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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3793 ..

with the Supreme Court to be worked out by practitioners and for the rules to be harmonised. There is a two-year time frame for this work to be done. Part of the problem now is that the complexity of rules is not necessarily related to the cases. They may be good reasons for different rules for different courts, but this will facilitate a recent update.

My one concern is that as the technicians work through the changes to the rules, they are very careful to consult with people who can understand and represent the interests of the range of court users. This includes people from non-English speaking backgrounds, people with mental illness, people living with disabilities, victims of crime, witnesses and people charged with offences. It also importantly includes procedures for cases involving violence, particularly domestic violence and rape. It is essential that we get right the details, such as separate entrances and separate waiting areas.

I have been convinced that it would not be practicable to include representative positions on the group to be in charge of reviewing and developing the rules. However, in the absence of such a representative position, the government and the group need to be particularly aware of the need to check the operation of rules with the people who will be coming into the court, the citizens for whom the court is their forum for justice, to make sure it makes sense for them and meets their needs as much as possible.

I note also that as one of the intents of this change is to increase efficiency of administration of the courts, it is possible that down the track it may lead to job cuts. Again, it is important that the government of the day ensures that any cuts in the number of people working at the courts does not in any way diminish the level of assistance that people coming to court can receive.

MRS CROSS (9.55): In the legal justice system it is important that we are able to deliver justice in the most efficient and cost-effective method possible. I believe that the Court Procedures Bill 2004 makes an attempt to achieve this goal. The establishment of a common advisory committee developing the procedural rules of both the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Courts will achieve a number of things. It will create a dynamic system for the creation of procedural rules for both courts to deal with contemporary issues. It will limit potential confusion over the relevant rules for the respective courts, thus minimising the potential costs from inadvertent mistakes.

It will facilitate a more seamless transfer of cases from one court to the other. At the moment this interoperability is to some extent discouraged given the different terrain that operates in each court. It will also eliminate the inefficiencies in the legal market due to the non-transportability of the skills of legal practitioners. While this is not the extent of the benefits to be gained from this bill, they are enough, and it is for these reasons, among others, that I offer my support to this bill.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.56), in reply: I think all members are aware that the territory’s tort reform agenda is being dealt with in three stages. In the first two stages, which are largely complete, the government rebuilt and reformed the civil law about wrongs. The third and final stage, the subject of this legislation, which I introduced on 14 May, involves harmonising the practice and procedures of the courts to improve access

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