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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 665 ..

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.33): Yes, the Labor Party shares the views of the government in relation to this. My views on the matter are very similar to those in relation to the previous amendment I spoke on, the direction of the court to act promptly. Here we have a proposed amendment to provide some detailed directions to the Magistrates Court in terms of its procedures. I think the Attorney rightly points out that under part 14 of the bill there are quite specific arrangements for the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. It seems to me that it is not good practice and not good policy, having decided, for instance, under section 131, that the Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to decide applications under the act, and the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court is not affected by the amount claimed in the application and a range of other provisions in relation to the resolution of disputes and the powers of the Magistrates Court.

For instance, under proposed section 137 the Magistrates Court may decide its own procedures. Proposed section 137(2) says:

It then sets out proceedings in relation to reply, third party procedures, payment into court, pleadings and particulars, interlocutory matters, evidence and arrangements for transfer to court. The danger that I would be concerned about in supporting the proposed amendment is the confusion and the uncertainty that is potentially raised by introducing into this act a set of specific procedures to be followed by the Magistrates Court in relation to a particular matter when you have already given it broad and general powers to set its own procedures and to deal with matters according to already established rules. I think there is a risk of confusion and uncertainty, things that we would wish to avoid in order to ensure the procedures are as expeditious as possible.

Amendment negatived.

Proposed new clause 136B.

MR RUGENDYKE (9.36): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No 11 on the green sheet circulated in my name which proposes a new clause 136B [see schedule 3 part 2 at page 711].

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (9.36): Mr Speaker, the government opposes this amendment on the same basis that we opposed the amendment proposing a new clause 136A.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.36): For the reasons that I stated in relation to the last amendment moved by Mr Rugendyke, the Labor Party will not be supporting this amendment either.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 137 to 139, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

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