Page 3960 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 12 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
regardless of how expensive or sensible they are. An alternative wording which would allow resort to the powers when normal alternative means have been tried and failed, perhaps by removing the word “only” from the provision, would give the court more certainty and discretion as to when they can use the contempt powers. It would also remove possible grounds for challenging the use of the power. It is to be hoped, and I expect, that the courts will take a practical approach to interpreting these clauses. Consequently I will be supporting this bill.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (11.15), in reply: I would like to thank members for their support of the Court Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill, although small, contains three important amendments to the legislation governing the courts. Two of the amendments complete the work of this Assembly in regard to the development of common court rules. The development of these rules commenced in 2004 with the passage of the Court Procedures Act; this act conferred on a rule making committee the power to develop common rules for all ACT courts to reduce differences in court practice and procedure.
After two years of extensive work, the court procedure rules of 2006 are now complete and have commenced in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. They will commence in the Small Claims Court and the Magistrates Court at the beginning of next year. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the considerable work of the rule making committee and its advisory group in preparing the new court rules. This has been a very significant body of work, but will be of great benefit to all parties engaged in the courts, simplifying procedures and providing a common framework for procedures.
During the development of the court rules, questions were raised as to the issue of contempt powers in the Magistrates Court. I am pleased that the bill that we are debating today provides the Magistrates Court with a clear power to take action for contempt of court for non-compliance with court orders and effectively gives the court the same powers as the Supreme Court to deal with contempt.
The other important amendment in the bill addresses questions raised during the development of the court rules with regard to the powers of the registrar of the Magistrates Court. The bill ensures that the Magistrates Court registrar and deputy registrar can properly exercise powers conferred on them under the court rules; this again mirrors the arrangements already in place for the registrar of the Supreme Court.
Finally, as members have indicated, the bill removes any doubt that the practice of the Ngambra circle sentencing court is within the law and removes any doubt that the Magistrates Court may make practice directions about circle sentencing. There are a number of consequential amendments in this bill. As members can see, the bill provides for an important number of procedural changes to improve the operations of the Magistrates Court. I thank members for their support and again commend the bill to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .