Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to speak on the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 on behalf of the minister. The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill, in a technical sense, will merge the corporate services functions of the Federal Court of Australia with those of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and bring the courts together as a single administrative entity.

But in doing this, the bill will set the scene for achieving a vital public policy outcome: placing the courts on a sustainable funding footing over the longer term, leaving them far better placed to deliver services to litigants. This is because savings arising from the efficiencies will be reinvested in the courts. This is an important point. These are not savings to be extracted and returned to government. Savings will be retained by the courts to benefit the courts.

As the bill solely deals with the administration of the courts, it will have no impact on the judicial and functional independence of each court. The bill maintains and supports the separate standing of each of the courts concerned.

The imperative to merge corporate services

The merger of the courts' corporate services was central to the package of measures announced by the government as part of its 2015-16 budget Streamlining and Improving the Sustainability of Courts.

The pressing need for efficiencies forecast from the merger is manifest. The Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, in particular, are facing significant budgetary pressures and ongoing deficits. The serious financial circumstances of the family courts triggered the need for the government to consider and implement this reform.

The community understands the fundamental importance of the courts' independence and impartiality to ensure integrity and transparency in the judicial system. However, the community also demands the efficient and effective use of taxpayers' funds, particularly in the current tight fiscal environment. All arms of government are currently expected to operate within these constraints.

Constitutional protections, of course, are in place for the courts to preserve the separation of powers and ensure their independence. Appropriately, however, the executive government and the parliament retain oversight of the courts' operating budgets.

At the time of the budget, the family courts were projecting over $44 million in operating losses over the forward estimates. The government could not allow these losses to continue unabated.

Without the merger implemented by the bill, other, more drastic measures would need to be explored to allow budgets to be met. This would only be a last resort, as access to the courts is a fundamental tenet upon which our justice system is based. The government was keen to ensure budget rectitude did not result in front-line court services being cut, as this would undermine access to justice for the committee.

The performance, funding and operation of the courts has been considered in many reviews and reports. These provided a strong evidence base for the government's decision.

The 2012 Skehill Strategic review of small and medium agencies in the Attorney-General's portfolio considered there was merit in the idea of amalgamating the corporate services functions of the federal courts.

Most recently, amalgamation was recommended by the 2014 National Commission of Audit report, Towards responsible government, and the 2014 KPMG review into the performance and funding of the federal courts.

The KPMG review also highlighted the necessity to address the unsustainable financial position of the federal courts as it found that the courts were on track for a deficit of almost $75 million by 2017-18.

Further independent analysis conducted by Ernst & Young in 2015 identified potential savings and efficiencies to be gained from a merger model.

Merging the courts' corporate functions is projected to deliver efficiencies to the courts of $9.4 million over the six financial years to 2020-21 and result in ongoing annual efficiencies of $5.4 million from this time.

In turn, this will create potential for further organisational agility through economies of scale and improvements in the long-term financial sustainability of the courts.

Importantly, the savings and ongoing efficiencies generated are to be reinvested into the federal courts to support the delivery of their core business of providing justice for Australian litigants.

Corporate services efficiency

Currently, the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court maintain separate corporate administrative structures to the Federal Court. More effective and efficient services will be delivered through the sharing of financial, human resources, information technology, property and operational corporate services.

There is increasing recognition that, although courts are specialised institutions, they have resemblances with other large public organisations with many staff and large systems.

Therefore, courts' administration can similarly benefit from increased collaboration, organisational streamlining and centralised corporate services, within appropriate frameworks.

With ever-growing caseloads and the current tight fiscal environment facing all arms of government, more efficient administration provides scope to relieve some administrative burden on our federal courts.

This is consistent with government's commitment to reduce inefficiencies in public administration by removing unnecessary duplication.

Staff of the single administrative entity will have new opportunities to share their knowledge and expertise with a larger group of colleagues.

Working groups consisting of key corporate services representatives from each court have already been established, collaborating to complete essential implementation planning for a 1 July 2016 commencement.

Merged model and maintaining courts' independence

The bill is directed to the organisation and administration of the courts. It, of course, maintains the protection of the judicial and functional independence of the courts in accordance with the Constitution, while promoting their effective management.

Access to justice for court users will not be impacted. Each court will maintain its separate and distinct judiciary, with no changes made to the courts' jurisdiction. Therefore, there will be no loss of family law or general federal law experience across the courts.

The bill consists of a carefully designed governance structure to preserve the autonomy of the heads of jurisdiction in relation to their own courts. Heads of jurisdiction will retain responsibility for managing the administrative affairs of their respective courts (excluding corporate services).

The separate and independent standing of each court will be further supported through replacing the position of joint Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court with separate CEOs for each court. This will ensure each head of jurisdiction has a dedicated CEO to assist in managing the administrative affairs of their respective court.

To facilitate this amalgamation, the courts will be designated as a single entity under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (the finance law) and a single statutory agency under the Public Service Act 1999 from 1 July 2016.

