Page 1677 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
available sentence if the magistrate deems they are unable to impose an adequate penalty.
This is appropriate under the existing arrangements because the defendant will have elected to summary disposal on the advice from their lawyer that the magistrate may use section 92A. However, section 92A cannot apply to matters heard under the new framework because they will not have been involved in the election—the defendant, that is. If section 92A were able to operate, natural justice would be denied and the defendant could be heard summarily without the benefit of a jury trial, without their choice, but then be sent up to the Supreme Court for the full sentence, again without their consent. This amendment removes that possibility and on that basis the Greens support it.
Amendment agreed to.
Part 1.17, proposed new amendments 1.36A to 1.36D, as amended, agreed to.
Part 1.17, amendments 1.37 and 1.38, by leave, taken together.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.11): The Canberra Liberals will support the government amendments which increase the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court from $50,000 to $250,000.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are up to schedule 1, part 1.17, amendments 1.37 and 1.38. Mrs Dunne, are you speaking to—
MRS DUNNE: I am speaking to schedule 1, the bits that are staying in schedule 1—amendments 1.37 and 1.38. It is a bit confusing. I apologise to members. I thought it was pretty straightforward until I saw the script for today. The actual passage is obviously much more complex.
These amendments in the government’s bill increase the civil jurisdiction in the Magistrates Court from $50,000 to $250,000. We support this proposal. In doing so, I note that the Law Society and the Bar Association both put forward alternative approaches, principally out of concern that the increase might be considered to be too much. The Bar Association wanted the change to be limited to $150,000, with the ability of parties to consent to the court exercising a jurisdiction up to $250,000, and a review of positions in two to three years. The Law Society wanted the increase to be limited to $100,000, with the matters by consent up to $250,000.
The Law Society considered the increase to $100,000 would represent a 100 per cent increase in the court’s current jurisdiction and therefore be a significantly large single incremental increase, approximate the court’s original jurisdiction since 1989 after allowing for CPI, be consistent with the recommendation of the ACT Supreme Court working group, be consistent with the proposed increase reflected in the government’s access to justice initiative and allow the Magistrates Court to adjust to the volume and nature of the new civil matters likely to be heard by the court.
Additionally, the society considers that allowing the parties to consent to the Magistrates Court hearing proceedings between $100,000 and $250,000 would
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video