Conduct of Magistrate Brian Maloney
| About this Item | |
| Speakers | Gay The Hon Duncan; Shoebridge Mr David; Searle The Hon Adam |
| Business | Business of the House |
CONDUCT OF MAGISTRATE BRIAN MALONEY
Page: 2620
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.36 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher: I move:
- 1. That in view of the report of the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales concerning complaints against Magistrate Brian Maloney, dated 6 May 2011, and tabled in this House on 2 June 2011, Magistrate Brian Maloney, a Magistrate of the Local Court of New South Wales, be called on to address the House and show cause why he should not be removed from office.
2. That this House grants leave for Magistrate Brian Maloney to attend at the Bar of the House on Thursday 23 June 2011, at 3.30 p.m., in person or by his legal representative, to show cause why he should not be removed from office on the grounds set out in the report of the Conduct Division.
3. That in attending at the Bar of the House, Magistrate Brian Maloney or his legal representative be allowed a time not exceeding 75 minutes to address the House only in relation to matters set out in the Report of the Conduct Division.
4. That this resolution be communicated by the President in writing to Magistrate Brian Maloney and seeking a written reply by 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 21 June 2011 as to whether or not Magistrate Brian Maloney or his legal representative will appear at the time and place appointed.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.37 a.m.], by leave: I am sure all members would like to hear from Mr Maloney and deal with his complaint as quickly as possible. I think he deserves the right to be dealt with, with due dispatch. I am concerned that the requirements for petitioning the Governor for the removal of a magistrate or judicial officer require both Houses to resolve the matter in the same session of Parliament. This session of Parliament will come to an end on Thursday. Therefore, if this House were to resolve that in this parliamentary session—and I am in no way prejudging the outcome of either my debate or the outcome of the majority of members in this House—the session would have ended before the matter could be presented to the other House. We would then be required to repeat the process in the next session.
In order for a petition to find its way to the Governor both Houses in the same session must resolve in that manner. That is a difficulty with which we will be faced if we deal with Mr Maloney's case on Thursday. For that reason we should give further consideration to this matter throughout the day and there could be further discussion amongst members. I ask the House to consider not resolving this matter immediately in favour of the motion being presented. That may be the best course of action. I ask that the motion be stood down to a later hour so that members are able to further consider the matter. I am concerned that the House may have to go through the process twice. I thank the House for granting me leave to speak. I ask that the Minister consider my request and that the House stand the matter down to a later hour of the day.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.40 a.m.], by leave: Our concern is somewhat different to that expressed by Mr David Shoebridge. If Magistrate Maloney were heard on the last day of this sitting, the House would not be able to resolve the matter one way or the other unless we sat very late or dealt with it five weeks later when Parliament resumed. I note the problem identified by Mr David Shoebridge, but I believe it should be the other way around. If the House were to resolve the matter one way or the other on the Thursday, the lower House would not be able to consider the matter. The better course of action in that situation would be to postpone the matter for five weeks. The House would not debate the matter until then and both Houses would be able to consider the matter. In that situation I am concerned that Magistrate Maloney's matter would be unresolved for five weeks. However, I understand that his representatives may have requested a postponement. If this matter were stood down to a later hour, members would have an opportunity to consider the issues.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.41 a.m.], by leave: I acknowledge the concerns raised by Mr David Shoebridge and the Hon. Adam Searle. I understand, although I am not sure, that the date set for the matter to come before the House was to suit the convenience of Magistrate Maloney. Given the concerns that have been raised, the proper course of action would be to stand the matter down until 3.30 p.m. when Government business takes precedence. That will give members time for clarification. Even if Magistrate Maloney made his speech on the Thursday, deliberation by this House could take place on that day. However, I note the concern about consideration of the matter by the lower House. Given that this is an important matter, standing the matter down to a later hour will give the House an opportunity for proper clarification. This matter comes before the House as a matter of process. The Government and this House did not willingly bring on this matter: we are fulfilling a process under the Constitution of the State. In order to deal with this matter appropriately, the best course of action is to stand the matter down until 3.30 p.m. when Government business takes precedence.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, by leave, and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
No comments:
Post a Comment