Page 339 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 1 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Last year the Assembly, at the instigation of the Opposition, did knock off some court fees that we had imposed. One of the ironies of politics was involved in that, Mr Deputy Speaker, in that the Liberal Government in New South Wales, facing a Labor Opposition and Independent members controlling the numbers on any given day, had imposed a schedule of new fees. We thought that was a fairly sensible package and we imposed a very similar schedule. In New South Wales the Opposition and the Independents said, "Shock, horror! This is a terrible set of fees" and knocked them off; and in the ACT the Independents and the Liberal Opposition said, "These are terrible fees" and knocked them off.
Mrs Carnell: And we were right.
MR CONNOLLY: Clearly the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in different jurisdictions were quite right. It is a question of which Labor Party and which Liberal Party, so there we go. We lost on that, but it did seem appropriate.
There is a process going on of tidying up a lot of the basis of the courts in the ACT. I mentioned during question time that we have the Magistrates Court building under way, which is something that is very welcome, but there is a lot of tidying up in the actual structure of the courts in the Territory. The fee-making powers and the fee-setting powers were all over the shop and it was unclear from different jurisdictions as to how the fees were to be set. We have attempted to create a structure that has a commonality across the various courts and tribunals, and I am pleased that the Opposition sees that as a sensible piece of housekeeping.
While it is a fairly weighty package, when you look at all the amendments and all the supporting material it is essentially a fairly simple principle, and I am pleased that it has the support of members opposite. The amendment that Mr Humphries spoke to me about the other day is something that we will be supporting. In due course we may need to revisit this because there is a substantial reform of mental health laws currently before an Assembly committee. Should that process come out of that committee and be enacted, we will have to look at the issue of fees for new court and tribunal structures that will emerge from that legislative package. In the interim, we are happy with that amendment.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
MAGISTRATES COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 3) 1993
Debate resumed from 9 December 1993, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .