Page 342 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 1 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS BILL 1993
[COGNATE BILL:
JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1993]
Debate resumed from 16 December 1993, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MADAM SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Judicial Commissions (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1993? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 7 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 8.
MR HUMPHRIES (8.19): These two Bills are fairly significant and they are the result of a long period of public consultation and discussion. They put in place a very rarely used procedure - hopefully, a very rarely used procedure - nonetheless an extremely important one, to cover the circumstance where, for whatever reason, a member of the judiciary of the ACT needs to be removed from office.
Not surprisingly, Madam Speaker, this is a matter about which there is great sensitivity on the part of the bench. I can recall an appearance in the ACT Supreme Court on 3 March 1989. Members will recall that that was the day before the first ACT self-government election. The issue was raised in a very pointed fashion by the Chief Justice when referring to procedures for issues of this kind in the event of the ACT becoming self-governing and there being a Legislative Assembly which would have power to take an interest in these matters, if not finally determine what the fate of particular members of the judiciary should be in certain circumstances. As I recall, His Honour at the time suggested that the Assembly ought not to have the power to remove members, at least, of the Supreme Court bench. I have no doubt that since that time, since that view was expressed, there has been tremendous debate at levels of government, between members of the various ACT governments, the Federal Government, no doubt, which was responsible for the Supreme Court until a couple of years ago, and members of the bench, about what the appropriate procedure would be. Members of the court would have been sensitive, and, I am sure, still are sensitive, to the procedures that are put in place.
Members here will be aware that it is the capacity of some other parliaments in Australia to remove members of the judiciary for proven misbehaviour or misconduct, or incapacity, without any other intervening process or any other intervening event. They essentially have the power to take the decision as a procedure of parliament. At least one other jurisdiction has in place the procedure which, more or less, is being put in place here; that is, that the Assembly should not exercise its power to remove a member of the bench unless there has first been a decision by a judicial commission that the removal should occur.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .