Page 4503 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Secondly, they are appointments that must be seen to be not involved with, and indeed should be above, the political process, because of the very nature of the job that judicial officers have to perform. For those reasons it is important that we are cautious about protecting the integrity of the process and not undermining it.
We heard the argument from Mr Seselja that it was the appointment to the two vacancies in the Supreme Court about 18 months ago that caused concern for the Liberal Party. I would like to rebut some of the assertions made by Mr Seselja. The first was that the Bar Association criticised the appointment process. It is true that a number of office holders of the Bar Association raised concerns. But I know, because of communications I have had with the Bar Association subsequently, that that was not a course of action endorsed by the Bar Association’s governing body. It was the view of a number of office holders but it was not the view of the Bar Association as a whole. Indeed, there was strong disagreement when a number of those office holders took that course of action. So let us put that particular incident in perspective.
Let me also rebut the assertion that there was not consultation with the Chief Justice in relation to those appointments. There was. I specifically consulted the Chief Justice in relation to both of those important appointments.
I want to turn to the main issue which is of concern to the government, and I think of concern to the Greens as well, and that is the risk related to public inquiries and hearings into proposed appointments. Mr Seselja asserts that that cannot happen because the decision maker is the executive government. Well, that misses the point. The government is not claiming that Mrs Dunne’s bill proposes that the appointment must be formally confirmed by the Assembly committee and that there is effectively a veto in place. That is not what we are asserting.
What we are asserting is that the prospect of referring these proposed appointments to the committee process opens up the prospect of a highly political and public inquisition. I would draw members’ attention to the outline to the bill as published by Mrs Dunne where she herself concedes that the only protection against such a course of action is precedent and the existing convention. I would draw members’ attention in particular to the last paragraph on page 1:
Further, it should be noted that the deliberations of the appropriate Legislative Assembly committee would be conducted in accordance with the Assembly’s Standing and Temporary Orders. Whilst those orders provide flexibility as to whether a committee’s deliberations are conducted in public or private session, and therefore, in the latter case, confidential, the usual practice—
I emphasise “the usual practice”—
of committees, in considering proposed appointments to government boards, committees, etc, is to undertake those deliberations in private session. It is anticipated that a committee, in considering proposed appointments under this bill, would follow that usual practice.
So Mrs Dunne is relying on practice and precedent. That may be reasonable in many other instances but I do not believe it is worth the risk in this instance. These
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .