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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3005 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

accepted this; on face value, we accept it as true-that an expectation of openness and cooperation between parties from the outset supported by pre-litigation protocols on disclosure and expert evidence will lead to that more cooperative and less adversarial approach to legislation.

Without this change, the existing cost and delay occasioned by our existing pre-trial process will continue; we won't affect it or adjust it at all. Some of the great issues that are being faced by those pursuing or seeking to pursue timely action for personal injury relate to the cost and delay that are occasioned by all the finagling that goes on before you get your day in court. That's where the delay is and that's where the cost is-the years of delay, the time it takes.

These provisions in the government bill are designed to attack those pre-trial processes head on. To actually turn them around or upside down, as Ms Tucker proposes, will seriously affect one of the major tenets of this whole reform process, but it doesn't address or attack those pre-trial issues.

We go back to what we've currently got: a maintenance of a culture of almost compulsive secrecy. That's how lawyers deal with each other these days; you tell your opponent nothing until you get in court because you might be giving away some advantage. One of the great evils of the system is that lawyers don't tell each other what's going on; they hide it; and then they spring it in court. Of course, the longer you can delay a matter getting to court, the more the lawyers love it; their costs just keep rolling and rolling.

MR STEFANIAK (11.38): There's a lot in what the attorney says. I'm aware of the Neave report and the Woolf report in the United Kingdom. Having been involved in a few of these matters, I think there is much to say in terms of supporting what we have here, because I think ultimately it leads to a much fairer sort of situation for everyone.

What is wrong with people disclosing documents earlier? What is wrong with trying to settle a case as soon as possible and as fairly as possible? Proper and full disclosure, with both sides being open and frank rather than trying to gain silly little tactical advantages, is actually far better in terms of advancing the real interests of justice.

I can see why the government has this in this section. I think it also probably ensures more consistency with what the other states are doing as well. I think there is good reason to do it. Having acted for people on both sides of the fence, even to a limited degree in the civil law area here, I think had this been available in a number of cases I was involved in it probably would have led to a much better result for all concerned. Accordingly, we'll be supporting the government's position on this particular lot of amendments.

Question put:

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