Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3479 ..

be formed by adding a representative of the Magistrates Court to the existing Rules Committee of the Supreme Court.

This Joint Rules Committee would formulate common rules for all proceedings in both Courts but with exceptions for particular types of cases in one court or the other. These departures from the common rules will only be undertaken where necessary.

In my discussions with the CLRC Chair, I suggested the Committee release a paper on this subject so as to test the community's response to this suggestion.

The Government, the report argues, is a substantial litigant in the ACT's courts and therefore having the right to set the Rules which those who preside on matters must follow could be seen as a conflict of interest. Having said that, the Government's role as representatives of the community should empower it to at least consider issues relating to court procedures.

The balance recommended by the report is that all Rules of Court be set by the Joint Rules Committee, but that they all be disallowable by the ACT Legislative Assembly.

Before developing this reference further, I believe it is appropriate for the Legislative Assembly to consider the implications of this path. I cannot see much point in continuing what could be quite a long reference if the Assembly disagrees with the broad thrust of granting rule-making powers to both courts.

I commend the report to the Assembly and look forward to passing the views of members to the Committee for its further consideration.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .