Page 4629 - Week 12 - Thursday, 1 November 2018

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

conclusion on recommendations around these issues and I hope that they are helpful in the forthcoming debate in the chamber.

We abide by and respect the Latimer House principles. Of course, as an officer of the court and a lawyer I am acutely aware of the importance of the separation of powers. I know Ms Cody’s and Mr Steel’s view that the judiciary should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the commission in part as the judicial commission exists to deal with judicial officers.

On considering this issue I was mindful that if we are to start exempting certain groups, where do we draw the line? Judges are appointed from a pool of very highly distinguished lawyers. They should not, however, be exempt from scrutiny, especially as it is clear that it is not the role of the judicial commission to find or expose corruption. In the absence of the judiciary being included in the commission, the only option left would be the police.

The commission is to be the paramount body when it comes to integrity in the ACT. We acknowledge the important role that it will have in educating the public in the fight to prevent corruption. This is a function that the committee believes is important to foster public confidence in our public officials and decision-makers.

I thank the committee members, especially our chair, Mr Rattenbury, and the committee secretary, Hamish Finlay, who was required to pick up an enormous amount of work on such a highly technical and important topic given that he was not involved in the previous select committee’s inquiry. Of course, that thanks extends to the entire committee secretarial office.

I also wish to thank Mr Coe for bringing forward his bill, which I think went some way to ensuring that we could get this discussion and debate kickstarted. I commend the report and the recommendations to the Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Justice and Community Safety—Standing Committee

Report 3

Debate resumed from 31 October 2018, on motion by Ms Lee:

That the report be noted.

MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.24): I thank the committee, the submitters and the broader community. It is very important and very pleasing to recognise that the overwhelming weight of responses to the committee inquiry were in favour of law reform. This reflects the views of the community who are shouting out about the need to clarify the law.

I want to thank those experts, community organisations and individuals for their submissions, because without their input it is unlikely that the report would have come up with such positive recommendations. I also want to thank and acknowledge

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video