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

Can I indicate to the Senate that a lot of what Senator Brown says is absolutely accurate. The decision by the government to go along with the Federal Court bureaucrats in downgrading the Hobart registry of the Federal Court is completely unacceptable and, in the long run, will clearly not improve the administration of justice. Nor will it assist in saving the moneys that are claimed.

Indeed, it is interesting to note that the Federal Court had over $1 million to spend on rejuvenating one of its courtrooms in Hobart but it does not have enough money to have a fully-fledged registrar! It is like running a hospital and having all the latest equipment but not having any doctors in it. One has to wonder how those decisions and priorities were determined.

One has to wonder how the government has gone along with the Federal Court’s decision-making in relation to the Hobart registry, given that the Hobart registry has the best figures—in relation to determination of matters, conclusion of matters et cetera—of any registry in Australia. We were told by His Honour Chief Justice Black, in his letter in response to the original motion that Senator Brown and I cosponsored in this place, that the figures in Tasmania would actually improve rather than get worse as a result of getting rid of a full-time registrar. That is illogical, with great respect. It does not seem—I have to be careful because I have respect for judicial officers, especially a Chief Justice—that that sort of thought process has the necessary ingredient of logic within it.

If we can do so much more with less, why doesn’t he try it at the Melbourne registry, the Sydney registry, the Adelaide registry, the Perth registry? Cut the registries to part-time and see if that improves the figures! Clearly, and with great respect, it was an argument without merit. I will be as neutral as I possibly can. Methinks the chances are that some bureaucrat within the Federal Court system wrote the letter and His Honour unfortunately placed his signature at the foot of the letter. But when the people of Tasmania are served up this sort of diet of nonsense—I will use that pejorative term—then you will not get their support in relation to that decision.

The issue that we as a coalition are confronted with—and I hear the merit of Senator Brown’s argument; he and I have been, and I dare say will continue to be, on the same page in relation to this issue—and which exercises our minds is the nearly manic approach of Labor in relation to this proposed amendment. What we have been promised by Labor and the Attorney-General is that if this amendment—worthy as it is—gets carried, Labor will simply delay the introduction of the Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill. And this bill is vital, as I understand it from the shadow Attorney-General, to ensure that we have the necessary regime in place to deal with the criminalisation of cartel behaviour under the Trade Practices Act.

We as a coalition, taking an Australia-wide view, have to make a determination as to whether it would be appropriate to delay this particular piece of legislation in our quite justified pursuit of getting justice for the Federal Court registry in Hobart. We have come to the reluctant conclusion that, chances are, getting the criminal jurisdiction under way for cartel type behaviours under the Trade Practices Act should not be delayed. Can I say to the Attorney-General and to the senator, the parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney-General in this place: it does not crown the Attorney with any glory to say that he would be delaying the introduction of this criminal jurisdiction on the basis of I think at most a $200,000 saving in the Hobart registry. To say that he would continually bounce the legislation between the two chambers and not allow it to be resolved for months on end I think shows an attitude which is now becoming more and more apparent from this Labor government—that is, absolute arrogance.

However, I am informed, and I am willing to take the government—I don’t know why—on face value in relation to this, that there is the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Bill 2009 coming up as non-controversial legislation tomorrow. So we do have the legislation before us. We believe on balance that that legislation is the better vehicle for moving an amendment, given the quite inexplicable, dogged attitude by the Attorney-General. Of course that will necessitate that piece of legislation being taken out of the non-controversial list, but hopefully we should be able to debate it within the next sitting period before Christmas and actually have the amendment dealt with on that occasion.

If Senator Brown were to move the amendment he has moved today again in that legislation he can be assured of coalition support. That would then guarantee its passage. So the issue is whether we delay the Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill 2008 today or wait for a month. We believe it could have been dealt with today, but due to Labor’s dogged approach on this, which defies logic—just as the explanation provided by the Federal Court to this Senate defied logic—we have come to the reluctant position that we will not be supporting Senator Brown’s amendment on this occasion.

I have explained the position of the coalition to the president of the Tasmanian Law Society during the course of this afternoon. Whilst it would be fair to say he would wish the amendment to be carried today, he does understand the reasoning and the rationale. He, of course, also understands the reasoning and rationale of the coalition in maintaining its support for a full registry facility in Hobart and our commitment to either move our own amendment or, if indeed, Senator Brown were to move an amendment to the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Bill 2009, that we would support such an amendment.

The decision by the Federal Court, supported by the Attorney-General, in this quiet dogged manner I do not think covers the Attorney-General with glory. It does him no credit and it will see the diminution of justice services in Tasmania for no actual savings at all. I can assure the Federal Court and the government that this matter will be pursued further at estimates. I am sure we will see cost blowouts—unless, of course, they are able to hide certain figures with airfares and other things, because I cannot see how at the end of the day Labor will be able to justify this decision and the Federal Court will not be able to justify the decision.

To sum up for those listening in and wondering what this might all be about, the Federal Court determined to set up a committee to determine whether or not smaller registries could possibly be amalgamated into larger registries. Surprise, surprise, the Melbourne registrar was on the committee, and guess what? There was no recommendation that staff savings should be made in Melbourne. Somehow, strangely, staff savings could be made in Hobart, because there was an oversupply! When I asked at Senate estimates last time, ‘Doesn’t it indicate an oversupply of staff in the Melbourne registry if Melbourne staff can handle all the work being generated out of the Hobart registry?’, I was given this bizarre response: ‘Well, no.’ Their arguments simply do not stack up. Either there is a surplus of workforce in the Melbourne registry that can then take over the work generated in Hobart or there is not. If there is not that surplus of workforce, surely it must mean and dictate that they will have to appoint extra staff in Melbourne to replace those that have been set aside in Hobart. That is the logic. It is pretty basic logic. What has happened in the past is, yes, there may have been a bit of a surplus capacity in Hobart, but that was very usefully used to assist the Melbourne registry at times of shortage, and therefore it balanced out exceptionally well. That is what we were told at estimates.

To now turn it around and suggest that we can somehow justify this change, courtesy of a Melbourne official sitting on a review which will increase his empire, is, I must say, not a good reflection by a body that supposedly administers justice. One would have thought that a body like that might actually understand that there is a substantial conflict of interest in having somebody preside or being part and parcel of such a review when the reviewer may be the beneficiary of a large empire. For all those reasons the Federal Court decision was wrong, the Chief Justice’s attempted justification is wrong, and the Attorney-General’s denial of the Senate’s approach on this is wrong. We as the coalition will fight to ensure that full Federal Court registry facilities are maintained in Hobart. We will seek to do that through the next piece of legislation which we have been advised by the government will be coming up before us very shortly.