Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand to associate myself with the remarks of Senate Abetz and, indeed, Senator Brown with respect to the response from the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Hon. Michael Black, in his letter dated 19 August 2009. It is a very regrettable response. That motion was put through the Senate and passed without dissent. In fact, this has been an ongoing issue now for some time, during which the Rudd Labor government have been fully aware of the concerns, and not only of Tasmanian senators and members—I note that the federal member for Denison, Duncan Kerr, has a similar view to our own on this matter. I wonder what the Rudd Labor government are doing about this matter. Are they listening? What liaison, what relationship, what communication has been had between the Chief Justice and the Rudd Labor government?

The Hon. Robert McClelland, the Attorney-General, visited Tasmania last month. I met him during his visit; he visited Hobart and also Launceston, and I met him there at the community legal centre. I raised this issue with him at the time. I said that it was a very serious issue and that he really should pursue it. It has been raised with him; he has had it raised in a range of areas.

I know for a fact that the Law Society of Tasmania has expressed extreme concern and strong disagreement with the approach being taken by the Federal Court in Tasmania and by the Federal Court administration across this country with respect to its plans for the district registrar in the Federal Court in Tasmania. The Law Society has written to various members of federal parliament in Tasmania. The President, Luke Rheinberger, has written and expressed his view, and I have talked to him and met with him. The executive director, Martyn Hagan, has acted and prosecuted the case to say, ‘No, this is a retrograde step and shouldn’t occur.’

In fact, the Law Society has gone to so much trouble to express its concerns that it has actually put in a submission to the current Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into access to justice. I commend the Law Society for that submission and for making the effort to express its concerns. Obviously, access to justice is a very broad term of reference, but it relates to the time, the costs, any potential delays—all those issues.

The Law Society of Tasmania has put forward a submission, and that will no doubt be considered very carefully by our committee, which I chair. We have had a number of hearings around the country, in Melbourne and other places—Sydney and Canberra are, I think, coming up—and we have had a lot of good submissions. That submission will be considered very carefully, and this Senate committee will no doubt put its view back into the public arena and back to the full body of the Senate in due course when we report on that inquiry. I commend the Law Society of Tasmania for its work and for its efforts to stand up for proper justice and a fair go for Tasmania.

Tasmania is a federated state; we are part of the Commonwealth and should be treated as such. As Senator Abetz has noted, he himself raised this in Senate estimates in June, as indeed did other senators, including me. But Senator Abetz prosecuted the case well, and I thought, frankly, that we would get a decent response—a very sensible response—based on the prosecution of the case at that time. If the Labor government had been listening and taking on board the concerns—not just ours but also those of the Tasmanian Law Society and fair-minded Tasmanians—they would have fixed this. As I say, I have raised this personally with the federal Attorney-General. The fact is that we are not just an outpost of Melbourne, and we need to be treated fairly and consistently, like other Australian states.

I do not think the letter from the Chief Justice properly sets out in a comprehensive manner all the reasons why it should not continue the way it has. Obviously, there should be reforms. But to do away with the district registrar in that sense—not the registry, but the registrar—is inappropriate. I ask all Tasmanian parliamentarians in this place—and, indeed, those in the other house—to stand up on this issue and to say, ‘No, this is not the way to go.’ I ask them to stand up and say, ‘The Federal Court needs its full complement to operate and function effectively and properly.’

It is interesting that the government have, of their own accord, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on upgrading and renovating the Federal Court. On the one hand they are happy to spend—and it is to their credit that they have spent—significant funds on ensuring that the structure of the court is properly maintained and there is a fully professional and excellent institution based in Davey Street, Hobart.