Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak today in support of the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Essentially, the bill purports to streamline the functions of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, and to provide for a single administrative entity supporting shared court management responsibilities and processes amongst those federal courts. This shared approach should be beneficial in supporting a proper functioning and better resourced court system, compared to the existing system, which seems to be labouring under the weight of matters it has before it. That is why we do support the passage of this bill.

The 2012 Strategic Review of Small and Medium Agencies in the Attorney-General's Portfolio considered that there was merit in shared administration arrangements. This was echoed in the 2014 National Commission of Audit report Towards responsible government. The National Commission of Audit report certainly considered the merit in shared administrative arrangements for the courts and stated:

It would be possible to merge the Federal Court of Australia with the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court of Australia. This would reduce administrative costs and provide additional opportunities to share facilities and streamline back-office functions to achieve more efficient administration of justice.

The necessity for such savings measures through shared court management, I think, is clearly obvious, particularly when we consider, in my own local patch, the Federal Circuit Court located in Parramatta. As it stands today, I know there are significant problems. I know how under-resourced the court system is there. In the last budget, the Family Court was projected to have over $44 million of operating losses.

These are issues with the administration of justice. It is one of the central aspects of our democracy that everyone is entitled to be equal before the law but, more importantly, everyone is entitled to receive justice before our courts. This is an attempt to ensure greater efficiencies through shared management in respect of our federal court structures. The corporate services would be managed by a Federal Court chief executive officer and principal registrar. The holder of that position would act as the CEO. This would allow for the streamlining of existing services to place the courts on a sustainable funding footing. I note that the proposed amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act would also ensure that there would be a mechanism put in place to provide a form of constraint on the way in which funds are spent by the CEO.

There is no question that we are satisfied with this legislation and the way it ensures the ongoing independence and integrity of our federal court system and also the jurisdictional nature of each of those three courts. The Federal Circuit Court has certainly undergone various changes in recent years, since being renamed, allowing the court to practise within concurrent jurisdictions of both the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court. The change was also aimed at creating a faster, simpler and more accessible justice system. This has allowed the Federal Circuit Court to include larger volumes of cases and expand its accessibility to other areas of the law. Taking those changes into account, it is nevertheless vital to ensure that each case is being dealt with in a timely manner and that individuals are assured of due process before the law. Such justice and timely consideration of matters must be the objective under any proposed streamlined structure.

As it stands today, the Federal Circuit Court has Family Court matters as its highest workload. As I understand, in 2015 that comprised about 91 per cent of its workload. One of the main issues of the everyday workings of the Federal Circuit Court is the large array of domestic violence cases, as well as cases being referred from the Magellan registrar, a case management system in the Family Court of Australia process to improve the outcomes particularly for vulnerable children and their families. This is an interagency approach created to combat court processing times for serious cases involving allegations of sexual or serious physical abuse. The Magellan registrar has reduced court time for serious matters involving abuse and has allowed for serious cases to be allocated unlimited resources, specialist welfare workers and the appointment of independent children's lawyers.

One of the criticisms as it stands today is the lack of replacement judges in the Federal Circuit Court for judges who have retired or been relocated. This has significantly impeded the court's ability to function in a timely manner, particularly given its heavy workload. An understaffed court system and the possibility, in respect of Parramatta, of the closure of the registry contravene the very reason for the implementation of programs such as the Magellan registrar, which exists to combat the problem of a backlog of cases. Therefore, this desperately requires closer attention. Recent reports have indicated that the Federal Circuit Court was able to finalise only 75 per cent of its applications in 2014-15, which fell somewhat short of the target of finalising 90 per cent of its matters. A former Federal Circuit Court judge, former Justice Coakes, noted:

… (cases involve) dysfunctional families and children at risk from dysfunctional parents because of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence in all its forms and mental illness.

That represents a real danger to the children. Until a case can be heard and finalised by a judge, those risks are continuing.

Therefore, it is vital to ensure that matters are run efficiently and in a timely manner and that justice is not delayed in the processing of matters in those courts.

I acknowledge the government's recent injection of $100 million to combat domestic violence. I certainly supported that initiative to some extent. Many would say that is not enough, because domestic violence is an epidemic in many of our communities, but I believe it is important that we continue along that path and ensure the maintenance of our judicial officers and court systems to be able to give justice and preside over matters as serious as domestic violence. It is critically important that these caseloads be handled as quickly as possible and orders made, particularly where protecting abused partners, where child protection matters are involved, and where recovery orders and other urgent applications are necessary.

