Page 4496 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Dunne put forward and did indicate our support in the first instance. But I would like to note that a process of further consideration has led us to prefer the proposal put forward by the government.
I acknowledge that the late notice that we gave Mrs Dunne is not the best practice, and I have indicated to Mrs Dunne in a private conversation this morning that I am sorry for that late notice. Nonetheless the Greens have focused on the merits of this issue and, in weighing up the options open to us, we have come to the decision that we believe is the right one.
There are arguments both ways on this matter, but on balance we have concluded that we will not support the original provisions of the bill; rather, we will support the amendments put forward by the Labor Party. That is how we will be voting as this debate moves forward today.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.15): I will start by noting our disappointment at the change of position from the Greens that has just been outlined by Mr Rattenbury. This has been on the table for a significant amount of time. In fact, we introduced this bill initially back in February 2008. So this has certainly been on the agenda now for more than 18 months, and of course it was reintroduced in this Assembly.
It is extraordinary that the Greens, having had that much time to consider it, have only made a decision this morning, having initally, apparently, supported it, to backflip on that position and not support it. It is most disappointing, and I think that instead what we will be getting as a bill, due to these amendments which will now apparently go through, is a much weaker form. When I initially introduced a bill on this issue back in February 2008, I made some points about it, and it is worth repeating some of the rationale for this bill. I said:
The community invests significant trust in judicial officers, and their decisions in turn affect the community in a profound way. It is therefore crucial that we look at ways of making the process for their appointment as open and transparent as possible … This bill introduces a mechanism by which the executive must consult and take advice from the appropriate Legislative Assembly committee before making a decision regarding the appointment of a judge or magistrate … By taking on board the advice from the legal affairs committee, it will provide another check and balance … By adding another layer of scrutiny, it provides another avenue of information to be provided to the government … The government still has the final decision regarding the appointment but must consider the advice provided to it. The committee process would give the Law Society, the Bar Association and other interested groups the opportunity to make submissions.
I went on to talk about not favouring a judicial appointments commission, and we maintain that position. We believe that the executive should make decisions about the appointment of judicial officers. But this has always been about shedding light on this process. What we will have at the end of this process, by this bill not being supported in its current form, is a process for the appointment of judicial officers which is less than for the appointment of other statutory officeholders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .