Page 3563 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I should also refer to appeals. At present there is, in general terms, a right of appeal from the Magistrates Court to the Supreme Court. An appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court lies to a full court of the Federal Court of Australia and thence, by leave, to the High Court of Australia.
In order to ensure that there are sufficient judicial resources to enable appeals to be taken to a full court of the Supreme Court, which would consist of not less than three judges, the number of judges required to sustain a full court might be supplied by securing the services of additional judges either from other courts, by inter-governmental arrangement - and I would include New Zealand in that - or by utilising the services of judges of superior courts on a sessional basis. There could be a panel of part-time judges established for this purpose.
However, the integration of the Territory's courts cannot proceed until such time as the Commonwealth gives the Territory administrative responsibility for the Supreme Court. The Commonwealth's Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 provides for the transfer of administrative responsibility for the Supreme Court to Territory control by 1 July 1992.
I am hopeful that this change will be accomplished before then, and I am glad to note that Mr Curtis shares my view that it would be in the interests of all concerned that the transfer should take place as soon as possible. Mr Curtis' paper - I am sure that it will not be long before it is referred to simply as the Curtis report - addresses several important topics which, while technical, need to be carefully examined.
Let me now draw members' attention to several of the more important of the conclusions. The Government has an open mind in relation to the appropriate nomenclature for a lower court. It is true that earlier this year I suggested that the name "Canberra Court" would be suitable for a unified court structure. Mr Curtis has pointed out that this term, while it is an attractive and simple one, may suggest that the Supreme Court has little to do with Canberra, and the city of Canberra is not the whole of the Territory. At this stage it is sufficient to assure the Assembly that I would not wish to pre-empt any other suggestion for the name of a new court.
Mr Curtis has also made valuable recommendations in relation to the role of the Territory's Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This tribunal was set up in 1989 as part of the legislative package which enabled the translation from Commonwealth to Territory control of administrative law in the Territory.
Mr Curtis recommends that the administrative review function presently carried out by the ACT Administrative
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .