Page 4491 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This bill, some may say, and I am sure Mrs Dunne may say, will provide for an alternative point of contact for consultations from stakeholders. It will also, I am sure many will say, mirror the process that is already in place when it comes to other appointments made by the executive and which are referred to standing committees for their comment. But I do not believe that that is the intent of this bill, and, even if that is the intent of this bill, the bill has certain other ramifications which are dangerous and far reaching and which fundamentally undermine the process of judicial appointment that currently operates here in the territory and in all other jurisdictions around the country.
Let us make no mistake about this: Mrs Dunne’s bill could pave the way for a far wider reaching and invasive process. It could result in a process whereby proceedings akin to US Senate confirmation proceedings could be conducted in a highly political environment in which all aspects of the proposed candidates’ personal background could be and would be questioned. Once a referral is made to an Assembly committee, there is nothing to stop that Assembly committee from undertaking public hearings in relation to the matter. There is nothing to stop that committee from calling witnesses and examining them, including potentially the proposed appointee. There is nothing in Mrs Dunne’s bill that rules that out, and it would be entirely within the powers of the relevant committee to do so. Mrs Dunne has not been able to demonstrate that that would not occur, except for a broad generalisation that she does not see how that works.
That may be Mrs Dunne’s view, but it may not be the view of a committee chair or a committee into the future. It may not be the view of a committee operating in two or three or four years time that decides it does want to call the proposed appointee and question them about their background or their previous involvement in public affairs somewhere else in the territory or about their personal or moral or political beliefs. There is nothing to stop that happening. Let us understand: the more significant the appointment, the more the attraction will be for those committees to do just that. It is a dangerous precedent and it is one the government does not accept.
There is another issue that needs to be brought to mind in this debate and that is that Mrs Dunne has not made the argument about why the current system is broken and it needs to be fixed by her bill. Indeed, Mrs Dunne is on the record as saying that the appointments this government and previous governments have made to judicial office have been appropriate and good appointments. So, if the system works, why does she want to change it? What is the problem that she is trying to fix? She is silent on that matter, the Liberals are silent on that matter, and it highlights that there is another agenda at play, and clearly that agenda must be to involve non-executive members, and in particular the Liberal Party in opposition, in the decision-making process.
That is not appropriate. That is not the way judicial appointments occur in any other jurisdiction in this country. The ACT has adopted a process which is considered best practice amongst all of the states and territories and the commonwealth; one that ensures transparency and balances transparency with the discretion that is needed for people seeking to put their names forward for what are very important offices here in the territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .