Page 1143 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
parliament and we have seen in these cases good sense prevail and the pressure of minor nuisance applications being lifted from the Supreme Court. Government has worked with the court to assist it to develop new and innovative ways to meet the demand of its broad civil and criminal jurisdiction, and government continues to work with the courts to ensure that the issues do not re-emerge.
The ACT government does not defend lengthy reservation of decisions. But government cannot simply step in and remedy those types of issues. The government is constrained by the separation of powers. Within the bounds permitted by the separation of powers, the ACT government has given the court such support as might be thought necessary for it to attend to reserved decisions. The issue of reserved judgements is not going to disappear today or next week, but it is being dealt with.
Would the appointment of a fifth judge address the issue of delayed reserved judgements? Again, the answer is no. Would you really have us believe that a fifth judge could simply step in, rehear the cases concerned and issue the judgements without consideration of an additional cost to all concerned? And how would this have solved the problem? The government will not impose on the community by simply throwing money at a problem that will not be solved by throwing money at it in this way.
The appointment of a fifth judge is the answer to a problem that does not exist in the ACT. We simply do not have the type of work that such a highly paid office should attend to. One day we might. One day we may have the population which might have us agree that the time is right. One day the report on government services might show that the workload in the ACT is far greater than all other Australian jurisdictions, but not today and not tomorrow. Today and tomorrow the government and this Assembly have to remain vigilant that we do not add unnecessary and trivial burdens to the work of the Supreme Court. It is our job to ensure that the laws of this place are cast in a way that does not invite legal disputation.
Again, I assure the Assembly that the ACT government takes the issue of delays in the Supreme Court very seriously and continues to work with the court on this issue. However, simplistic solutions, such as simply appointing more judges at considerable cost to the community, are not the answer.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (3.52): I thank Mr Seselja for bringing this motion on today. He brings to the Assembly a topic that is of significant concern to the community. Whilst I do not necessarily share the same view on the solution at this point in time, I think it is valuable for the Assembly to spend time reflecting on this matter today.
The delays in our court system are well documented and they are of quite significant concern for many in the community. In my role in the previous Assembly as the Greens spokesperson on Attorney-General matters, and continuing through to this term, I have spoken to various stakeholders about this issue. I have spent quite a lot of time talking about it, because it is an issue that I have really sought to think through and give some consideration to as to how we fix it. I am of the view that justice must be delivered in a timely manner. Mr Smyth earlier quoted the old saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and I think it is a fair point.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video