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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 2 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

In other respects, the Territory had been well endowed. At the point of self-government, one area that was not particularly showing the signs of strong Commonwealth attention was the Territory's law and legal system. Mr Connolly, as Attorney-General, was substantially responsible for the process of upgrading the laws of the Territory and placing our statute books in what I would say was generally good working order.

Some of the change that he initiated as Attorney-General, my party and I opposed. But most of what he brought forward was acceptable and supportable, not just by my party but by the whole of the Assembly. Much of the legislation he brought forward was indeed groundbreaking. Areas of reform for which he was responsible included laws on surrogacy; recognition of domestic relationships outside traditional relationships; the establishment, for the first time, of judicial commissions to deal with the removal of judges; the use of closed-circuit television in court proceedings, especially with respect to evidence given by children; new applications of the discrimination legislation; a new regime for the forensic treatment of the mentally ill; the liberalisation of the drug policy; enactments recasting the state of the law concerning consumer credit, bail, evidence, the enforcement of judgment debts, adoption, legal aid, registration of land titles and listening devices - and the list goes on. It could be said that ACT laws lagged badly in 1989. Today, in many respects, the ACT's state of the law leads the pack. I have to say that Mr Connolly, to give him his due, deserves much of the credit for that. There were, of course, some less successful initiatives which he was responsible for and which we debated fiercely in this chamber at the time. Now is not the time to comment on those. Indeed, his whole opus of legislation is a matter which is now, I think, more for the history books to judge.

He has now decided to leave party politics permanently. I think that one of the great weaknesses of our system of government is that it puts some players under almost impossible pressure and leaves others in almost unconscionable indolence. I said late in 1994 that being in opposition was akin to unemployment in a highfalutin kind of way, and I suspect that Mr Connolly came to feel the truth of that over the last year. It is difficult for a person with considerable skills and an appetite for challenges to be idle. I had no hesitation, therefore, in offering Mr Connolly the role of Master of the ACT Supreme Court. The community, I think, will derive a great deal of benefit and great value from the contribution he can and will make in that role as Master. Mr Connolly was interested - and is interested, I am sure - in access to justice issues. On the Master's bench he has a chance to do something about that. The Master is responsible for, among other things, the management of court lists to ensure that justice is not only full but timely. I am confident that the zeal for change which was part of his character will be no less an impulse of his in the Supreme Court. The appointment to the Supreme Court is an important one. I am not suggesting that the court is in need of change; but I will say that I believe that this appointment constitutes a generational change for the Supreme Court, and I believe that it will broaden the outlook of the court in the work that it does.

It was my privilege to oppose him over much of the last six years. It is a pity that our roles had to be defined so often, both by ourselves and by the media, as belligerent ones. I think that is a very false impression in many ways. The fact is that politics is very substantially about agreeing and proceeding, on an agreed basis, with a process of change

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