The bill will place control of corporate services in the hands of the Federal Court CEO. The Federal Court CEO will also hold the roles of accountable authority under the finance law and agency head under the Public Service Act.

This does not mean that the Federal Court will be 'taking over' the running of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. Each court will remain independent in their core functions and will not be subject to the control of another court.

The Federal Court CEO's pivotal role in delivering shared corporate services is key to generating the expected savings from the amalgamation. Mr Warwick Soden OAM, renowned for his sound financial management, will continue in the role.

Mechanisms exist in the bill to ensure consultation between the Federal Court CEO and heads of jurisdiction and the other CEOs for decisions relating to corporate services matters.

The bill contains provisions to ensure the Federal Court CEO makes relevant delegations to the Family Court CEO and the Federal Circuit Court CEO, in relation to the administrative affairs of their respective courts. The Federal Court CEO will be under a general statutory duty to ensure the other two CEOs have the necessary powers and functions to fulfil their roles.

Further detail in relation to these matters will be set out in a Memorandum of Understanding between the courts.

The bill also contains provisions to safeguard the allocated budget of each court with the single administrative entity.

Merging the courts into a single administrative entity with shared corporate service is not a novel idea. In many ways, it is consistent with the historical running of courts administration by the Attorney-General's Department prior to the courts becoming self-administering in the latter part of the last century. This is still the approach taken in many state jurisdictions.

There is an important difference: the corporate services to be provided to the courts are to be provided by a court and not a government department. It is entirely consistent with the government's view that the courts, as an entity, are self-administering within the legislative and budgetary obligations placed on government entities.

Key features of the bill

Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill will facilitate the establishment of the single administrative entity under the finance law through amendments relating to the Federal Court, Family Court and Federal Circuit Court.

Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to support the merger. It provides for the courts to become a single entity under the finance law and a single statutory agency under the Public Service Act.

Powers and functions relevant to the finance law and the Public Service Act, including appointment powers, are centralised in Schedule 1. These powers are given to the Federal Court CEO, with delegations to be given to the other CEOs in relation to the administrative affairs of their respective courts. The position of the Federal Court CEO will be retitled.

The bill clearly delineates what is within corporate services and these items are excluded from the administrative affairs of the courts. Corporate services are defined as including communications, finance, human resources, information technology, library services, procurement and contract management, property, risk oversight and management, and statistics. Critical security functions will remain within the administrative affairs of the courts.

Schedule 2 and 3 of the bill contain amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, respectively, to support the changes, including defining corporate services and repealing provisions that will be centralised in the Federal Court act.

A separate position of Federal Circuit Court CEO will be established and the position of Family Court CEO retitled, to effect the separation of this role into a CEO for both courts. Each CEO will also hold the position of Principal Registrar, with the combined Family Court CEO and Principal Registrar role to take effect from 1 January 2018.

Schedule 4 of the bill amends the Native Title Act 1993 to reflect the amalgamation and update references to position titles.

Schedule 5 of the bill consists of consequential and other amendments to a number of acts to change and update relevant titles and references.

Schedule 6 of the bill provides for transitional arrangements to ensure the courts can continue their administrative and corporate services functions without disruption at the date of the merger. There is also a rule-making power to respond to further areas where clarity in transitional arrangements is required.

Conclusion

The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill signals a significant reform in the approach taken to the management and administration of Australia's federal courts.

The merger will facilitate not only short term savings but also substantial scope for longer term efficiencies, all to be reinvested in the courts to ensure their financial viability. The bill implicitly upholds the key features underlying our federal courts system, such as independence and impartiality.

As a linchpin to ensuring the financial sustainability of the federal courts into the future, the merger will enable the courts to continue to deliver core judicial services to litigants without compromising access to justice.

Once again, I thank the Minister for Justice in this place and the Attorney-General in the other place. I present the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 and the explanatory memorandum.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 makes some machinery changes to the administration of the federal courts. It implements the merger of certain back-office corporate services functions of our three federal courts—the Federal Court, the Family court and the Federal Circuit Court.

The merger of these functions, including finance, human resources, information technology and property administration is claimed to save some $9.4 million over the six financial years to 2020-21. It is expected that it will save a further $5.4 million annually in the years beyond.

This savings measure was announced by the government in last year's budget, and the bill was introduced into the Senate and has now come to the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasise, for the avoidance of any doubt, that the bill will not alter the independence of the three courts. This bill merges only very limited corporate functions. The substantive operations of the three courts remain distinct. The jurisdictions remain distinct. The courts will remain of course separate entities under their respective establishing acts. They will continue to be governed by their respective heads of jurisdiction. This is appropriate. Each court has its own distinct jurisdiction and each has developed distinct expertise and practices to deal with the unique challenges of each jurisdiction. The bill will not affect this.

I want to note the concerns raised by the Family Court in the formal submission that was made by that court to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's inquiry into this bill. I understand from the committee's report that, although the committee appreciated the concerns that were raised by the Family Court in its formal submission, the committee determined not to adopt these suggestions that were put forward by the court.

The administration of the courts is a sensitive business and it is ultimately a matter for the government to ensure that the various needs of the federal courts are all accommodated. I am advised that the government is working with the Family Court to resolve its concerns through administrative rather than legislative arrangements and I note that much of the detail of the merger of corporate services will be worked out in a memorandum of understanding between the courts. The committee has recommended that the final arrangements arrived at in this matter be reviewed by the government in the new future, and Labor would strongly endorse that recommendation.

It is of course important that, as I said earlier in my remarks, the Family Court, the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court all maintain the independence that is an integral part of their roles and any change, including changes to the administrative arrangements, which is what this bill is directed at, must be implemented in a manner that does not prejudice that independence and that does not alter the very important independence that is part of the role of the courts of each of these three courts.

While we will certainly keep a watchful eye on the implementation of this back office merger, Labor does support this bill. Where possible, we support removing duplication of back office functions so that funding can be best directed towards dealing with the core business of the courts and with meeting the needs of Australians who find themselves before those courts.

I can say more generally that Labor supports the merging of back office functions across government departments and agencies where that merger can take place without a compromise of the delivery of services by those government departments and agencies. It is obviously the case that it is going to be possible in some circumstances for government departments to share premises where premises have been leased or built by the Commonwealth. It is obviously also going to be the case that there is potential for the sharing of information technology systems between government agencies and departments. That is particularly so for smaller agencies that may not have the resources to develop and build facilities or information technology systems by themselves. Very often, there are considerable economies to be achieved by smaller agencies sharing facilities, information technology systems and support staff in some cases. That is an efficient use of Commonwealth resources.

The courts ought not to be an exception to that principle. Shared back office services can, in appropriate cases, without compromise to the fulfilment of the function of the particular agencies or departments, be a useful thing to do. The courts should not be an exception to that principle and they are not being an exception to that principle, because what this bill is dealing is a merger of back office systems.

That said, no-one should be under any illusions that the measures in this bill will, on their own, address the crisis now faced by our federal courts. Clearly, there are very significant problems with our federal courts which demand the Attorney-General's attention and action. Comparatively minor changes to back office administrative arrangements will not suffice. The measures in this bill are certainly not a substitute for the government taking action on the range of problems that this government's failure to properly resource the courts is causing.

It is not just Labor that is drawing attention to this. The heads of jurisdiction have repeatedly warned the government, publicly through the Senate estimates process and through their annual reports, of the consequences of the government failing to properly resource their courts. Most recently, in the annual report of the High Court of Australia, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Justice Robert French AC, drew attention to the potential problems for the High Court of failing to properly resource that court.

The situation is most dire in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, a situation that the government has inexplicably decided to make even worse by failing to appoint judges to vacancies as they arise in a timely fashion. This is a completely unforgivable failing on the part of the government because judicial vacancies are almost always known well in advance. That does not apply in the regrettable incidence of a judge falling ill or, worse, dying in office; but most judicial vacancies do not occur for those reasons. Rather, they occur in the ordinary course of planned retirements, either when judges reach the statutory retiring age or when, as a matter of planned retirement, they leave office. In either case, either the judge reaching statutory retirement age or the judge deciding that she or he will leave office, the Attorney-General is always aware well in advance that that vacancy is about to occur.

Leaving a fully funded judicial position vacant is unforgivable. It produces no savings for the Commonwealth. Failing to fill a judicial vacancy that has arisen as a result of retirement produces no alteration to the fiscal situation. All it means is that the court services, which need to be provided to our community, are simply not provided. That is why we have had complaints from Newcastle, Wollongong, Brisbane and other places in Australia where this government has simply done nothing to fill either a judicial vacancy or multiple judicial vacancies which have arisen. I will come back to this.

While I am speaking on court administration, I cannot let the opportunity pass to note that this government has failed to provide appropriate physical accommodation to a Federal Circuit Court judge who has now been appointed full-time to serve the Rockhampton registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. This is not the creation of a new judicial position on the Federal Circuit Court. Rather, it is a reallocation of personnel on the Federal Circuit Court so that Rockhampton will, hereafter, have a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge. That is a commendable step; but this government, in the typical fashion of this Attorney-General, has failed to properly complete that appointment by making sure that there will be somewhere for this newly appointed Federal Circuit Court judge to serve the Rockhampton Registry full-time—that she will have somewhere to sit.

I was reminded of this yesterday because in this House the member for Capricornia, speaking on the appropriations bill, was quite happy to boast about what she described as 'her announcement with the Attorney-General' of this full-time Federal Circuit Court judge for Rockhampton. What she failed to do was to explain in any way what it is that this government is going to do to provide actual physical accommodation. By that, I mean a courtroom and an office in which this Federal Circuit Court judge is going to be able to work.

This is not something which is being raised for the first time by me here. It is something that the Queensland Attorney-General, the Hon. Yvette D'Ath, made clear from the outset when this appointment was first announced, back in December, saying that the Commonwealth government had completely failed to raise with the Queensland government how, if this is what the Commonwealth was proposing, there was to be a sharing of resources or access to state facilities. It has of course been the case that the Queensland government and the Queensland court system have very generously made available, in the past, space in state court facilities in Rockhampton for a visiting Federal Circuit Court judge to sit, in the one week in eight or one week in 10 that had been the circuit arrangements previously. The Queensland government has made it very clear that this situation will not be able to be extended to a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge sitting all the time in Rockhampton, because there simply is not space in the Rockhampton court facilities for that to occur.

The Queensland Law Society, like me, welcomed the appointment of a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge in Rockhampton but made the point—and I am quoting here from a report in The Guardian of 3 February—that Rockhampton's:

… existing court infrastructure … is stretched to breaking point.

The Queensland Attorney-General, the Hon. Yvette D'Ath, has said that there needed to be an upgrade of state facilities if it was suggested by the Commonwealth that there is to be a continuation of shared arrangements. All that is actually happening is that the Liberal National Party is playing politics with our courts and judges. As Ms D'Ath said—and I quote from the same Guardian article:

The LNP should not play politics with our courts and judges. I urge them not to play politics with the people of Rockhampton.

I join with the Queensland Attorney-General in saying that this is not a matter to be politicised. It is not a matter that is owned by the member for Capricornia, that she gets to go out and announce—not even waiting for the Attorney-General, as would be the ordinary course for every judicial appointment, but rather rushing out to announce as if she were somehow deserving of credit for the appointment of a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge in Queensland. It is a very empty gesture indeed if the Commonwealth has announced this appointment but has reached no proper arrangement, contractual or otherwise, with the state of Queensland over the sharing of court facilities in Queensland. It is an appointment that will end up perhaps with this Federal Circuit Court judge sitting on the street, because, without facilities, the court actually will not be able to perform the function that it should be performing for the people of Rockhampton.

This is something that the federal Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, has completely failed to resolve. I call on him now, as I have called on him previously, to resolve this situation, to treat the Queensland government with some respect and to try actually either answering correspondence from the state Attorney-General or perhaps picking up the phone to speak to her. That might be a good start. But it is symptomatic of the way in which the government have treated most matters to do with courts administration that they have rushed to make an announcement about a full-time Federal Circuit Court judge sitting in Rockhampton but done nothing about providing appropriate facilities for that judge to sit in.

I return to the subject matter of this measure in the bill. The smooth and steady administration of the courts is usually taken for granted as a basic function of government, but not a week now goes by when I have not been contacted by one community or another deeply concerned about the future of vital court services in their region. Uncertainty abounds. The closure of entire registries has been mooted, perhaps most incredibly the closure of the registry in Parramatta, an eventuality which should be completely unthinkable. Hardly a week goes by when we do not hear a coalition member of this House from Western Sydney talking about the huge expansion of population and the need for additional facilities in Western Sydney. The idea that the Parramatta registry might be closed is truly unthinkable, but so too is the failure of this government to fill judicial vacancies in Wollongong, in Newcastle, in Brisbane and in other places around Australia. There is no excuse for this. This is not talking about whether or not additional judicial positions should be found; this is talking about the failure of the government to actually fill vacancies of fully funded judicial positions.

What is worse, the management of tight court resources has been made harder by the multiple rounds of cuts that this government has inflicted on the legal assistance sector. These cuts started as soon as this government came to office in 2013. They have continued ever since, so that legal assistance services, including legal aid commissions, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and the family violence prevention legal services—also part of the legal assistance sector—have all had to cut back on the front-line services that they are able to provide to communities across Australia.

The legal assistance services which this government has cut are not some luxury which can be reined in during hard times. They are actually integral to the smooth functioning of our courts. They are a basic community service. They are basic to access to justice. It is shameful the way this government has not once, not twice but three times cut legal assistance funding across the country. The timely provision of proper legal services can often avoid a matter going to court in the first place, and, if it must go to court, legal assistance will ensure that the matter proceeds as smoothly as possible, not clogging up the courts unnecessarily.

This is something that the Productivity Commission—in an excellent report delivered in 2014 on the legal assistance sector, commissioned by Labor in government—made clear that the provision of legal assistance funding is something that benefits the community in multiple ways. Not only is there, generally, a benefit to the community from the avoidance of a dispute or from the settling of a dispute but also when disputes continue there is a benefit to the community in that court services can be provided more cheaply and efficiently if litigants in courts are represented.

Cuts to legal assistance lead to an increase in the number of cases in which litigants are unrepresented. As judges repeatedly say, and comment on in the annual reports of their courts, unrepresented litigants place a burden on judges, they place a burden on staff and they place a burden on court resources. Generally, cases where litigants are unrepresented take longer. Not only do they take longer to get to court, not only will the interlocutory processes in that case take longer and place a greater burden on the judge, because she or he is going to have to guide the unrepresented litigant—it is part of the duty of the judge to do so and judges take that duty exceptionally seriously—but also they will have to guide the unrepresented litigant through the thickets of the law in order to make sure that proper access to justice is provided to that unrepresented litigant. They take longer to resolve at the interlocutory level and cases with unrepresented litigants in them take longer to resolve at the trial level.

This government has, clearly, not properly considered what the impact was going to be on the court system as a whole by the cuts that they have inflicted on the legal assistance sector. These are cuts to the state and territory legal aid commissions, in terms of the Commonwealth's contribution to them, cuts to the community legal centres—the 130-odd community legal centres across the country that have historically received funding from the Commonwealth—and cuts to the other two parts of the legal assistance sector. I speak, there, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services.

I will pause on the second of those to note that this Commonwealth government, absurdly, transferred the family responsibility for the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services from the Attorney-General's Department to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, mistakenly not understanding the excellent role that is played by the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services.

They were established by the Howard government, some 17 years ago, to deal with the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services regularly experience a conflict of interest in duty in acting for both perpetrators of family violence and victims and survivors of family violence. They cannot act for both and, in order to deal with that conflict problem, the Howard government—and I applaud this action—quite rightly set-up an alternative source of legal advice for, almost always, women in Indigenous communities and, very often, in remote Indigenous communities, to receive appropriate legal advice.

The idea that this particular form of legal assistance—the legal practices that are the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services—should have been swept up into the Office of Indigenous Affairs was simply wrong. I am hoping that the day will come when those Family Violence Prevention Legal Services are, again, transferred back to the responsibility of the Attorney-General's Department, appropriately, as part of the legal assistance sector as a whole.

The government must act to ensure that not just the legal assistance sector but the courts themselves are put on a stable financial footing into the future. I call on the Commonwealth Attorney-General to release the KPMG report, which he commissioned, into the funding of the federal courts in 2014 and explain to the courts, the legal profession and the Australian community how he intends to make sure that our courts are properly resourced into the future. This is, after all, one of the most basic responsibilities of the office of the Commonwealth Attorney-General. And, regrettably, it is a responsibility which this Commonwealth Attorney-General and this government are conspicuously failing to meet.

Debate adjourned.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By leave—I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for North Sydney making a statement immediately and that the member speak without limitation of time.

Question agreed to.

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

Before I call the honourable member for North Sydney, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, it is a humbling experience to rise in this place for the first time as the representative of the people of North Sydney. I do so knowing it is an extraordinary privilege to be given the trust of your community to serve in the Australian parliament. I will return that faith by playing my part in building a more prosperous, fairer and sustainable Australia.

I arrive in this parliament as the 10th member for North Sydney. I follow in the paths of merchants, mayors, war heroes, grocers and even a journalist. It is also one of the many electorates Billy Hughes served. I think he represented as many seats in this place as he did political parties, although I note, of course, never the Country Party. As he famously said, 'I have to draw the line somewhere.'

His predecessor, Sir Granville Ryrie, was a hero of both the Boer and First World Wars. On his return from World War I, it has been reported that over 200,000 Sydney-siders lined Circular Quay to welcome Sir Granville home. Thinking of that adulation somewhat overshadows the three people who waved farewell from their balcony as I departed Canberra for the first time. I was momentarily chuffed until I realised that they had confused me for someone else.

For the 19 years before my election, North Sydney was represented by my friend Joe Hockey. I pay tribute to his contribution to this parliament and the North Sydney community. Joe strode the national stage as an advocate for good Liberal government while at all times firmly rooted in the community that he loved. Few people have a heart as big as Joe's, and his family can be proud of his achievements and those yet to come as he continues his service to Australia.

I am privileged to represent a part of Sydney which combines incredible natural and man-made beauty with vibrant and diverse communities. North Sydney is bounded by harbours and rivers. It has a ringside seat overlooking what is indisputably the world's greatest city. For many thousands of years it was home to the Cammeraygal people and to the west the Wallumettagal people. They shared a saltwater culture and the harbour and its headlands bore enormous spiritual significance. White settlement was to have devastating consequences for those original inhabitants and today their culture is to be glimpsed in rock carvings and middens that survive on the foreshores and in our bushland. These are part of the shared heritage of Sydney's Aboriginal community.

The development of northern Sydney began slowly, hindered by its separation from the centre of the city by our great harbour. Transport has always been the key to its development—its great enabler. And it was the need for a harbour crossing that united early residents. Like many of Sydney's infrastructure projects, it took 50 years of agitation for that goal to be realised. Bradfield's vision was extraordinary and the great engineering feat of the Sydney Harbour Bridge remains a source of awe and inspiration.

