Page 3187 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 24 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
contracts. The coroner was aware of that, and so informed the parties who asked for the production of the contracts.
The Chief Justice’s remarks highlight the fact that there has been, and will continue to be, a debate about the best method of court governance. Under the traditional model the head of the jurisdiction is responsible for disposition of the court’s business and the normal rules for government budget appropriations and accountability are retained for the expenditure of funds. The traditional model is not without its drawbacks. It can sometimes lead to duplication, tension and disagreement over funding, but not over the disposition of the court’s business. That is solely a matter for the head of jurisdiction. However, of the states and territories, as I see it, only South Australia has adopted a different model. Every other state and the Northern Territory, and the ACT, have the traditional model.
Unlike those opposite, I understand and accept the doctrine of the separation of powers. I have written to the Chief Justice confirming my commitment to respecting the independence of the judiciary and inviting him to participate in dialogue on any aspects of the administrative arrangements in the ACT that cause him concern. I have consistently demonstrated in the performance of my duties as first law officer that I am committed to ensuring that our systems respect and protect the independence of the judiciary. I am happy to have a dialogue with the Chief Justice about these issues at any time.
I would also add that it is not uncommon, in fact, it is entirely proper, for an Attorney-General or a government to be a party to a coronial inquiry, to intervene in proceedings and to represent the interests of the law, the administration of justice and the community before the courts. It is one of the roles of the Attorney-General. Indeed, as I have often said in the past, it is my job to uphold the law. I would have been derelict in my duty if I had failed to act in the face of the overwhelming legal advice that I had.
It is the job of the courts to rule on these issues, and the ACT Supreme Court has done so. I did my job; the courts have done their job. It is my job, as Attorney-General, to accept the decision of the Supreme Court, and I have done so. As well, I have instructed the Government Solicitor’s Office to do all it can to ensure that the bushfire coronial inquest proceedings are completed as expeditiously as possible.
I am happy to consider any constructive suggestions for improvement in the governance of ACT entities, but there is no single easy solution here. We are a small jurisdiction and the cost of new structures may simply be outside our reach. This may have been in Mr Stefaniak’s mind when he was Attorney-General, when he, as part of the Liberal government’s executive, deliberately and distinctly blurred the lines between the executive and judiciary by appointing a court registrar—a public servant and member of the executive—as a special magistrate, a member of the judiciary.
However, I will let that go, as these are important issues. They are too important to play the petty politics that we see exhibited here today. I am always happy to discuss these issues, but I will not change the current system so much that the courts are put beyond accountability for the expenditure of public monies. Nor does it mean that I can accept, without more evidence or justification, as somehow inappropriate in the ACT administrative arrangements that are acceptable and appropriate in every other Australian
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .