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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (13 October) . . Page.. 3097 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

confusion in the Children's Court of the ACT. Clearly, we have an obligation to remedy what I believe was a mistake made with respect to the operation of the court. I am pleased to see that Mr Rugendyke has taken up this issue.

I think the biggest reflection on a vote of the Assembly is the passing of this Bill today, which undoes a number of provisions that the Assembly enacted only a few months ago. Members can draw their own conclusion about whether or not that is a reflection on a vote of the Assembly. The fact is that at the moment the ACT Magistrates Court is afflicted with very serious problems in dealing with its capacity to provide services to the ACT community.

Members will remember that the Bill which was passed earlier this year contained a number of deficiencies. Before it was gazetted, amendments had to be made by a recision and reconsideration of the Bill on 10 March this year. The implementation of the Bill itself, however, gave rise to further difficulties, in particular, the appointment of Children's Court magistrates. The designation "Children's Court Magistrate" was for a period of not less than three years, and there was no capacity with respect to that designation for resignation of the person who was appointed as the Children's Court Magistrate. There was no capacity for that person to resume any other magisterial duties full time and no capacity for the Chief Magistrate to revoke the designation.

As a result, not surprisingly, there was some reluctance on the part of magistrates in the ACT Magistrates Court to be appointed in those circumstances. I think it is fair to say that magistrates were also somewhat affronted by the suggestion that the lack of specialisation they demonstrated in the role of Children's Court magistrates from time to time, prior to the passage of the legislation, somehow rendered them less able to deal with Children's Court matters than a person who might be appointed full time or largely full time to deal with that particular area of court work.

It is undesirable to have in such an important position as the Children's Court Magistrate someone who is not enthusiastic about the designation. The magistrates who were approached to fill the role of Children's Court Magistrate could fairly be described as having been unenthusiastic about the terms under which the Act required them to take up the position. While designation probably could have been made against a magistrate's wishes, at a practical level, the Chief Magistrate was left with no alternative but to appoint himself to the role of Children's Court Magistrate.

It is highly undesirable, and I think quite improper, for the Assembly to have placed the Magistrates Court in that unenviable position. Clearly, that view of the Magistrates Court was evident to the Assembly. We know that because the Chief Magistrate himself gave evidence before an Assembly committee about the provisions of the legislation. The Assembly, in its wisdom, saw fit to ignore those concerns and to proceed with the legislation as it stood. Apart from the problem of the temporary abolition of the Children's Court of the ACT, which I am pleased to say the Assembly quickly moved to rectify, there remained the problem of a highly inflexible arrangement for the ongoing filling of the position of Children's Court Magistrate or Deputy Magistrate.

Mr Berry: You have encouraged them to take this line.

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