Page 1612 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So the Greens will be supporting the adjournment today when we get to the detail stage in order to facilitate the passage of a different way from what the government has proposed, that has that element of practicality, that element of seeking to use our court system more efficiently whilst retaining the important rights of access to a jury in the most serious of matters.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.04), in reply: This bill is not the government’s preferred approach. The government’s preferred approach to reduce the Supreme Court backlog was to adopt from other Australian jurisdictions the proven methodology of a district court. However, as is sometimes the case, parliamentary members have indicated that the government’s preferred approach would not be acceptable; accordingly, the government has had to adopt the second-best option.
The most significant jurisdictional change proposed in the package contained in this bill is the removal of offences with two to five-year maximum imprisonment penalties from the Supreme Court to the Magistrates Court. The government did not initially propose this approach. This proposal was made to the government by the Bar Association and the Law Society as part of a number of reforms. The government implemented and introduced this bill on the basis of those suggestions.
While the government’s preferred option for dealing with the Supreme Court backlog was to establish a district court jurisdiction, other parties in this place have made it clear that they will not support structural reform at this stage. This is deeply regrettable, considering that a large percentage of matters currently dealt with in the ACT Supreme Court are heard by a district court in other jurisdictions. If the ACT established a district court, the streamlined procedures of the court would have been better suited to many of the less serious criminal and civil matters currently heard by the ACT Supreme Court. Without the support of the Assembly for structural reform, the increase to the Magistrates Court jurisdiction remains the only viable option open to the government.
In addition to the reforms contained in this bill, the government has already implemented a number of measures to reduce the backlog in the Supreme Court. These measures include the appointment of three highly experienced retired judges as acting judges to assist with the Supreme Court case backlog in the short term. The government has also converted underutilised hearing rooms in the Magistrates Court building into a jury courtroom and jury retirement room. Currently, the Supreme Court is only able to list two jury trials at any one time. A third jury courtroom will increase the Supreme Court’s listing capacity. It will allow the court to list 50 per cent more trials at any given time.
Late last year I introduced the Bail Amendment Bill 2010, which contained amendments to reduce the number of bail hearings in the Supreme Court. Contrary to the assertion by Mr Rattenbury, this proposal had been proposed by the government in advance of his suggestion. The purpose of the Bail Act amendments is to ensure that the issue of bail is explored fully in the Magistrates Court while still ensuring that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video