Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023. Typically, these kinds of omnibus bills are used by a government to bring forward a series of procedural or other minor changes that tidy up issues or implement new measures that are sensible and widely supported. In the main, that is what the Attorney-General has done in this bill. Schedule 1 of the bill confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court to hear and determine a range of criminal offences relating to conduct within the remit of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. This schedule would allow corporate offences against the ASIC Act, the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act to be determined in the Federal Court. It would mean that the court could hear proceedings for indictable offences, such as: intentionally or recklessly failing to comply with the requirements given by ASIC; contravention of duties and obligations under the Corporations Act, including by directors, officers, employees, auditors, members and licensees; obstructing an audit under the NCCP Act; and knowingly acting as trustee, investment manager or custodian or as a responsible officer of a body corporate which is fulfilling one of these roles or of a superannuation entity while disqualified, contrary to the SIS Act.

Importantly, the bill does not substantively change the underlying offence provisions. Rather, it allows them to be heard in Commonwealth courts as well as state and territory courts, which is intended to reduce delays in prosecuting corporate offences. This schedule is consistent with the policy position of the coalition following the banking royal commission.

Schedule 2 helps streamline the way juries are appointed in the Federal Court. The Sheriff of the Federal Court will be able either to request a state or territory jury official to prepare and provide a jury panel, with the consent of the relevant state or territory, or to prepare a jury panel directly. This is a sensible measure which is not controversial. It allows the court to take the appropriate approach on a case-by-case basis.

Schedule 3 makes changes to the way the marriage celebrants register is administered. The Marriage Act includes longstanding provisions which set out a statutory basis for the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program. All celebrants must be listed on the register to be empowered to solemnise marriages in Australia. The schedule makes some changes relating to the administration of that register and some related matters. It establishes the position of Deputy Registrar of Marriage Celebrants, and the occupant of that position would assist the registrar in maintaining the marriage celebrants register. It amends time frames for a celebrant to be registered and changes the paperwork and notice requirements for a marriage to go ahead. It allows for refunds of marriage celebrant fees, and it stipulates that a celebrant must be physically present at a marriage. These changes are machinery in nature and are supported by the coalition.

It is schedule 4 of this bill, entitled 'Other amendments', with which the coalition has a very serious problem. This schedule deals with the Native Title Respondents Scheme. The Native Title Respondents Scheme is a program which provides financial support to pastoralists and other landowners to respond to native title claims. This was an important scheme established by the Howard government. What the scheme did was to ensure that both the claimant and the respondent to a native title claim had fair and equal access to assistance and legal representation. As the National Farmers Federation has said, the scheme is 'essential for the timely and efficient settlement of claims—of great benefit to all parties'.

We know that this government and the Australian Labor Party have long fought against the scheme. The government defunded the scheme when it came to office. The provisions in this bill would now remove the legislative basis for the scheme. This is a totally unnecessary measure which, if passed, would mean that a future parliament would need to legislate to re-establish the scheme. This government and the Australian Labor Party have an ideological objection to this scheme and want to see it eradicated forever. On this side of the House, the Liberal and National parties understand that rural landowners, farmers, pastoralists and graziers are the backbone of this nation. We are talking about the people who feed this nation. On this side of the House, we will always stand up for those people, and it is simply appalling that the government and the Australian Labor Party will not do that. On this side of the House, we know, including through the lived experience of many members in this chamber—including, I might say, the member for Hume, the member for Braddon and many others on this side of the chamber—that it's tough to be a successful farmer in our nation, this remarkable land we call Australia. Farmers endure droughts, floods, fires, and all sorts of challenges that those of us living and working in the cities have very little knowledge of and give very little thought to as we sip our lattes at our local cafes.

Why such a useful and simple mechanism as this scheme has been ripped away from farmers is beyond comprehension, and to use this bill to extinguish the scheme completely is nothing short of mean-spirited.

This scheme has delivered increased understanding of native title issues by peak bodies; coordination instructions to legal representatives; and the grouping of respondents in claim areas. The scheme has operated efficiently. The grouping of native title respondents in claim areas assisted with efficient and cost-effective resolutions of claims, as parties with similar interests were represented by one lawyer and supported by a native title officer. The operation of the scheme has provided a single point of contact for native title claims affecting pastoral respondents. Those respondents were able to work with legal representation to ensure they received relevant and timely information regarding native title processes. Ultimately this gave parties to native title claims timely and relevant access to information on those claims and allowed for informed decisions to be made. The single point of contact and coordination of legal support meant that legal costs could be substantially reduced and proceedings could be significantly streamlined, rather than having many different lawyers and other parties involved. The scheme, therefore, was able to reduce complexity and the potential delays driven by that complexity.

The experience of those involved in the scheme over many years has been that it led to a more effective resolution of disputed matters, and this was done in a way that benefited all parties, including the claimants themselves. So, in ending the funding of this scheme, the government has taken away what has been a fundamental deliverer of equity across those participating in what is a complex and contested process. The native title process is complex, it is contested and it requires expert legal capability to be able to navigate it. Individual farmers and even their representative bodies, such as the National Farmers Federation, do not have the skills or the resources at their disposal to adequately engage in the process. It is a cost to doing business that the farmers of this nation should not have to take on. I say, therefore, to the House that the coalition will move an amendment opposing the repeal of the legislative framework underpinning this important scheme when this bill reaches the Senate.

In addition to changes to the Native Title Act, schedule 4 of the bill also deals with the appointment of arbitrators in family law matters. Currently, arbitrators in family law matters can refer questions of law to division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court—that's to say the old Federal Circuit Court. The bill would allow arbitrators to also refer such questions to division 1—that's to say the old Family Court of Australia. In effect, these provisions will allow arbitrators to prioritise the former Family Court of Australia when referring questions of law that arise in the context of a family law arbitration. The coalition has questions about the impact this will have on the court's workload and the cost and time implications for parties. We believe the effects of this measure should be examined through a committee process.

As I said at the outset, the majority of this miscellaneous measures bill was straightforward and makes sensible changes that, on this side of the House, we are happy to support. But we cannot support the bill in its current form so long as it includes the present schedule in relation to the Native Title Respondents Scheme.

Debate adjourned.