Mapp Wayne: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10220] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I think the debate tonight has been particularly interesting. I draw the attention of the Committee to the different quality of the debate that has occurred between speeches of Government members and of Opposition members and indeed I might add of those members—in particular Mr Mark—in support of the Government. Members on this side of the Chamber have been at pains to point out the constitutional defects of this legislation. From the other side of the Chamber we have been greeted—in particular I might note by Mr Mark—with a certain level of invective that frankly is unwarranted in this kind of legislation. I find that disappointing particularly from a member of whom I normally expect better. 
The other issue that did surprise me—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Please show the speaker the courtesy he deserves. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The other point I was surprised at was the reference to the letter by the Chief Justice to the Law and Order Committee. I was disappointed not because it was private—I understand that private communications can be referred to the House—but because of the way that it was essentially misinterpreted by the speaker. If he had any deep understanding of constitutional conventions he would know full well that it is simply not possible for the judiciary and in particular the Chief Justice to come out and oppose a Government measure. That frankly would be highly inappropriate so the judiciary never gets into the situation of commenting on whether legislation is desirable. That is not its role and in my experience in this Parliament I have never heard judges do that. 
What they do however is say: “Given that the Government is putting this legislation forward may we suggest some improvements and changes?” and so forth. Of course that was what the judiciary did. It suggested various improvements and recommended in particular ways how the legislation could be improved. 
So for the letter to be tabled in order to give an opposite impression does two things. It brings the judiciary into the debate in this House; I say that is wrong and I have not seen it happen before frankly. I guess that says something does it not about a Government that is getting towards the end of its tether and getting towards the end of its term in office where it is using all forms of desperate measures to bolster what is an inherently weak position. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take grave exception to statements that have just been made by the speaker on his feet. It was not I who first brought into the debate the issue of the judges’ views; I was simply responding. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a debating matter. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I found that the way the matter was referred to by the person who just took the point of order was disappointing. 
I want to be very clear on this point: National is fundamentally opposed to the Sentencing Council. The reason we are fundamentally opposed is that it undermines the role of the judiciary in its sentencing role. The judiciary has the duty to apply the sentencing legislation of this House. The only reason why this Government is proposing a Sentencing Council is that that legislation—the primary legislation which sets out the range of sentences for the types of offences and indeed has some level of direction as to how those sentences are to be applied depending on the severity of the offence the effect on the victim the deterrent issues for the community and so on and so forth—is where this Parliament is supposed to provide the guidance to judges. One simply would not need this legislation if that particular legislation were properly giving direction and instruction to the judiciary in terms of how it should be sentencing. This legislation in short is a makeshift effort at repairing the fundamental deficiencies of that legislation and on this side of the Chamber we have spoken at length about why that legislation is so defective—as indeed is this legislation.