Page 317 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.14): We are very happy to support this motion. I would like to take a bit of time and go through what is in some of the Latimer House guidelines. I suppose I would start with the disclaimer that most of the principles set out in Latimer House are very solid principles. The principles about the relationship between the arms of government, an independent judiciary and the importance of parliament are all strong principles—principles that are the foundation of our legal system here in the ACT and in Australia. But there are a number of more detailed parts of these principles of which the implementation will need some significant debate, depending on how it is proposed that these principles would be implemented into the standing orders or indeed the laws of the territory.
I think the government in particular would have some concerns with some of these principles, and there are some aspects which we would have some concerns with. But I think that the broad principles laid down in Latimer are very strong. It must be said—and I think the Attorney-General may have referred to this in his speech—that many of these guidelines were for emerging democracies or, indeed, nations which did not have a very strong democratic tradition. We need to look at it in that context as well. The Australian legal system, and indeed our inheritance from the British system, has led to a very strong and long-lasting democracy, whilst not being without its flaws. So we do need to look at these principles in that context.
The objective of Latimer House is to develop guidelines on better governance in the Westminster system, particularly focusing on the interaction and separation of the three arms of government—the executive, legislature and judiciary. That is particularly important in the situation in which we find ourselves during this Assembly, with both opposition and crossbenchers able to influence the executive.
I think the important principle is utmost good faith. We need to do more than pay lip-service to the concept but to act upon it above and beyond merely avoiding a breach. I quote from the guidelines:
The successful implementation of these Guidelines calls for a commitment, made in the utmost good faith, of the relevant national institutions, in particular the executive, parliament and the judiciary, to the essential principles of good governance, fundamental human rights and the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, so that the legitimate aspirations of all the peoples of the Commonwealth should be met.
Each institution must exercise responsibility and restraint in the exercise of power within its own constitutional sphere so as not to encroach on the legitimate discharge of constitutional functions by the other institutions.
One of the important principles is preserving judicial independence. Of course, we have a strong tradition of judicial independence here in Australia and in the ACT. It talks about this point in a number of respects. It says:
While dialogue between the judiciary and the government may be desirable or appropriate, in no circumstances should such dialogue compromise judicial independence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .