could be held to be able to do that with reasonable clarity.
Amendment negatived.
Bill, as a whole, agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
AIR POLLUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 25 November 1993, on motion by Mr Wood:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR WESTENDE (4.51): Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party is happy to support the amendments contained in the Air Pollution (Amendment) Bill 1993. We have consulted with various industry sources and there is general agreement with these amendments. There were a few points raised initially, but these have mostly been clarified. One related to appliances currently installed and the other related to equipment unsold prior to the Australian Standards 4013 coming into force. Both issues have been clarified and, in fact, clause 12 exempts these appliances. All equipment is now checked by either Amdel in South Australia or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .