Bills

Supreme Court (Distribution of Business) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:22): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Supreme Court Act 1935. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I introduce today to the chamber the Supreme Court (Distribution of Business) Amendment Bill. This bill is a product of a request from the Chief Justice, who raised issues regarding the inflexibility afforded in the Supreme Court Act 1935 in assigning work to members outside the division of the Supreme Court to which they are appointed.

Section 47 of the Supreme Court Act currently allows for the distribution of business through agreement between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the President of the Court of Appeal. Specifically, section 47 allows for the assignment of a judge from one division of the Supreme Court to another for a period of time not exceeding 12 months. Agreement between the Chief Justice and the President is made on the basis that it is convenient for the purposes of the proper administration of the court. The relevant judge must also agree to the assignment.

Clause 3(1b) of this bill extends the circumstances in which a judge may be assigned to another division of the Supreme Court to also include the assignment to a specified proceeding. Accordingly, clause 3(1b) of the bill proposes that a judge may be assigned to another division either for a period of time, as is presently permitted, or for a proceeding, which is currently not specifically provided for. The basis and requirements upon which the assignment occurs remain unchanged.

Clause 3(1) of the bill specifically allows the Chief Justice to assign a judge of the Court of Appeal to the general division of the Supreme Court to preside over a particular proceeding; however, the Chief Justice must first be satisfied that the assignment is necessary due to the limited availability of judges in the general division to preside over the proceeding in addition to the complexity of the specific proceeding.

Clause 3(1) of the bill also requires the Chief Justice to consult with the President of the Court of Appeal prior to assigning a judge from the Court of Appeal to the general division. The bill requires that this consultation occur in accordance with a protocol approved by the judges of the court at a council of judges. Where a judge of the Court of Appeal has capacity to preside over a particular matter in the general division and the workload of the general division is such that no judge of the general division is available, the mechanism which allows for the Chief Justice to assign a judge from the Court of Appeal to that matter is now available.

The flexibility afforded by this bill is expected to lead to efficiencies in improved case flow management, which is a compelling reason for such flexibility. I commend the bill to the chamber and seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Supreme Court Act 1935

3—Amendment of section 47—Distribution of business

This clause amends section 47 to allow greater flexibility in managing the distribution of business in the Court and in particular to allow for judges to be assigned from the Court of Appeal to the General Division, or vice versa, for the purposes of particular proceedings (rather than just for a set period) where the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the judge agree. In addition a new power is inserted for the Chief Justice (after consultation with the President of the Court of Appeal) to assign a judge in the Court of Appeal to hear and determine proceedings in the General Division where the proceedings are complex and there is limited availability of judges in the General Division.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. L.A. Henderson.