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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 84 ..

Mrs Carnell: We are not looking at that. We are looking at the costs.

MS McRAE: There is absolutely no way that someone can look at the costs without looking at the merits of the case. That, Mr Speaker, is what I would like this Assembly to have legal advice on. We are hearing this sophistry about the separation of ideas in people's heads. That in abstract they can look at a case that is before us and before the AAT, and not look at the case again and not look at what did and did not happen, is just, in my head, a sophistry. I would be very disappointed if we blundered into this without proper advice as to where our responsibilities stop and the AAT's begin. The rights of people before an appeal process should be looked at without us blundering into an affair that we should have no right to reconsider.

If at the end of the committee's inquiry, without touching on Mr De Domenico's case, the guidelines are such that they quite obviously suit Mr De Domenico's case, it is not beyond the capacity of this Assembly to then rule that an ex gratia payment be made. We do not need to look at past cases and current cases within the Assembly to come through with guidelines that then hold tight. I think it is absolutely irresponsible, and it fills me with horror that people are so glib about the current situation that is before us, are so glib about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and what is still to be faced by individuals, both in this chamber and outside it, that they can blithely say, "Oh, we can look at anything". I think that is appalling. I would be very disappointed if proper legal advice is not obtained by you, Mr Speaker, if nobody else, to ensure that we are not just blundering blithely into something that people seem to take very lightly.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (5.17): Mr Speaker, to close the debate, let me say, first of all, that I think Ms McRae has just disqualified herself from taking on the role of shadow Attorney-General. What she has said is simply pure nonsense. It is perfectly possible for an Assembly committee to look at the question of costs in the abstract circumstances of particular situations - even one postulated of a member of the Assembly or a Minister being accused of sexual harassment matters before the Discrimination Commissioner - without in any way jeopardising the proceedings before the AAT. Indeed, the Australian Parliament has done just that by approving costs while matters were afoot for Minister Carmen Lawrence and ex-Minister Alan Griffiths.

Ms McRae: They did not. They did it before she went to court.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, that is not so. The proceedings had already commenced when that occurred. I think Ms McRae has gone off the deep end completely, and does not understand the situation.

Let me make another point as well. The suggestion was that legal representation is not necessary before the Discrimination Commissioner. Let me tell Ms Horodny that there is no court in this country for which legal representation is necessary; but there are many courts where legal representation may be desirable, or appropriate, in order to protect the interests of the parties concerned.

Mr Berry: Do not mislead. You have to get leave before the Discrimination Commissioner. You should go to that point.

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