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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2224 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Traditionally, the Attorney-General has played the role in the past of defender of the courts. Mr Osborne, I think, has asked me in the past about whether I see myself continuing in that role. I think I suggested at the time, in answer to his question, that I believed there needed to be some change in the nature of that relationship and more preparedness by the court to get out there and defend itself in these situations.

I think the most I could say in the context of the criticisms made tonight by both Mr Osborne and Mr Stanhope is that I am in the difficult position of being unable to influence and control the Magistrates Court and, indeed, the Supreme Court as much as I would like because of the doctrine of separation of powers. Yet, in a sense, I am also responsible for the budget of those agencies and I have to somehow make sure that the matters in those courts stay on budget. I have to contribute to the cost and the process of making the courts work in a more effective and efficient way. The relationship is not, in a contemporary sense, a very easy one. I simply note the comments that have been made and undertake to raise them with the judicial officer concerned.

Questions have been asked by various members in the course of this debate. None of those members are still present on the floor of the Assembly so, to be quite frank, I do not intend to answer those questions if they, with respect, do not want to hang around for the answer. I will wait until they can ask me later on and I will answer the questions then. I do appreciate the compliment made by Mr Hargreaves to me. It is most appreciated. In vino veritas perhaps, but I am quite pleased about the things that he said and I hope I can return the compliment at some stage.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the legal aid funding issue remains a concern of mine. I hope to continue a vigorous dialogue with the Commonwealth about ensuring that there is sufficient legal aid funding in the ACT to make sure that we have a full range of responses when either so-called Commonwealth or so-called ACT matters are raised in the courts and citizens need to have proper funding of their actions in those matters.

For the information of Mr Stanhope - Mr Berry can pass it back to him - it is not the case that the Chief Magistrate is in all cases the president of a tribunal. For example, the Chief Magistrate is not the president, as I recall, of the Commercial and Retail Tenancy Tribunal. but he is generally the president of other tribunals and it does entail some burden on him. To be frank, I think there is some merit in the suggestion that there should be some reorganisation there, but that is a matter I will take up with the Chief Magistrate.

Mr Stanhope said that he did not feel that the Children's Court proposal had received enthusiastic support from the Government. I think Mr Stanhope should go back and read our submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety to see what we think about the proposal. He will see that in fact it is supported philosophically by the Government. I think, however, that the problem is not so much the question of the Government's support as the support of some of the magistrates. I am hopeful that we can reach a position in the next little while where we can resolve what is a serious impasse, in effect, between the judiciary and the legislature over that issue. I see the Government as being in the middle of that impasse rather than on one side or another.

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