Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank the members for Gellibrand and Fisher for their contributions to this debate on the Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. In my second reading speech I spelt out fully what we were seeking to do, so I will go straight to the four issues that have been raised in the debate.

Firstly, I say to the member for Fisher that I am looking at additional appointments to the magistracy. I certainly envisage that it will be possible to make a further appointment in Brisbane, but I think it is also important to recognise that, when you transfer significant additional jurisdiction to the court, it can have an impact on workloads across the board—some impact on the Family Court; some impact upon the Federal Court. If it increases the work of the magistracy but diminishes the work of the others if you have judicial resources that are still there—with judges appointed until age 70 and with there being no capacity other than in exceptional circumstances to ask them to move on—you can see that one is confronted with some difficulty about the way in which one manages workloads and the extent of limitation in relation to the transfer of jurisdiction.

I offer those comments to the member for Gellibrand about why I look at these questions over time. It is not a ‘finished canvas’; I have used that term in other debates. There are matters that I will consider, and I will continue to look at whether or not there are other areas of jurisdiction that should be transferred. I have to say that you have to look at the nature and the complexity of the issues as to whether they are appropriate for referral to a court that operates under much simpler procedures and provides a quicker and less comprehensive consideration of some of the more technical issues.

In looking at these matters, I will be conscious of the workload of all the federal courts, but I do recognise that not all the areas that have been mentioned are straightforward. That brings me to the issues in relation to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. We did carefully consider conferring jurisdiction on the magistrates in relation to sections 46 and 46A, but we came to the view that, notwithstanding the recommendations that might occur, it was not desirable to do so in relation to those cases involving sections 46 or 46A where section 83 of the Trade Practices Act is relied on. Section 83 provides that a finding of fact by a court made in certain proceedings under the Trade Practices Act may be relied on as prima facie evidence of fact in other proceedings under the Trade Practices Act.

Non-government members of the Senate Economics References Committee acknowledged that these cases were likely to be very complex. They are difficult; they involve huge amounts of evidence. It is for that reason that the government has come to the view that it has: that it will not support the more limited proposal of giving jurisdiction in section 46 cases where section 83 is relied upon. We considered then, as we do now, that sections 46 and 46A cases, even those placing some reliance on section 83, are likely to raise issues that are complex and more appropriately considered by the Federal Court. For that reason we will be opposing the measure. I could give the member some more detailed commentary on some of the cases where that might have been relevant, but I suspect that it would not alter the course that the debate is going to follow, so I will not take that extra time.

I want to deal with one other matter that the honourable member raised. I am sorry in a sense if the answers at estimates by officials were less than fulsome. It is very important to understand that the courts are funded for their administration—unusually, I might say, in Australia, in comparison to other jurisdictions—as a one-line item. The courts administer their own funding; each of them, separately. If you go to the United Kingdom, they have set up a separate courts administration body that administers all the courts and gives them some greater flexibility. If you go to the States, they do not operate the same one-line system in relation to the totality of matters.

When I was speaking to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court about this very question of the comparison that the honourable member made, he made the point I think quite strongly that the Productivity Commission was not comparing apples with apples; it was comparing apples with pears. We all know the old line about lies and statistics and so on. I think it is important to recognise that, for instance, the very substantial upgrade of computer systems for case management purposes that the Federal Court has been funding was in fact in New South Wales funded out of the state Attorney General’s Department. So in that sense it is very unfair to the Federal Court to be comparing the costs per case when their one-line budget is meeting all of those computer upgrades for case management and in New South Wales is being paid for out of a separate budget appropriation.

I would simply make the point that I do not think that the comparisons are appropriate. I turned my mind to whether I should give a much more detailed commentary to some of those writers in the Financial Review and the Australian about the legal profession when they drew upon these matters, and I did not get the opportunity to do so. I think there are very good and full reasons, and I apologise if my officers in the estimates hearings were not fully across those to be able to brief you on them. But it was a matter that I had followed up myself; it was not a matter that I was uninterested in. I thank the chamber for the support generally for the bill. I recognise that there may be an amendment that will be proposed in another place and we will deal with that then. But the government is not minded to accept it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context