Today North Sydney is one of the most densely populated electorates. It is home to two of Sydney's largest commercial centres—North Sydney and Chatswood—and its people reflect the diversity of modern Australia. Despite the pressures of urban development, it remains a place of great beauty. The foreshores of Sydney and Middle Harbour and the Lane Cove River are fringed by park and bushland. Its built heritage can be seen across the electorate, most famously in the 19th century homes of Hunters Hill, in federation suburbs like Willoughby and in the architecture of Burley Griffin in Castlecrag. And from various perspectives, Chatswood seems to emerge like a modern glittering citadel from an ancient forest.

It is therefore not surprising that residents have a long history of activism in defence of our local environment and our heritage. Across the electorate residents have always fought to protect the character of our area. For example, the women who led their famous 'battle for Kelly's Bush' in Hunters Hill established a precedent for protecting our built and natural environment that resonated across Sydney.

Following similar campaigns, one of the great legacies of the Howard government was the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, which saved prime defence land from sale and redevelopment. I was proud to have had some small involvement in the trust's creation. I am even more excited to have been able to help secure more funding to support the transformation of the old submarine base, HMAS Platypus on Neutral Bay, into new parkland and openly accessible foreshore. Protecting the heritage of our suburbs, our harbour environment and bushland has always been a passion for me. It will remain so as a member of this parliament.

I am very conscious that my election to this parliament represents the first time an openly gay man or woman has entered the House of Representatives. I am proud to do so as a member of the Liberal Party. I am of course not the first in this parliament, and I pay tribute to those who have forged a path in the Senate before me. Some have said to me that this is not an issue I need reflect upon, particularly on an occasion such as this. Surely a person's sexuality is irrelevant in this day and age, they have said. We do live at a time and in a world where we can be proud of how far we have progressed in breaking down centuries of discrimination against gay and lesbian people. This weekend, hundreds of thousands—gay and straight—will join together to recognise diversity, acceptance and respect at the Sydney Mardi Gras. They will do so peacefully and in a spirit of celebration. It is emblematic of the change that has occurred and, in many respects, it is no surprise and so very Australian.

While we have made great strides, discrimination remains and too many people are prepared to peddle prejudice. Our laws still deny access to marriage, our society's ultimate expression of love and commitment. Young gay men and women are more likely to suffer depression and other mental health issues. They are more likely to be bullied at school. More are likely to attempt to take their own lives and, tragically, some will succeed. Coming out remains hard for many people—and believe me, I know what that is like. And while people feel the need to suppress their identity they will live in a life of fear and trepidation. They are denied the opportunity to love and be loved, to be full and flourishing members of our community, and to simply be themselves.

We will not have reached the end of the journey until no person feels compelled to live a life that is not their own and until we recognise that a person's sexuality is not a choice or a preference; it is as innate as the colour of their skin. We should regard intolerance in the same way modern Australia regards discrimination based on sex or race—no more and no less. But I hope that my election to this place will, in a small way, send a message of hope: that your sexuality should not and need not be a barrier, that you can be gay and even be a member of the Australian Parliament.

While, as a liberal, I believe that we have responsibility for our own destiny, we are undoubtedly shaped by our own life experience, the influence of men and women who inspire us and perhaps most importantly, the influence of our families. My own family history represents something of our migrant mix—of German, Scottish and Irish stock—and of the hard pioneering ethic that helped create modern Australia.

My grandfather, Ossie Zimmerman, was born in the Gold Coast hinterland at the turn of the 19th century. His early years were hard beyond measure. He left school at the age of 12 and as a teenager he survived by working in the timber industry, on dairy farms, clearing land and as a drover. He proudly would recount his involvement in one of Australia's last great transcontinental musters—moving 15,000 head of cattle from Lawn Hill Station in the Gulf Country to Muswellbrook in New South Wales. Like so many of his generation he was determined to provide a better future for his children. Supporting their education, at school and university, was his driving motivation and in this he succeeded.

My grandmother, Ivy Lamb, was a war widow, and she raised three incredible daughters largely on her own in Brisbane. I am thrilled that my aunt, Desley Clark, and my cousin, Jayne Keogh, are here from Brisbane in the gallery today. My grandmother was passionate about politics and was one of that generation who joined the Liberal Party in response to the election of the Whitlam government. Perhaps more than anyone she stoked my interest in politics. I still remember her waking me late at night as a nine-year-old to excitedly tell me that Mr Fraser had been convincingly returned at the 1977 election.

My own father was a teacher, initially at small country schools across Queensland. He finally settled in Warwick, where he met my mother, who was visiting on a Presbyterian church picnic. My parents, Roy and Brenda Zimmerman, moved to Sydney following my father's appointment as head of the junior school at Newington College. They were to remain there for three decades.

For most of my childhood, I watched my father and mother nurture and care for students at the school as if they were part of our own extended family. In my mind, dad was something of a Mr Chips.

I will never forget being approached by a stranger, as I stood at a polling booth, who asked me if I was Roy Zimmerman's son. When I told him I was but that dad had passed away from cancer some years ago, he became emotional. He told me that he had entered school as a troubled child with little love from his own parents and that my dad had turned his life around; in fact, probably saved his life.

That commitment of my parents had a profound influence on me. It demonstrated the positive impact we can all have on the lives of others. I see in my sister, as she and her husband Greg raise their own children, Mackenzie and Zachary, the same nurturing hand passed from one generation to the next.

I hope that in this parliament, I can play my own role in securing a bright future for Mackenzie and Zachary and all their generation. It is the legacy we leave for future Australians that is the most important measure of our success in this place.

Politics has always been my passion, inspired both by my belief and commitment to the ideals of liberalism and the enduring value of community service.

It began as a year 10 student when, much to the bemusement of my parents, I chose to do my school work experience in the office of the then Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Nick Greiner.

I may have been tasked with little more than newspaper clippings and Nick may have called me Troy for the two weeks I was there, but it did not stop me recognising that I was seeing a Premier in the making. His reforming zeal and mantra of providing government that was warm, dry and green is one that I share.

My values and motivation for joining the Liberal Party are founded firmly in the great traditions of liberalism. For me, liberalism, which places the individual and his or her freedoms at the heart of all we do, has been the great force in human progress.

It is a view of the world that recognises that no one person, no group of people and no government should ever seek to tame the passions, ideals, beliefs and aspirations of another.

The strength of human kind is found in allowing people to make their own way, explore their own ideas and to question and challenge the orthodoxy of others.

From that foundation comes my support for what I believe are the essential tenets of good governance: our liberal democracy, respect for the right of individuals to lead their own lives, free enterprise and the rule of law equally applied but with the protection of the individual at its core.

Our goal should be to provide equality of opportunity rather than equality of disappointment.

As a liberal, I regard economic freedoms as the inseparable twin of personal liberty.

There are some who will stridently argue for the liberal economic reforms yet would have the government meddle in personal morality. Similarly, parties of the left are vocal in their support of personal freedoms but will be the first to argue for state intervention in the operation of our economy. There is an inconsistency in either approach which to me seems obvious and wrong.

We are a democracy, a nation, born of the ballot box. It is perhaps for this reason that Australia does not have or need a bill of rights.

Our liberty was not won through violence and civil strife, which is so often the motivation for nations to adopt constitutional guarantees. However, that does make our obligations as parliamentarians even greater.

It falls to us in the main and not the courts to protect those rights and institutions that are an essential part of our liberal society. Doing so, often requires courage and determination. We live in an era when the demands of the media and the community often tempt us to knee-jerk decision making. It is hard to convince voters that inaction is occasionally better than action.

At times, it would do us well to draw breath and properly consider whether new legislation or policy enhances or erodes freedoms, protections and our understanding of individual responsibility that have so often been so hard fought for.

I am by nature an optimistic and I am positive about the future of our great country. Australians are well placed to take advantage of the opportunities within our region and globally.

This century, more than ever before, will be one in which human capital determines the success or failure of competing economies.

Our excellent education system, our diversity, our inventiveness and our can-do culture will all serve Australia well.

Success will, however, not happen unless we are willing to put in place the foundations for that future and address the challenges that, if unattended, will diminish our prospects.

For me, the great challenges for this parliament are how we maintain growth and improve economic productivity to ensure that we can preserve the living standards that set us apart from most of the world.

We face the challenge of reforming the tax system to ensure that it remains internationally competitive in a global economy where capital and, increasingly, labour are so mobile.

At the same time, governments will face the pressure of responding to community expectations for even better services in sectors like health and education at a time when costs are outpacing revenue.

All of these issues require long-range planning yet democracy, perhaps by its nature, has a tendency to promote short-term decision making.

A structural issue we face in our federal system of governance is three-year parliamentary terms. This fact is widely accepted and understood.

The normal cycle means perhaps two years of governance before the third becomes consumed with the posturing that is part of every election year.

It is worth reflecting that that can mean that 33 years out of every century are potentially lost to good governance. It is for this reason that I believe it is time we moved to four-year parliamentary terms. It should be done and it should be done soon.

I come to this parliament representing an electorate that is a microcosm of modern Australia, its challenges and its opportunities.

North Sydney residents are educated, tech savvy and entrepreneurial. It is home to many businesses that will play a growing role in our future economy, particularly in the service and innovation sectors. It is these sectors, along with agriculture, tourism and education, that will help provide our future prosperity.

Our innovation sectors offer the potential for Australia to be at the cutting edge of high-value industries and products that will support growth and employment for coming generations. My electorate is well placed to capitalise on these opportunities. Already the North Sydney CBD is fast becoming a centre for IT firms and industry. As one CEO put it to me: it is set to become Sydney's 'silicon alley'.

St Leonards, home to the Royal North Shore Hospital and so many other health institutions, has even greater potential as a centre for medical innovation and research.

A priority for me will be to work with all three levels of government to promote our part of Sydney as a centre for innovation and ensure our businesses—large and small—can take advantage of the doors being opened by growth in the Asia-Pacific.

North Sydney faces the growing pains experienced by all our major cities—straining transport networks, planning that is often poorly integrated and the challenge of maintaining services for an expanding and changing population.

Our cities are now the drivers of our economy, and their contribution to our prosperity will only continue to grow. We also know that inadequate infrastructure and the cost of congestion are major drags on productivity.

It is impossible to manage the needs of our national economy and improve productivity without a federal interest in our cities, and I am pleased that this is a focus for our government. The Commonwealth already financially supports major transport infrastructure projects. This role should grow, as there is no greater threat to the productivity and liveability of our cities than gridlock.

I am particularly pleased that the Turnbull government has adopted a mode-neutral view of the type of transport projects that will be funded. There is no logic to the federal government supporting urban roads but not urban public transport. We need both, but in many cases public transport is best placed to do the heavy lifting.

North Sydney residents, who are the second highest users of public transport in Australia, will be a major beneficiary of the Sydney Metro project, which will provide a second harbour rail crossing through the heart of my electorate. Projects like this are significant, but, as the potential for further asset leasing and sales declines, the federal government's support will be increasingly important. It should do so, but in a way that drives reform in how transport is funded and provided across Australia.

The Commonwealth should expect states to implement value capture funding as a part of major new projects. Such an approach is not new—indeed, the Sydney Harbour Bridge itself was partially funded from a betterment tax—but it is essential if we are to have the resources to meet future infrastructure demands.

Similarly, we know that many of our government-run public transport systems could possibly better—and certainly more efficiently—provide the same service levels through greater private sector involvement. This should be an expectation of the federal government in return for its financial support.

My electorate also represents the success of multicultural Australia, which is surely one of Australia's greatest achievements. No other nation on earth has so harmoniously welcomed migrants from every corner of the planet. A non-discriminatory immigration program that meets both our economic needs and our humanitarian obligations has been the foundation of our ethnically-diverse and largely tolerant community.

North Sydney reflects the diversity of modern Australia. Over 19,000 residents claim Chinese heritage, and we are also home to large communities from Korea, Japan, India and Malaysia. We are the richer for it, and it makes us exceptionally well placed to take advantage of the expanding economic opportunities in Asia.

North Sydney is also home to perhaps the largest community of Australians of Armenian heritage, and they have a special place in our community. The Armenians are a people who have suffered great historical injustices. They are one of the few people against whom genocide has been attempted, and the awful legacy of those events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire is deeply felt in their community today.

We know such horrific events are best healed through reconciliation, recognition and atonement. I hope that we will see a day when Turkey—indeed, the global community through the United Nations—properly recognises the Armenian genocide. Only then will the stain of that dark chapter start to be removed for a people who live in its wake.

My arrival in this House has been on the shoulders of others. First and foremost, I want to thank the residents of North Sydney for giving me this incredible honour. On the night of the by-election I said that I would work hard for each and every resident, whether they voted for me or not, and I hope that I can fulfil that commitment.

I have thanked my family already but do so again, as their love and particularly their patience over the last few months mean so much.

I am also grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the staff of the parliament for the assistance I have received since my election—although, perhaps, not the office, unless it comes with a six-year term! To all my new colleagues in this place: thank you for making me so welcome. I am proud to be a part of a party room that brings together such diverse and deep experience. It is truly representative of our great country.

I want to thank the branches of the Liberal Party in North Sydney both for selecting me as their candidate and for working so hard during the by-election. Led so ably by our conference president Rob Orrell, the campaign was joined by over 800 volunteers. To every one of them: I am so very, very grateful.

I particularly acknowledge my dearest friends who have been part of this journey—some for 30 years. This is a bit like one of those Oscar moments, where the music may come on, but I do want to thank Chris Muir, Don Harwin, Michael Photios, Catherine Cusack, Marise Payne, Gladys Berejiklian, Matt Kean, Andrew Kirk, Tanya Baini, James Wallace, Heitor da Silva, my best friend over all of those years, Shayne Mallard, from the other side of the world, Frederic Delsol, Matias Coronel, and all those who have been such incredible mentors: Jillian Skinner, Bruce Baird, Robert Hill, Chris Puplick and my good friend, the late Virginia Chadwick.

Finally, I pay tribute to you, Prime Minister. Your support during the by-election was magnificent. The people of North Sydney embraced your vision for our nation, as I am sure that all Australians will do at the next general election. There has never been a more exciting time to be the member for North Sydney!