Page 3169 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 12 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(3) the time it takes for defamation actions to be dealt with by the Courts in the ACT;
(4) the feasibility of introducing alternatives to litigation in defamation cases; and
(5) Any other aspects of defamation law and practice in the ACT that the Committee considers to be of concern to the community.
MR CONNOLLY, by leave: Mr Speaker, the purpose of making a statement this afternoon is to reiterate the Labor Party's view on Assembly committees. It is with some regret that I had to inform Mr Stefaniak as chair of that committee that I was unable to take part in this inquiry. That is despite my personal regard for Mr Stefaniak as a lawyer and a member of this Assembly. In the view of the Opposition it is not appropriate for an Executive Deputy to chair an Assembly inquiry in the area of that person's portfolio responsibility. The reasons for this were very clearly stated to this Assembly by the Leader of the Opposition on 27 March 1990, and we remain committed to that very important principle.
It is a clear principle of law, that the Attorney-General and Mr Stefaniak would be well familiar with, that the bias rule operates on administrative committees, administrative tribunals or courts to require that a person should not take part in a decision making body if they can be seen to be biased. It is not the rule that a person may actually be biased. The well-worn phrase is that "justice should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done". I quote Lord Hewart in R. v. Sussex Justices. This principle applies to administrative decision makers as well as to persons acting judicially.
Members interjected.
Mrs Grassby: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like to hear what Mr Connolly has to say, even if nobody else would.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, Mrs Grassby, for your observation.
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Speaker, these are important points which are going into the legal basis behind Ms Follett's original statement in March, and I think the Government would do well to consider them and listen to them.
As I said, it is not necessary to establish actual bias for the law to strike down a decision maker on these grounds. The function of the bias rule is to maintain public confidence in the decision making process; so the appearance or possibility of bias is a sufficient ground for disqualification. This was well put by Justices Wells and Sangster of the South Australian Supreme Court, who said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .