Page 1293 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The third appeals option is for the appointment of an adjudicator. Given that the adjudicator sits in such a senior position over the process of an appeal of an internal disciplinary action, it is only suitable that someone with appropriate judicial experience is given that position. Whilst a legal practitioner might be aptly qualified for appointment to the judiciary, they do not have the current professional experience of presiding over custodial matters. I think that would see a lowering of the standard of the appeals process. Whilst a legal practitioner might have substantial experience, it may not be relevant to criminal matters but perhaps in property or commercial law. Therefore, that individual is going to lack the experience that would be required to preside over a third-rung review of an internal disciplinary matter. Therefore, I seek the support of all members of this Assembly to ensure that the integrity of the appeals process as set out in the Corrections Management Act is maintained by supporting this amendment to the bill.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo—Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Housing, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for Ageing) (12.04): I will only speak the once, but I would like to add to the comments that Minister Corbell made earlier. I will not be supporting Mr Wall’s amendment. I have had a think about it, but I think that the intent behind this is perhaps different to the way Mr Wall has perceived it. The requirement for a person to have been a lawyer for five years is the same requirement that must be satisfied before a person can be appointed a magistrate per the Magistrates Court Act or a resident judge per the Supreme Court Act.
Adjudicators oversee decisions made by the director-general, and it is important that the person exercising the function has a high level of analytical skills and legal knowledge. If an adjudicator can only be appointed from judges and magistrates, then the field of potential appointees is, in my view, unnecessarily and potentially unworkably restricted. Judges and magistrates themselves only need to have been a lawyer for five years to have been appointed. So I think the effect of Mr Wall’s amendment, should it be supported, would be an adjudicator must be more qualified than a magistrate or a judge, and that is something that I do not think I can agree with.
As with the appointment of magistrates and judges, the appointment of adjudicators will, of course, be carefully considered. Adjudicators perform an external review role of decisions made about detainee discipline and segregation.
What I can share with the Assembly, as the minister who will have responsibility for these appointments should this provision be passed, is that whilst I have not made any final decision on the appointment of adjudicators, the sort of person that the government has in mind in having this kind of amendment is perhaps somebody who is sitting on the Sentence Administration Board, who clearly would have significant skills and who, I think, would be qualified and have the right level of expertise to be undertaking the sorts of functions that are being performed.
Another person that might be considered suitable for this position would be a member of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. These are the sorts of positions, which the intent is, could be appointed under this legislation. We are not limiting it to that, but they are the kinds of positions that I had envisaged might be the case under this provision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video