Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am pleased to be able to rise in the Main Committee today to speak on the Judiciary Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. This bill is designed to update legislation pertaining to the duties and responsibilities of magistrates court registrars so as to support them better in their positions and to streamline the operation of these officers. It will provide for the support of the magistrates court in each of the states in their deliberations on federal family law matters and other matters of federal jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, some registrars in the magistrates courts have been unintentionally sidestepping some of the requirements of the Judiciary Act 1903 by making consent orders in family law matters, which is in fact exercising federal family law jurisdiction. In paragraph 39(2)(d) of the act it is clear that matters of federal jurisdiction that are allowed to be dealt with in state courts can only be judicially exercised by a magistrate in those courts. Legislative changes were made earlier this year through the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006 which ensured that the rights and responsibilities of parties affected by these Family Court consent orders were the same as if those orders had been issued by the magistrate, as was initially required.

This sufficiently addressed the issue of the family law matters; however, there remained the prospect that other matters of federal jurisdiction that were able to be dealt with by a state court may have been subject to the same predicament. Initial inquiries suggested that there had been no examples of such situations. However, as is often the case, further investigation revealed that similar dilemmas had been purported to have resulted through orders made in relation to taxation matters and other matters which are of federal jurisdiction. This bill, the Judiciary Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, addresses those issues.

It is pertinent to note that registrars already have the power under their relevant state legislation to make orders of this kind on state matters. The changes proposed in this bill will remove the barriers to the registrars by repealing section 39(2)(d). It will also repeal section 68(3) of the act, which had a similar effect on the making of orders relating to criminal law matters of federal jurisdiction, although there are no known situations where an order was made by a registrar in contravention of section 68(3).

It is important that this bill is passed to put in place safeguards against the possibility of legal challenges to such orders. It is arguable that these overriding issues have in part arisen due to the relatively young age of the Federal Magistrates Court, which was established in 1999 to help ease the significant case load of the Federal Court and the Family Court. It is not unheard of to identify anomalies from time to time in our legislation which are able to be addressed and corrected. It is only through the use of legislation that such issues can be identified and addressed. It has been the case that spelling and punctuation errors, typos and wrong numbers have at times been identified and able to be corrected. I suppose it is irritating that this has to occur but, human error being what it is, these are matters which will occasionally have to be addressed.

Deputy registrars and registrars have considerable responsibility to ensure our court systems operate as smoothly and effectively as possible. Their duties include coordinating court-sitting lists, providing advice to those using the courts and to the general public, ensuring court records are kept up to date, keeping the books for money paid to the court and ensuring that it is distributed as required, and preparing and issuing court processes in the civil court, the family law court and the relevant criminal jurisdictions.

It is important that the legislation supports the carrying out of this role. The bill also enables each of our states to determine themselves which classification of court officer can exercise federal jurisdiction and in what specific circumstances they are able to do just that. The provisions of this bill help to both correct and clarify the situation with regard to state officers exercising matters of federal jurisdiction. Happily it is a non-controversial bill, as many bills that pass through the parliament are. It has the support of both sides of the House and that is a good thing. I am very happy to commend this bill to the chamber.

See this speech in context