Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. The purpose of this weighty bill of great substance and noble cause is to change the name of the Federal Magistrates Court to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and I have 30 minutes in which to outline the impact of this judicious change of name to the judicious court.

By way of history, which is always instructive in these matters, the Federal Magistrates Court was established by the Howard government 12 years ago, in 2000, in order to provide for timely, efficient and less formal adjudication of disputes in the federal jurisdiction. One should always question, when one changes the name, whether, indeed, the court has been effective, and, looking at its history, its throughput and its efficiency, it can be said that it has been very successful. In fact, in the 2010-11 financial year, it finalised over 90,000 matters, which included family law, migration, bankruptcy and consumer protection. In fact, the court now deals with 86 per cent of all family law matters, up from 60 per cent in 2004. Eighty-four per cent of all applications filed are completed within six months—a staggering testimony to the efficiency of the court.

But here is where the debate gets a little interesting, because in 2008 the Rudd-Gillard government sought to abolish the court—to abolish a court that is moving through 84 per cent of matters within six months and that has dealt with 90,000 matters in a calendar year. Clearly a court so effective, so inefficient, could not possibly be allowed to stand within the halls of the government's sheer incompetence with everything else! The Federal Magistrates Court strongly opposed, of course, the government's move, and the government's move was also successfully resisted by the coalition. The federal court stands today.

Earlier this year, the Attorney-General conceded defeat, to her credit, and, instead, proposed that the court be maintained under a new name to reflect its expanded workload and jurisdiction. Hilarious! The Attorney-General was happy to recognise the expanded workload—only because she realised that she did not have the numbers in the House and therefore could not move to demolish it. In so doing, the Attorney-General accepted the recommendation of the federal judiciary which itself adopted the policy announced by the coalition in 2010 election, including our own nomenclature. Well, flattery of course is a marvellous indication of that which is right and good. It is simply a shame that the government's maladministration of the courts has now resulted in the new circuit court having to curtail its circuit sittings.

It should be noted that the bill will, in effect, continue the Federal Magistrates Court in existence. It will simply change the name to reflect the wider work that the court is now doing as a great workhorse within the judicial system in our country. The bill will not alter the jurisdiction or the status of the Federal Magistrates Court and the arrangements under which it operates. It is fabulous to see the government not touching something that works. It would be great if the government could take that degree of thoughtfulness across the rest of the areas of public policy where its current 'Midas touch' is turning everything into a complete disaster.

Changing the name of the court of course is not intended to create a new, separate federal court or change existing arrangements. It is as it is—a bill to change the name of the court. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House. I do not believe the coalition wishes to address the matter in any more depth, looking at my senior colleagues, and I simply pass it across to the minister at the desk to sum up and conclude this weighty debate on this issue.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden for his lengthy and weighty contribution to this debate! On behalf of the Attorney-General, I would like to thank the member for his contribution. From its rather humble beginnings and from being underfunded some 12 years ago, the Federal Magistrates Court has grown to become the first port of call for the majority of family law, bankruptcy and migration matters in Australia. Its caseload totalled some 83,000 separate matters in the 2010-2011 year alone, and over the past 12 years the court has delivered on its goal of affordable, efficient and quick justice services. It has achieved this in major capital cities and, as a regional member, I am pleased to say it has regular circuits. It has been through Alice Springs, Broken Hill, Launceston, Rockhampton and many, many other places. Last financial year it visited some 33 important rural and regional cities. Now is the time to properly recognise the court's role and reach within the federal judicial system through appropriate titles for both the court and its judicial officers.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 achieves this recognition, and the bill amends the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 and other legislation to rename the court as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and changes the title of Chief Federal Magistrate to Chief Judge and of a federal magistrate to Judge. The consequential amendments also ensure that existing arrangements for the court and its judicial officers, including their entitlements, continue to operate exactly as before.

A name is a very public statement of identity and it tells us a great deal about the character and the purpose of the organisation. The title of the Federal Magistrates Court may have been appropriate back in 2000 but it is no longer a good fit for the unique character and broad reach of this court. Retitling the court as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia clearly signals the prominence of the circuit aspect of the court's work and the federal nature of its jurisdiction. It is a name worthy of the court's vision and is reflective of its place in the federal justice system. Similarly, titles for the Chief Federal Magistrate as Chief Judge and of a federal magistrate as Judge are also consistent with the court's identity and status as a Federal Court created under chapter III of the Constitution.

The bill also forms part of this government's wider court reforms which will ensure that the federal judicial system provides accessible, equitable and understandable justice for the community. To that end the government has directed an additional $38 million to the Federal Court system to ensure levels of service for the community are maintained as well as introducing a strong judicial complaints framework and actively encouraging greater diversity within judicial appointments.

The court deals with a multitude of complex and very difficult matters every single day. Of all of the federal courts it is one that the community is most likely to have contact with, and it is important that the public can clearly identify this court as an appropriate forum in which to resolve their dispute. Court users have the right to be able to readily and easily distinguish between courts and to feel confident that they will be treated fairly with matters dealt with quickly and cost effectively by choosing the appropriate court in the first instance. The new titles of Chief Judge and Judge will also assist the community to better understand the role of the court's judicial officers and their place within the judicial system.

This bill represents an important change to how the Federal Magistrates Court and its judicial officers will be addressed in future. On the surface a name change may appear a fairly easy endeavour, however, a name change involves close consideration of the court's evolving identity and its role. The bill has been developed in consultation with the court itself, other federal courts and key legal stakeholders to ensure that the new name and titles appropriately reflect the expectations of the court, its judicial officers and court users. Through this bill the Federal Circuit Court and its judges will continue to provide affordable, accessible and streamlined pathways for people across the country to resolve their disputes but only now its name and title will serve to better recognise the important service this court provides. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.