Page 354 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 1 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would expect, Madam Speaker, that that decision by an Attorney-General to override the recommendations of the judicial commission in relation to privacy would not be lightly made. I would expect that it would be a decision that would not be lightly made and may well be made after consultation with other members of the Assembly, to get a level of bipartisanship into the decision; but I think it is important that we have that discretion. This is a matter of some significance and we came up with the wording of this after discussions earlier this evening.
MR HUMPHRIES (9.05): Madam Speaker, subclause 22(4) did give me some concern when I first read it. I was not entirely sure of the reason for the need for a confidential report, and I was also unsure that we needed a confidential report that might make adverse comments on someone's reputation and that that report should then be kept confidential. The scenario that came up in my mind is where a judicial commission consisting of judges reports on another judge's conduct and has to make an adverse comment on that judge's conduct but decides, because the other person is one of their brethren, that that confidential report should remain confidential and should not be publicly aired. I am not entirely happy with that concept, but perhaps that is not what this particular clause has in mind. Therefore, I am prepared to keep an open mind about it. What I was keen to ensure, though, was that we set out what was to happen with that confidential report. I am pleased to see that the Attorney has taken up the idea that the circumstances in which he would exercise a discretion to table it before the Assembly, notwithstanding that it was confidential, are set out in the legislation. So we know when and how that comes about, and I support the amendment.
I might point out, Madam Speaker, that when I was talking before about the Bill I think I unnecessarily restricted the discretion of the Assembly by saying that the Assembly was compelled to act on a recommendation of a judicial commission to remove a judge or magistrate. I think it is true to say that we cannot act without a recommendation in that direction, but I probably overstated it by saying that we must act on a recommendation to remove from office. We certainly must consider it, but we need not necessarily actually pass a resolution to effect that removal. I went back and checked the Bill and I think that was my better reading of it.
Amendments agreed to.
Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 16 December 1993, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .