Page 3567 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is a fundamental problem, if we are discussing this type of important reform, if the whole discussion is premised on one particular model for reform. There may well be, at the end of the day after a full discussion, some merit in what I am calling "the Collaery proposals". But the Opposition is very concerned that this should not be the only proposal for reform. Our concerns were outlined on Tuesday and I will only briefly reiterate them. They are, in effect, that the Magistrates Court - a lower court system presided over by a magistrate and with the appropriate degree of informality and flexibility that that tribunal is renowned for - ought not to be replaced by a court staffed by judges and carrying with it the superstructure of formality that so often is associated in the public mind with superior courts.
We are also concerned that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which operates very effectively, very informally and in a fundamentally different way from a court, because it is a tribunal concerned with merit review designed for the lay person to present their case, ought not to be amalgamated into an intermediate court structure presided over by judges and with the subsequent blurring of the distinction - the fundamental distinction - between merit review and ordinary superior court litigation.
So, Mr Speaker, they are the reservations that the Opposition has on this report. We welcome Mr Curtis' very positive recommendations in respect of procedural reform, and I know the profession has welcomed those proposals because I have spoken with Mr Phelps on an ABC radio program on those. I am sure that the Government will find little difficulty in moving, at some speed, with the profession and the community along the line of procedural reform.
On the question of structural reform of the courts, however, I reiterate the Opposition's concern that any restructuring of the courts ought to be premised on a full examination of all the alternatives and ought not to proceed down tracks that have been laid in advance towards a so-called unified court structure. With those reservations, Mr Speaker, I welcome the Curtis report.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak) adjourned.
ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
Membership
MR BERRY (3.33): Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 223, I move:
That Ms Follett (Leader of the Opposition) be discharged from attendance on the Estimates Committee and, in her place, Mr Moore be appointed a member of the Committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .