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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3500 ..

MR MOORE (11.00): Mr Speaker, when I originally introduced the Statutory Appointments Bill some years ago, I was very interested in assessing how it would go for some time, before taking it to what I think is its ultimate and applying it to the appointment of the judiciary. I believe that the appointment of the judiciary should also be subject to the Statutory Appointments Act. I realised at the time that that would not have support from the majority of members of the Assembly. That being the case, I accepted that it was far better to put up a winnable piece of legislation than a piece of legislation that would be in conflict. That is part of the round table negotiations that go on on many occasions in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I am very comfortable about the notion of justices of the peace being subject to the Statutory Appointments Act. Clearly, there has been an oversight - an understandable oversight, I must say - that now needs correction. I, too, would have been happy not to have dealt with the amendment Bill at all but rather to have done this in an administrative way. But now that the legislation is on the table, and I have circulated amendments to it, we can resolve the doubt over the appointment of people who are already JPs and ensure that they are recognised as JPs. Then the Statutory Appointments Act will apply to any further appointments. It is not difficult, and it does not cause a huge amount of problem. All it means is that the Minister refers the list of names of people who have applied to be JPs to the Legal Affairs Committee, that being the appropriate committee of the Assembly. The names will be considered and the Minister will table them. It is not a particularly difficult process to follow.

The process, as far as I can see, has never been abused. It has been used particularly effectively in this Assembly. A number of issues have arisen from appointments. One that I particularly remember discussing with Mr Humphries was outside the purview of the Act. Mr Humphries had asked for an opinion, as he often does, on an appointment to one of his own advisory committees, as I recall it. It might have been the Law Reform Committee. That was dealt with in a very sensible and rational way. I think that appointments made under the Statutory Appointments Act have also been dealt with very sensibly by this Assembly and I would hope that that process continues.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.03): Mr Speaker, let me comment on the points that have been raised in this place about this Bill. Mr Berry indicates that his preference, if I understand it correctly, would be that the Government should - - -

Mr Berry: "Ambivalence" would better describe it.

MR HUMPHRIES: He said on the record that the Opposition would be prepared to oppose this Bill if it meant that the Government could go away and deal with this administratively. If I got up here and said that the Government will attempt to do this administratively, then presumably Mr Berry and his party would vote against the legislation.

Mr Berry: Mention what I said about the legal advice that I have not seen yet.

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