Page 4493 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This mirrors the approach adopted by the government in the establishment of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Section 95 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act sets out the appointment process for presidential members of the tribunal. Similar to section 95, the government proposes to amend the Magistrates Court Act and the Supreme Court Act such that, in relation to the appointment of judicial members, the executive must determine by way of notifiable instrument the criteria that apply to the selection of a person for appointment and the process for selecting the person.
This will maintain a statutory onus on the executive to disclose, in advance, the criteria it will use in assessing the relative claims of applicants to the position and also the process that will be undertaken to consult with the broader legal profession, existing judicial officers and other parties in terms of processing an appointment to our courts. This level of public disclosure of judicial appointment protocols will further improve the transparency and public confidence in these appointments.
The government believe that this is the most appropriate way forward. We will take the opportunity to establish, in the same way that we have for the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the same transparent process for our courts. But we do not accept that the system is broken. We do not accept that a radical departure from the status quo is warranted, as is proposed by the Liberal Party. That process has many more dangers than it has benefits.
The Liberal Party have failed singularly to identify any problem with the existing system that requires rectification. Instead, their proposal would, if successful, open the door to the potential for committee style hearings, committee style inquisitions, into proposed appointments, potentially in a very public way. This will be damaging to the appointment of judicial officers. It will impact on the impartiality and apolitical nature of these offices and it will also potentially have an impact on the people who put their names forward for selection. It will raise the prospect that people will be deterred from putting their name forward if they have to face the gauntlet of a committee scrutiny process.
It is inappropriate. It is dangerous. The government will not be supporting it and will be amending the bill as I have outlined.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.06): This bill broadly seeks to reduce the potential for the perception that appointments to judicial posts are politically motivated. That it is perhaps a very simple summary of it. I think this is a worthy goal, and the Greens support Mrs Dunne in raising it for debate.
We understand the rationale behind the bill and see how it could possibly go towards reducing negative perceptions among the public about judicial appointments. However, we will be supporting the government’s amendments to the bill which replace the key provisions proposed in the original bill. The Greens believe the alternative proposed by the government is more suited to the important area of judicial appointments. The government’s amendments take a different approach to increasing transparency of judicial appointments but do so without some of the potential risks associated with the original proposal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .