Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to raise in parliament tonight a number of issues affecting our federal courts and federal judiciary, particularly the Attorney’s lack of a long-term plan for dealing with the growth in federal jurisdiction. Our courts, as everyone in this House knows, are the vital third arm of government in our system of democracy yet the judiciary does not get the careful attention, consideration and debate that it deserves.

There are a number of pressing concerns that I want to highlight tonight: the question of how the various federal courts are structured, the work we expect them to do and whether they have adequate resources to do it well and in the manner that we expect for the community. While the federal judicial system has expanded in size and function since Federation, the federal courts have grown exponentially over recent years. Initially of course we had only the High Court. The Family Court was established in 1976 and the Federal Court in 1977. Most recently we have seen the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court in 2000. We have gone from 76 judges in 1979 to 138 federal judicial officers today.

In the time that I have been in the parliament we have created that new court, the Federal Magistrates Court, which seems to be constantly having its jurisdiction extended. We have increasingly complex family law disputes involving violence and substance abuse, and a new, intensive method for handling children’s matters more quickly. These are only a few of the very many examples of change that I could go to tonight, but the point that I really want to make is just how different our federal judiciary is now from what it was even a few decades ago.

I want to expressly put on the record my concern that Mr Ruddock does not appear to have a plan for the federal judiciary—no map for how the federal courts should interact with one another, no strategy for the number of judges that are needed and no concern for the prompt resolution of federal legal matters. Family Court judges are retiring and not being replaced; federal magistrates are being appointed for their apparent expertise in particular areas but the court itself does not recognise these specialised streams; and there is media and public concern, quite legitimately, about delays in hearings that seem to be quite excessive.

Yet amongst all of these and many other issues we have not seen or heard anything from the Attorney about a long-term direction for our federal courts, a full debate over the resources that they need, nor any real discussion about reforms that are occurring in other countries. Given that the effect and importance of these issues will last long beyond the life of any one government or any one Attorney, if Mr Ruddock does not intend—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member should refer to the minister by his title.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise. If the Attorney does not intend to raise these matters, I will. I hope that today I can start a proper, responsible and informed debate about where we need to go from here.

Given time constraints of this debate, forgive me for just briefly listing some of the matters that I think need to be included as a part of that important debate. Should the Federal Magistrates Court become a court of first instance, a sort of trial court or district court for federal matters and, if that is the direction that we go in, how will that affect the jurisdiction of the other courts? What is the optimum number of judges for each court and how should they interact with each other? What resources does each court need to do its job properly? We also desperately need a decent debate about our appointments process. The current one is shrouded in secrecy. I have already made it clear and public that I support more transparency in the process, but we should have a full debate about all options including a judicial commission. In some countries these commissions deal with appointments as well as complaints.

We need to acknowledge a current weakness in our system for the handling of complaints against judges that can range from the mischievous to more serious matters of health or misconduct. We need to have a full debate about the best way that we can go forward with this. I think we even need to include in this debate what powers a head of a jurisdiction should or should not have over the court over which they preside. And there is another whole group of issues, some arising around the retirement age of 70 as the general health of our population improves, and the perennial queries over pensions and superannuation.

These are all very weighty issues that cannot be solved or even properly debated today. My purpose is to flag that if we are, for example, to change the role of the Federal Magistrates Court then let us debate a proper plan rather than do it by stealth. A change of direction or planning cannot be easily implemented from day to day, nor should it be. There must be an overarching strategy and this is sorely lacking from our current Attorney. I call on the Attorney to consider a public process which engages the parliament, the community and the courts in this vital and overdue discussion. We must not keep making appointments of judges today that last a lifetime but have no plan for the work that they might do beyond this electoral cycle. It is just not good enough.