I also acknowledge what is certainly considered a failing of the government when it comes to the appointment of new judges to vacancies. We are seeing more and more that, in various of our courts, vacancies are being left unfilled. This is certainly a cause of discontent amongst many of the legal profession due to the large volume of matters, the delays experienced and the frustration for both clients and litigators. I have received various pieces of correspondence from members of the legal profession requesting assistance in relation to this matter. If judges are not appointed to the Federal Circuit Court to replace retiring judges in a timely way, we could possibly see the shutting down of various registries. The courts are already understaffed and under-resourced and lack efficiency. That is why this bill is before the House today. But the last thing we want to see is a registry, such as the Parramatta registry, closed down, leaving the work to the Sydney based registry.

When it comes to justice, I think working together to ensure that the courts are appropriately funded and making certain that the ratio of court staff and judges is consistent with the workload is a good thing and would ensure that the intended outcome of the smooth and efficient running of our court systems is maintained. The ability of the community to access our court systems is fundamental to the system of Australian justice. It is fundamental, particularly in respect of matters that require urgent attention or litigation, particularly where litigation is necessary to protect the vulnerable. I support this bill.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is a crucial step towards placing the federal courts on a sustainable funding footing.

As has been noted before, there is a pressing need for the savings forecast from the bill, given the significant budgetary pressures and ongoing deficits faced by the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. This bill would ensure that more of the courts finite budgets are targeted at the thing that really matters: their delivery of justice to the Australian community. This is not only sensible, it is a matter of duty to the Australian taxpayer.

The bill's objective should not be conflated with calls to address broader concerns relating to the family law system, nor should such arguments be allowed to denigrate what the bill seeks to achieve. The reform is forecast, once fully implemented, to deliver $5.4 million each year in savings from the amalgamation of back-office functions. The reform will also create scope for the courts to identify further opportunities for efficiencies into the future, so the final impact could be even greater. Let me reiterate: this is no government grab for savings to be returned to consolidated revenue. All of these savings made by the courts are to be retained by the courts for the benefit of the courts. Clearly, funding injections are not sufficient to ensure the courts' long-term financial sustainability. Despite a significant funding injection in the 2012-13 budget, the family courts are now in a grave financial position. Realistic savings and efficiencies must come from within the system. The bill is vital to the courts achieving long-term financial sustainability; however, in a tight fiscal environment, there must be a continuing focus on all court administrative practices.

The bill contains numerous measures to safeguard the integrity and independent identity of each of the courts. It addresses the unsatisfactory situation at present where the separate management of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court is impeded by their sharing of a single CEO. It guarantees the integrity of the separate budgets of each of the courts by preventing one court's funds being spent on another without appropriate consent, and it ensures that relevant delegations will be made from the administrative head of the organisation to support the courts independent management. The bill has been developed in close consultation with the courts, and many of the key measures are the result of close consultation with the chief justices and the Chief Judge.

In its submission on this bill, the Family Court has indicated that it had only one issue it wished to raise: the unconstrained powers of the Federal Court CEO for managing corporate services, particularly in relation to the courts' information technology systems. The narrowness of the Family Court's concerns is indicative of the close consultation with the courts undertaken throughout the bill's process. The Federal Court CEO's ultimate responsibility for the delivery of corporate services is required to ensure that projected savings can be delivered, which will be critical to averting the need for cuts to frontline services. This is particularly necessary in relation to information technology, which is key to the savings to be achieved. The Federal Court CEO will be required to consult the CEOs of the Family Court, the Federal Circuit Court and the heads of jurisdiction in relation to corporate services, including information technology. This will ensure that their delivery is tailored to the needs of the courts. The heads of jurisdiction of the other two federal courts have advised that they do not support the creation of a board to oversee the functions of the Federal Court CEO. Adopting the proposal that the Federal Court CEO's decisions be voidable would create uncertainty in relation to the courts' contracts.

Although corporate services will be run by the Federal Court CEO, I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in place. Consultation requirements have been built in to ensure that each Chief Justice, the Chief Judge and the CEOs are all consulted in relation to the delivery of corporate services. The retention of corporate services functions within the courts administrative entity, and their management by a court CEO, will ensure the delivery of these functions is closely aligned with the needs of the courts. This offers a better alternative to the approach taken prior to self-administration, where the Attorney-General's Department provided administrative support to the courts.

In the debate on this bill, some honourable members opposite have complained of vacancies in the court. I can tell those members that on 25 February the government announced the appointment of six federal judges. Four of the six appointees are women. The government is considering the vacancy in the Federal Circuit Court's Melbourne registry following the recent untimely passing in office of Judge Whelan. But for this vacancy, each court has its full complement of judges. There are no other vacancies in the federal courts.

The government continues to monitor the resourcing of the federal courts. Court funding and appointments must be considered in the context of other budget priorities. Consistent with the independence of the federal courts, the chief justices and Chief Judge are responsible for allocating available judicial resources. This bill will deliver much-needed savings to be reinvested in the courts' frontline services, while protecting and upholding their independence. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.