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

Can I briefly indicate that an amendment circulated in my name on sheet 5974 is not an amendment that I intend to pursue. It is in virtually identical terms to that moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens and, as was indicated earlier, I support the wording in his amendment. As for the wording in his amendment, I am not sure where it had its genesis, but I do know that I was provided with a copy of an amendment yesterday in which I understand—and this is the way it ought to work, I would suggest to the minister—the Attorney’s office suggested a form of words which did not have the word ‘full-time’ in front of the word ‘registrar’. Of course, when I saw it I invited my colleague to request that the word ‘full-time’ be inserted in front of ‘registrar’.

Why did I seek to do that? The reason is that you can have a full-time registry by having a receptionist answering the phone from nine till five. That is a full-time registry. But of course most people go to a registry not for the purpose of talking to a receptionist but to get the benefit of the registrar. So I saw it originally as some very neat framing out of the Attorney-General’s office which neatly sidestepped the actual issue, which is the need for a full-time registrar. That is why I then requested that the word ‘full-time’ be inserted in front of the word ‘registrar’—so that the registry in each state is to be staffed on a full-time basis with the complement of staff in each such registry to include a full-time registrar.

For whatever reason—and I do not understand it, quite frankly—the government seems to have locked in behind the administration of the Federal Court in relation to this matter. Having done so, it is clear to me at least that there would be a very strong temptation for the next Senate estimates to bounce back to me that we had amended the legislation without the requirement for a full-time registrar, just for a full-time registry. Of course, you can achieve that by simply having a full-time receptionist rather than the actual service that you want there, which is that of a registrar. That is why the wording needs to include that addition of which the minister complained.

As for the minister’s understanding, I would have been, quite frankly, gobsmacked if in all the times this has been raised in this place, in the media and in Senate estimates by both me and Senator Brown the message had not got through that the issue was a full-time registrar. I am sure that message had got through, so the concept of putting ‘full-time registrar’ into the amendment should not have come as a surprise. That makes it absolutely watertight and absolutely clear what the intention of the opposition and the Greens is in relation to this matter. So can I indicate the coalition’s support and co-sponsorship of this issue with Senator Brown.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.