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

I thank the honourable member for Hunter for outlining his reasons for considering that this additional jurisdiction should be conferred upon the Federal Magistrates Court. But let me just say that I do not accept the injunction that I should not argue properly and fully the position we have taken on this matter on the basis of the reasons we took it and should simply accept an argument that it can be dismissed by his saying, ‘Don’t give us the arguments again.’ The arguments are compelling and I will put them.

The government did, in dealing with the substantial issue—that is, of conferring new jurisdiction on the Federal Magistrates Court in important areas that are suitable for them—consider whether or not in each case there were issues that were likely to be complex and involve a great deal of time. Matters that would certainly not lead to delays arising in the Magistrates Court system were those matters that we progressed.

The fact is that, in the Senate Economics References Committee’s careful consideration of jurisdiction in matters involving sections 46 and 46A of the Trade Practices Act, the non-government members acknowledged that section 46 cases are likely to be very complex. So, even though this amendment has been moved by Mr Fitzgibbon, his colleagues in the other place acknowledged that section 46 cases are likely to be very complex. It is because they generally involve large amounts of evidence. The non-government members of the committee took the view that section 46 cases which relied on section 83 could be considered by the Federal Magistrates Court, but inexplicably the opposition in its amendment has not adopted the proposal by its Senate colleagues. It is conferring jurisdiction in relation to sections 46 and 46A cases, not just those reliant upon section 83.

The fact is that small business was very much our consideration. We do not want the Magistrates Court to become clogged with complex and lengthy cases. To give you some idea of what section 46 cases can involve, the first-instance hearings in the major case of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Boral ran for 23 days. In the Northern Territory Power Generation Pty Ltd and Power and Water Authority case the first-instance hearings ran for 55 days. In the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Rural Press case the first-instance hearings ran for 17 days. In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Safeway stores case, the first-instance hearings ran for 102 days.

In the government’s view, these are cases that are not suitable for a Federal Magistrates Court. The government has not had the experience that the Federal Court has had in dealing with these matters. We think that that jurisdiction is more appropriate for the Federal Court but let me make this clear: if cases were to arise on section 46 in which a Federal Court judge thought—

Consideration interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.

Let me just conclude on this point. If a section 46 case were to arise which was suitable for the Magistrates Court, the Federal Court can use its discretion to transfer such matters to the Magistrates Court using the proposed amendments in schedule 2 of the bill. This is a matter where, in my view, the magistrates’ jurisdiction is being expanded. It is being expanded in areas which we do not think will impact upon its remit but the additional matters could do so very considerably. I do not think small business will be aided were the courts to be held up for the sorts of times we have seen in the cases that I referred to that have been dealt with already under section 46.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Fitzgibbon’s) be agreed to.

See this speech in context