Page 351 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 1 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It would seem to me, Madam Speaker, that seven sitting days within which a member must inform the Attorney-General of a motion relating to the behaviour or physical or mental capacity of a judicial officer is an extremely long time. Given our current sitting pattern, most of which is six sitting days in two weeks and some of which is three sitting days in one week, it may, in fact, take several months for the Attorney-General to be informed about a motion. As the Attorney has said, we are talking about unusual and extraordinary circumstances which relate to the behaviour or physical or mental capacity of a judicial officer. I believe that the Assembly needs to deal with these matters as expeditiously as possible and should require the urgent attention of all members when such occurrences arise.
The second amendment relates specifically to clause 19, which is headed "Judicial officer excused", and particularly paragraph 19(2)(b), which says:
A judicial officer who has been excused shall not resume the performance of any such function unless -
... ... ...
(b) a motion in the Legislative Assembly to require the removal from office of the judicial officer is withdrawn or is not called on within 15 sitting days after the Attorney-General has laid the Commission's report before the Legislative Assembly in accordance with section 23 ...
Again, 15 sitting days is an extraordinary length of time in which a motion to require the removal from office of the judicial officer is not called on. A considerable number of months potentially could elapse while a judicial officer is excused from performing his or her functions, at the end of which time the motion regarding his or her behaviour may not have been called on for debate. I believe, Madam Speaker, that five sitting days, the same period of time in which the Assembly considers disallowance motions regarding planning variations, should be sufficient to enable the Assembly to decide to debate a motion regarding the removal of a judicial officer, given that the Attorney-General has already laid the judicial commissions report before the Legislative Assembly.
Amendments agreed to.
Clauses, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (8.56): Madam Speaker, I move:
Clause 22, page 10, lines 10 to 14, subclause (3), omit the subclause.
This does require a little explanation. Mr Humphries pointed out to me, as we were discussing this earlier on this evening, that clause 18 of the Bill provides that the Assembly can pass a resolution to say that a matter should be looked at by the judicial commission, and the Executive is then required to appoint the commission and set a time period for it to conduct its investigation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .