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

I thank Senator Bob Brown for his indulgence. I note that there is an important speech happening in another chamber which is obviously of great interest to members of the coalition. In that regard, I will be as brief as possible. In speaking to the Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill 2008, I firstly associate myself with the comments of Senator Abetz and will speak to those aspects of the bill shortly.

Initially, I want to say that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs delivered a report in March 2009 and provided details in that report with respect to our views on this bill. It is primarily a technical and administrative bill which has the effect of allowing the Federal Court of Australia to exercise indictable criminal jurisdiction which will be given to the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Bill 2009. As senators would know, that bill was subsequently passed, so now we are trying to put into operation measures that would allow that bill to be fully and properly implemented.

We held public hearings in Melbourne and Canberra over several days. I want to place on record my thanks to the Senate committee secretariat for their help and assistance and for their good work in delivering a tremendously well put together report. I particularly want to thank the Secretary, Peter Hallahan, and Monica Sheppard and Cassimah Mackay for their work. This is a really good example of where Senate committees work tremendously well. We delivered a report with eight recommendations and those recommendations in substance have now been taken on board by the government. The government has listened, has responded to that report and has amended the bill accordingly. I want to place on record my thanks to the government for that response and also to the other members of the Senate committee for their deliberations.

The report raised two areas of particular concern. These were the terms in the bill regarding the abrogation of privilege and the issue of bail. With respect to the first issue of pretrial disclosure, the words used in the initial bill were ‘the basis of taking issue’. These would have required the accused to provide further and better particulars rather than to simply say, ‘No, we don’t support the views of the prosecution.’ They would have had to provide further and better particulars regarding the details of their defence. Clearly that is contrary to the common law; it is contrary to the principles that have been espoused in our courts over decades. In relation to the presumption of innocence and the presumption of bail, even with respect to cartels, the government initially wanted to reverse the onus of proof, notwithstanding that these are very serious matters regarding criminal cartels under the Trade Practices Act. Nevertheless, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is very important. It is an age old one that we hold dear here in Australia. In short, the report’s recommendations have been adopted in substance, and for that we thank the government.

The other aspect of this bill concerns the Federal Court and the government’s plans to effectively abolish the position of the Federal Court registrar in Tasmania. This is a very serious matter. It has been brought up many times in this place. Indeed, it was brought up during budget estimates over a period of many months. As I indicated last week in the Senate, I personally raised this matter with the Attorney-General on his visit to Tasmania last month and I also wrote to him on 10 August 2009. Just last week I received a response—and that response was very disappointing. It confirmed on record the government’s wish to proceed with their plans. The government indicated that they had received advice from the Chief Judge of the Federal Court and that they were acting on that advice. They sent a copy of that letter to Luke Rheinberger and Martyn Hagan of the Law Society, to Senator George Brandis and to the Tasmanian Liberal senators—Senator Eric Abetz, Senator Richard Colbeck, Senator Parry and Senator Bushby—and expressed their views. They also outlined some of the other benefits or initiatives that have been undertaken in Tasmania. Frankly, that is still not good enough. There is strong support for the second reading amendment moved by Senator Abetz, which states:

(a) at least one Federal Court Registry in each state is staffed on a full-time basis; and

(b) the complement of staff in each such Registry includes a full-time Registrar.

This is consistent with the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Bob Brown, and I strongly support it.

I flag that a bill is coming our way in the not too distant future, and that is the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Bill 2009. Our committee is deliberating on that bill; in fact, we are due to report on it tomorrow. Our views will be set out in that report when it is delivered tomorrow. If the government does not respond to the bill and does not do the right thing when it is introduced into this place—that is, if it does not treat Tasmania in the same way that it treats every other state and if it does not ensure the longevity of the Federal Court Registry in our state—then, as I have said previously, watch this space. We are putting the government on notice that they should fix this.

I also want to flag the correspondence and communications that I have had with the Law Society of Tasmania. I thank them. They are totally committed to the future of the Federal Court Registry in Tasmania and to it being fully serviced with a district registrar. In their correspondence to me, they say that they strongly oppose the government’s plans because they will have a significant and deleterious impact on the operations of the Federal Court in Tasmania. They also say that the review that the court has undertaken recommends the abolition of the district registrar in Tasmania and its replacement with services offered from Victoria. That is not good enough. It is not good enough for Tasmania to have its services provided from Victoria. As much as we love our Victorian cousins, that is not good enough. They say that it is wholly unacceptable and place on record their strong objections.

Tasmania is a state of the Federation and, without the presence of a legally qualified registrar in the Tasmanian Registry, the Federal Court will be paying no more than lip service to the Tasmanian community. In fact, they refer to section 34 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. I draw this to the government’s and, in particular, the Attorney-General’s attention. Section 34 requires the establishment of a registry in each state. Also, section 18N requires that there be a district registrar for each district registry. Whether there is a breach of the law here, I do not know, but we will investigate that. I note that they have made a submission to the access to justice inquiry, which is a Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry. We will have a good look at that. I look forward to a very serious consideration of their submission and its merits. The government have talked about the annual of savings of $200,000. That is what they say, but according to the Law Society the review was superficial and deeply flawed.

They say they have consulted widely. Frankly, with respect to the consultations we have had, there are so many people in Tasmania who are opposed to the government’s plans that there are too many to list today. In fact, I note that the retiring federal member for Denison, Duncan Kerr, opposes the government’s position with respect to their plans for the Federal Court in Tasmania. On behalf of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team and the coalition, I say we will be supporting the second reading amendment moved by Senator Abetz. We associate ourselves with the views of Senator Bob Brown, noting that we want to sort this matter out and get a result. I hope that we can. I hope the government listen. We have given them plenty of opportunities, but watch this space—we will not give up. We will ensure that Tasmanians are not treated like second-class citizens. I thank the Senate.