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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 523 ..

it will, on the one hand, vest in the Supreme Court a power to impinge upon the range of choices open to the other branches in respect of a vast range of social, political and economic issues, and—

again, you are blurring the separation of powers—

on the other, may thereby diminish to some extent the authority of the legislature and ultimately of the power of the citizenry to govern themselves.

Attorney-General, you are eroding the very basis on which we govern ourselves. The report goes on to say:

As these matters became evident, there would be a diminution of respect for the judiciary in the eyes of the legislature, the executive and the citizenry. There would also be calls for vetting of judges who decide these cases in order to ascertain the extent to which they would exercise their power of review.

There goes the independence of the judiciary. The report continues:

Even allowing for the limited scope of judicial review that is part of this dialogue model, there is a clear risk that judges will be seen to be part of the political process and not independent of it. This in turn may lead to disrespect for the judges, disrespect for their authority, and lack of legitimacy for their decisions.

For these sorts of reasons there are many judges with experience of the task of judicial review who say that this is not an appropriate judicial function.

I will read one last section of the scrutiny report. It quotes Sir Gerard Brennan, the former Chief Justice of the High Court, and it goes like this:

Sir Gerard Brennan, a former Chief Justice of the High Court of the Commonwealth, has argued that to vest in the courts the function of review of legislation against rights standards would bring about “a massive constitutional change” which would evoke “a corresponding change in the judicial function and judicial method”.

That is from his paper on the impact of a bill of rights on the role of the judiciary. He said:

At the end of the litigating day, the translation of political, social and ethical values into legal principles must be articulated by the judge. He or she cannot avoid giving effect to his or her values in determining whether an impugned law or executive act is obnoxious to a Bill of Rights and unjustifiable in the collective interest.

Well done, Attorney-General! Single-handedly, with this bill this evening you have actually eroded the basis of justice in this country and undermined the rights that you say you seek to protect.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill cannot go ahead tonight. I would ask members of the crossbench to consider, in the light of that, whether to adjourn the debate at some stage

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