Page 4499 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
would not happen if this bill was passed in its current form, because it is not reflected in this bill at all.
What it would do is to say to the executive: “You need to think carefully about your appointments. Your appointments need to be defensible and you need to put them out for some sort of consultation.” By doing it in that way, we would not have the situation that we had early last year with the Bar Association. It was interesting that when they came out, the first thing Mr Corbell did at the time was to say it was an attack on the appointments—it was an attack on the individuals. But it was about the fact that the Bar Association and the Law Society should be consulted on this.
This is a way of ensuring that. By having that scrutiny, putting in that time frame and ensuring that we go through this process, the stakeholders could make their comments. If there was someone who was seen as very inappropriate—and that would be a rare occurrence—and if there was someone who was seen as not being up to the task, not having the relevant experience, not having the relevant skills that we expect for judicial officers, that would become apparent. It would be a matter of some embarrassment to the government, and that “chilling effect” which Mr Rattenbury referred to would be a factor. But to go further than that and claim that it would result in some sort of political circus is simply not backed by any of the facts. It is not backed by the practice; it is not backed by the terms of the legislation that we are debating today.
This legislation is well worth supporting. It is a simple but important step forward in transparency in judicial appointments. It is saying two things. It is saying that we do believe that the executive should be able to make these decisions, but we also believe that there should be reasonable scrutiny. We do not believe there should be less scrutiny of judicial appointments than there is of other statutory office-holders.
It is fair to say that whilst many statutory appointments are very important, there are few as important or more important than, for instance, justices of the Supreme Court of the ACT. Some of the most important decisions made by governments are to get the right people in these jobs, as they are making such fundamental decisions about people’s livelihood and about the interpretation of law in the ACT. The judicial arm is such an important arm, yet what the Assembly will be saying today is that, even though that arm is important, we will provide less scrutiny, less openness and less accountability regarding the appointment of judicial officers.
It is with a significant degree of regret and disappointment that we have seen this late-in-the-piece turnaround and backflip from the Greens. It is disappointing that the government sees some sort of threat in going through what is a fairly standard practice for other statutory appointments.
I commend this bill to the Assembly. I commend Mrs Dunne for the work that she has done in its development and, indeed, in her role as shadow attorney-general, in her dialogue with various stakeholders, and as is reflected here, in the support that has been offered from the Law Society, who say what a worthy initiative it is. The move is towards transparency. This is a fairly simple move. It is not a dramatic move or a particularly controversial move, I would have thought, and I think it is something very
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .