Page 350 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 1 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the ability to crank this judicial commissions legislation into play so that the member can bring the matter before the judicial commission. The out is that, if the government of the day refuses or fails to bring the mechanism into play, the member can then raise the matter in the Assembly.
We had a process that said that there should be seven sitting days' notice given before the member raises the matter. Ms Szuty pointed out that, as we tend to sit three days at a time, that really takes us over two sitting periods and it could, over a Christmas holiday or mid-year break, mean a quite long time. In discussion we thought that five sitting days was appropriate. It means that there is sufficient time for the Executive to consider the matter; it does not fall within the one week. If an issue was raised during a sitting period the Executive would have, in effect, a week to think about the matter. I think that probably would be sufficient. Again, as I said earlier on, this is a matter where every time a decision is made it will be a decision of the utmost gravity. If a member had an allegation against a judge of sufficient concern that they thought they should raise it here, that they wanted the government of the day to bring the judicial commissions legislation into play, I would expect that it would be something that any Attorney would move very swiftly on. So I think five days is adequate.
The second amendment relates to, in effect, an effluxion of time clause. It basically says that, where there is a motion on the table attacking a judge, after 15 sitting days, if it has not been defeated, it is deemed to have been defeated. Again, I think it is highly unlikely that an effluxion of time clause will ever come into play because, if a member moved a motion relating to a judicial officer, it would be a very significant matter. From time to time we might move against various regulations and things that are not of terrific import, but a motion directed against a judicial officer would be a very significant matter. It is hard to contemplate circumstances where a government of the day would not want to bring that motion on and debate it in the Assembly as a matter of urgency, and give it the gravity and attention that it would deserve. Again, 15 sitting days did seem a little long; but we picked that, I am advised, because we were patterning it on the subordinate laws provisions. After some discussion with Ms Szuty we have gone to five, which patterns it on the planning knock-off provisions, which, I guess, were designed in that way because planning matters are quite important. This is probably the most important resolution or one of the most significant resolutions that would come before the Assembly and it is hard to imagine that any government would let the matter lie on the table for 15 days before bringing it on.
MS SZUTY (8.53): I would like to add to what the Attorney-General has said about these amendments. The first amendment relates to Part IV of the Bill, which is headed "Complaints against judicial officers", and specifically clause 14, which is headed "Making of complaint". Paragraph 14(3)(b), as it stands, says:
A member of the Legislative Assembly shall not raise in the Assembly a matter that relates or may relate to the behaviour or physical or mental capacity of a judicial officer -
... ... ...
(b) unless the member has given to the Attorney-General not less than 7 sitting days' notice of the motion and the member has not been notified by the Attorney-General within that period in accordance with subsection 16(2) ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .