Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the response of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia that has just been tabled.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The history of this matter is that on 12 August this year I moved a motion in the Senate, co-sponsored by the Leader of the Australian Greens, expressing concern over the maintenance of the Federal Court registry and its services in Hobart. The Senate passed that motion, as I understand it, on the voices without a voice being recorded in dissent. His Honour, the Chief Justice’s response is, I must say, very disappointing and it falls very short of the mark. Indeed, His Honour, after going for about 1¾ pages, finally admits in the second last paragraph of his correspondence to the President:

I appreciate that, in context, this does not meet the Senate’s concerns …

He is dead right: his response does not meet the Senate’s concerns, and I believe that this is another example of bureaucratic interference and bureaucratic empire building at the expense of service delivery. Tasmania is a fully-fledged state of the Federation. It has a right to full Federal Court registry facilities in Tasmania. To make it an outpost of the Melbourne registry is completely and utterly unacceptable. I would invite any senator interested in this matter, or indeed any member of the public, to peruse the Senate Hansard of the Senate estimates legal and constitutional affairs committee, where I questioned Mr Warwick Soden, who is from the Federal Court registry, about the review and its impact. It became obvious that there is either a surplus capacity in Melbourne that would be then transferred to Tasmania—which begs the question: why should Tasmanian personnel suffer?—or, if there was an overcapacity in Tasmania, why couldn’t that then be scaled down to a level that was acceptable?

We are told in this correspondence that His Honour, the Chief Justice, wanted his letter to be tabled because the matter was not debated prior to the vote. He is right on that, but if he was properly informed he would know that some considerable time for a matter as discrete as this was taken at Senate estimates by myself and, I think, others in pursuing this very important issue. For the suggestion to be made gratuitously that this was not a matter of debate or not a matter on which senators were not properly informed is a reflection that I trust was not meant, and I trust I am being oversensitive in that regard.

But His Honour tells us in the fifth paragraph of the letter that ‘the service provided in Tasmania would not be diminished’. With great respect, when you do not have a resident registrar who is sitting there in situ, it is very hard to believe and understand that a deputy district registrar, based in Melbourne, would somehow be able to provide the same sort of service as somebody on the ground in situ everyday. And so with great respect to His Honour, that assertion is not something that can be sustained and it is a matter of concern that His Honour thinks that his explanation somehow deals with that issue.

In the second last paragraph on the first page of the letter, His Honour goes on to set up a straw man and then knock it down. He said:

It has never been proposed—and will not be proposed—that the Tasmania District Registry should be closed.

Nobody accused the Federal Court of that, so why on earth raise it? It was not in the motion. That was not the accusation in the motion. That was not the situation that Senator Brown and I and other Tasmanian senators were asserting. Yet, this straw man was set up and then it was said it has never been proposed. With great respect to His Honour, I know that that was never proposed. Nobody suggested it was proposed, so why it found its way into his correspondence I am at somewhat of a loss to understand.

The last paragraph of the first page tells us that the district registrar for Victoria, ‘a very experienced officer’, will continue in her capacity as the district registrar for Tasmania. I am sure the district registrar from Victoria is very experienced and very capable. But when you make these decisions, it is not done on the basis of who the personnel might be at any particular time. This district registrar might in fact resign tomorrow, and then there might be a less experienced one. But let me simply say that the Tasmania district registrar, Mr Alan Parrot, a man with whom I went through law school, is also very experienced, very capable and has the full confidence of the Tasmanian legal profession. I hope that there is no slight in relation to the experience and professional capacity of Mr Parrot, the Tasmanian district registrar.

It is very interesting that we are getting rid of the fully-fledged Tasmanian district registrar. And guess what we need to replace him? A registry manager will be appointed. So here we go, the actual person who delivers the justice, who helps to get cases moving, the person who can do all of these things to affect justice, that person is removed and backfilled by a bureaucrat. This is how the bureaucracy takes over. It is almost as though the health department has got hold of the Federal Court. You get rid of the doctors and you have more bureaucrats in the health department, which seems to be the way of every state health department all around Australia at the moment.

One thing I do agree with in His Honour’s letter is:

The Federal Court’s disposition rate in Tasmania is exceptionally good.

I agree with him. It is very good. He then goes on to say:

I do not expect these excellent figures to change, other than to improve.

Yet he tells us the total numbers are being shrunk in the Federal Court all around Australia. So we are now going to do more with less. It defies logic, it defies experience and, with great respect to His Honour, it does not suggest that much robust thought has been put into his response.

I find it regrettable that I have to make these comments about somebody who I must say runs the Federal Court well, but the matters that he has referred to in his response to the Senate resolution would suggest that he is being advised by people who are not necessarily a full bottle on what has actually occurred in Tasmania. I would ask the Federal Court to reconsider their approach. When I asked about all these matters at Senate estimates, I was told by Mr Soden that no decision had been taken and that everything would be considered very carefully. Of course, His Honour still does not tell us exactly what the savings are and at what cost to the delivery of justice to the people of Tasmania. With great respect, you cannot reduce the personnel and the services and then still assert that the excellent figures in the registry will not change other than to improve. With great respect, that offends logic.

My time has run out. I note that Senator Barnett, who has also taken a very active interest in this matter, will make some comments. I publicly express my regret that the Chief Justice’s response, which indicates the very proper concerns expressed by the Law Society of Tasmania and right across the board, from Senator Bob Brown to me, completely and utterly ignored them.