Page 4852 - Week 15 - Thursday, 16 December 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

TOWARDS THE END OF 1991, HOWEVER, CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGED, AND THE 1991 BILL WAS NOT ENACTED. IN OCTOBER THAT YEAR THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL AGREED IN-PRINCIPLE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY UNIFORM EVIDENCE LAW ACROSS AUSTRALIA. THE NEW SOUTH WALES AND COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENTS AGREED THAT THEY WOULD COMBINE TO JOINTLY DEVELOP A UNIFORM EVIDENCE BILL TO BE ENACTED IN BOTH THOSE JURISDICTIONS.

THE COMMONWEALTH PROPOSED TO THE A.C.T. THAT THE BILL COULD, WITH TERRITORY AGREEMENT, FOLLOW THE SAME APPROACH AS THE 1991 BILL AND APPLY TO TERRITORY COURTS. THE COMMONWEALTH SAW THIS AS FULFILLING ITS PREVIOUS AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THE TERRITORY WITH UP-TO-DATE EVIDENCE LAW. IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE THEN FORTHCOMING TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVIDENCE LAW TO THE A.C.T., THE COMMONWEALTH PROPOSED THAT THE BILL SHOULD CONTAIN A PROVISION THAT ITS APPLICATION TO THE TERRITORY COULD BE TERMINATED BY PROCLAMATION. THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY-GENERAL GAVE AN UNDERTAKING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH WOULD MAKE SUCH A PROCLAMATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE A.C.T. GOVERNMENT

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .