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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 1924 ..

The need for flexibility and responsiveness in improving court procedures is recognised in other Australian jurisdictions, but the approach used to determine rules in the ACT Magistrates Court is out of step with other Australian states and territories. On the other hand, since 1937 the Supreme Court has been able to make rules about its procedures. The rules are developed by a rules committee and are made by the judges. Like other subordinate legislation the rules of disallowable instruments are under constant review, constantly changing to meet new challenges.

To the issues earlier identified by the committee and Mr O’Grady we might now add a number of specific benefits in moving to harmonise the rules of the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court. These include continuously improving and simplifying the procedures of the Magistrates Court; enabling inefficiencies in the Magistrates Court procedures to be remedied by rule rather than awaiting legislative amendment; ensuring consistency between the procedures in the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court; and improving access to justice by making court procedures less complex and divergent.

Reflecting these benefits, therefore, the objects of the Court Procedures Bill are to recognise the importance of court procedures in our system of justice; and facilitate cooperation between the ACT courts in the common goals of improved access to justice through the development of procedures that are, as far as practicable, the same for all ACT courts; and better court procedures.

The package I am introducing today consists of two bills. The Court Procedures Bill 2004 provides the framework for the development of new harmonised rules and the Court Procedures (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2004 amends a wide range of legislation. We are organising the existing practices and procedures of the courts to provide the foundation for the development of the new rules but also removing jurisdictional anomalies between the courts and between tribunals. For example, the bill provides that appeals from tribunals other than the Guardianship and Management of Property Tribunal and the Mental Health Tribunal require the leave of the Supreme Court, and provides for cases in the Magistrates Court to be expired after 12 months like in the Supreme Court.

Part 1 of the Court Procedures Bill deals with preliminary matters such as commencement of the act and alerts readers to the objects. Part 2 is the central part of the legislation establishing the rule-making power, which includes the power to make forms, and also establishes the rule-making committee and the advisory committee. The rule-making committee will review existing and proposed rules to ensure that practices and procedures are consistent for the courts.

To provide appropriate levels of stakeholder consultation and assist the rule-making committee an advisory committee is also created under the Court Procedures Bill 2004. The advisory committee consists of a judge of the Supreme Court, the master, two magistrates, the court registrars, representatives of the bar association and law society, the DPP, parliamentary counsel, and a public servant nominated by the chief executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety. Part 3 of the Court Procedures Bill relates to court and tribunal fees; part 5 incorporates provisions currently existing in the Crown Proceedings Act; part 6 covers miscellaneous items; and part 7 provides a range of temporary provisions that, in essence, identify the current rules and documents that

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