Page 4416 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I value the experience of our bench. It is an experience which must total several decades if added together at the present time. I would regret the intrusion into the bench on a regular basis of someone who was less experienced. The Government can deal with that problem by simply not appointing different people. It could appoint the same person to be acting judge if that person was available, and let that person return to retirement or whatever that person was doing whenever he or she was not required to be an acting judge. But that is not addressed in this Bill and it is a matter I ask the Government to take on board.
Madam Speaker, there are provisions relating to the professional conduct of legal practitioners. I am concerned about the operation of these provisions, particularly because I believe that there is a strong case for saying that the present provisions for a full bench hearing should be retained for examination of findings of fact against legal practitioners who, in a sense, are charged with committing offences against the rules of etiquette and legal ethics. It would be appropriate, in my opinion, for the present arrangements to be retained to some extent, and I will be moving an amendment to the proposed new section 11 to provide that there should be the hearing by a single judge into findings of fact only where the parties to proceedings consent to that being the case. I will return to that argument later, when we come to debate the detail stage.
There are some other smaller provisions in this Bill, such as some modifications to the former Supreme Court (Arbitration) Ordinance and its operation in respect of the ACT. There are also some welcome provisions dealing with the appointment of the Master. Members will recall that earlier this year the Government, I think through a temporary amendment to the Supreme Court Act - I forget exactly - reappointed the Master, Mr Hogan. I forget what the procedure was, but the Assembly as a whole welcomed that appointment.
Mr Connolly: Actually, this is it. We announced it and this is implementing it.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is right. I thank the Attorney. He announced that he would do so and this is the means by which it will take place. That, as I said, is welcomed by members because it provides that the Master has the same retiring age as judges, namely 70. Madam Speaker, the Bill does make some small but important changes to the operation of the court. As such, it has the support of the Opposition, although we would be happier to see one amendment to this Bill which we hope to deal with in the detail stage.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Berry: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .