Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the contributors to this debate. The Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill 2008 is a very important piece of legislation. I think it is very important to me to explain what this bill is all about for those listening to the debate. The bill sets up the procedural framework to ensure that the Federal Court can exercise the criminal cartel jurisdiction that will be given to it under the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Act 2008. These two pieces of legislation are a measure of the government’s commitment to dealing with serious cartel conduct. Not only is the government enacting new criminal offences with heavy penalties; we are giving the Federal Court, which has the specialist expertise in dealing with cartel conduct, jurisdiction to deal with those offences. The government are also giving that court the powers and procedures it will need to exercise the new jurisdiction.

The bill contains a comprehensive and balanced set of provisions that will give the Federal Court the full range of powers needed to run a criminal trial, from the pre-trial proceedings right through to bail, empanelling juries, conducting trials and hearing appeals. The bill is the product of extensive consultation with key stakeholders. The procedural provisions are based on the best features of existing state and territory law and will allow the Federal Court to apply consistent criminal trial procedures, regardless of where the trial is held. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs described the bill as ‘essentially well drafted and sound’ but was able to identify some areas where there was room for further improvement. The government took those comments into account and has endeavoured to meet the concerns raised by the committee. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for its report. In due course, I will be moving government amendments to give effect to the committee’s recommendations. The recommendations of the committee have all been accepted, except where the recommendation would undermine the intended operation of a provision in the bill or reduce, rather than increase, the rights given to an accused person.

I will respond now to the issues raised by some of the speakers. The government is not supporting Senator Abetz’s amendment for the simple reason that it is completely unrelated to the substance of the bill, which is to confer criminal jurisdiction on the Federal Court for cartel offences. Further, an amendment that directs the courts as to how they should manage their resources is completely inappropriate. It is a long-held principle, accepted by both sides of politics, that federal courts are self administering and that it is their responsibility to determine how to apportion their total appropriation; the parliament should not seek to second-guess the way the court chooses to expend its resources.

There is already a legislative requirement that the court have a registry in every state and territory to ensure that court services are provided to the Australian people. As a result of this requirement, it is not the case that the Tasmanian registry will close. While registrar services will be provided from other Federal Court registries, three staff will continue in the Tasmanian registry in a customer service role. In fact, the court advised that as of 11 September there were only nine active cases before judges and six cases before the registrar in the Federal Court’s jurisdiction in Tasmania.

The government understands that this is an issue of great importance for the Tasmanian legal profession and for the people of Tasmania, and I respect the fact that the Tasmanian senators have come here and argued the case today. But, particularly as the removal of the district registrar would mean that Tasmania does become the only state in the Commonwealth without a Federal Court registrar, the government is keen for the courts to continue to explore more efficient ways of providing legal services to the Australian people while maintaining the quality of services. The court has provided assurances that it will ensure that the court continues to maintain an excellent level of service in Tasmania. The Attorney-General has been advised by the Chief Justice, the Hon. Michael Black AC, that there is no backlog of cases in the court in Tasmania and that the time taken to finalise applications in Tasmania is actually better than the national average. Nevertheless the government is committed to ensuring that the people of Tasmania have access to high-quality legal services. In October the Attorney-General announced the appointment of the Federal Magistrate to the Tasmanian registry of the Federal Magistrates Court.

The challenge that we have before us though is that providing better access to justice is not simply about providing more resources to courts but ensuring that disputes can be resolved quickly and efficiently, preferably before they even reach court. So, in 2009-10 more than $1 million has been allocated to community legal centres in Tasmania under the Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program and in May 2009 the Attorney-General also allocated additional one-off funding or more than $170,000 to help community legal centres in Tasmania to enhance their services. This was in addition to more than $370,000 in additional one-off funds that the Attorney-General approved in April 2008 to assist community legal centres in Tasmania to better serve their clients. Also, under the Family Relationship Services Program the Attorney-General’s Department is providing around $5.8 million of funding annually to community based organisations in Tasmania to provide a range of family relationship services. These include the family relationship centres, childrens contact services, post-separation cooperative parenting services, family dispute resolution services, including regional family dispute resolution, the Parenting Orders Program and the Supporting Children after Separation Program. Again, the Attorney-General sought proposals from community legal centres across the country, including Tasmania, to trial partnerships with family relationship centres in order to better support people dealing with relationship breakdown. Family relationship centres are located in Hobart and Launceston so there is potential for more than $100,000 to be made available to support the partnership trial in Tasmania. The minister will be making a decision on the successful pilot proposal shortly.

I assure the Senate that the Rudd government is committed to ensuring that all Australians have proper access to justice and the Attorney-General will continue to closely monitor the services provided in Tasmania. If it is the case in six months time that there are service problems in Tasmania in relation to the registry, the Attorney-General has said that he will review this matter again. I commend the bill to the Senate.