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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 301 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

And that is the point here. At this point in the history of the operation of the ACT courts, there has been no attempt to justify why we actually need to wind back in this way a system in relation to freedom of access to our courts.

I reiterate the point that there could have been a role for the police. I will conclude by repeating that it is of paramount importance that, if justice is to be seen to be done, the courts must be open. The public and media need to be able to freely access the courts without impediment, without having to run the gauntlet.

If they cannot, there is a risk that the activities of the courts can be misrepresented if the decision-making process is undertaken in private. For that reason, I think it is important to address these issues in a balanced way-weighing up the importance of ensuring that the courts are open and accessible-and these particular initiatives need to be undertaken in such a way as not to deny accessibility, or be seen to deny accessibility, to the courts.

It is on that basis that I urge the Attorney to withdraw the bill and to reconsider its provisions, and in reconsidering its provisions to take into account some of the detailed comments of the scrutiny of bill committee. There is within the scrutiny of bills committee's report on this particular matter a quite detailed explanation of some of the issues and principles that go to ensuring that the system of justice-the operation of the courts that we enjoy here in Australia-really is the best that the world offers.

As I understand it, the government has not responded in any detail at all to the scrutiny of bills committee, and that is probably a pity. It is a detailed report. I might just ask the Attorney: you have not responded to the scrutiny of bills committee, have you?

That really does surprise me in terms of the operations of that particular committee. We have in relation to the court security bill a seven-page report by the scrutiny of bills committee-a detailed report on the issues of principle underpinning the operation of the court system.

Mr Stefaniak: I have-9 February, Jon.

MR STANHOPE: I am not sure I have that; that is a pity. You responded formally to the committee?

Mr Stefaniak: Yes-Scrutiny Report No 15 of 2000.

MR STANHOPE: What? Was that tabled five minutes ago? Can I just ask the Attorney across the chamber: when was that tabled?

Mr Stefaniak: The scrutiny of bills report?

MR STANHOPE: Your response to this particular report; was that tabled this morning?

Mr Stefaniak: I do not know if it was tabled; it was a letter to the chair.

MR STANHOPE: Was that tabled this morning? Yes, it has just been tabled-five minutes ago.

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