Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I did sit there and listen to you in silence, Senator Collins, much against my better judgement. But perhaps I can repeat what I said for you. It is pretty simple: when you were in government you used substantial court fee increases to generate funds for the civil justice system, but with a much lower portion of the additional revenue being returned to the courts. In the 2012-13 budget you increased Federal Court fees from 1 January 2013 to raise a total of $102.4 million over four years, but only $30 million of that additional funding was provided to the federal courts. In the 2012-13 budget you changed court fees from 1 January 2013 to provide additional funding of $30 million over four years to the federal courts. The changes raised a total of $102.4 million over the forward estimates, of which approximately $4.2 million was also allocated to the federal courts for implementation and administration of the fees. Overall, fees in the Federal Court were raised by approximately 29 per cent, on average. As a result, public authorities such as the Australian Taxation Office and publicly-listed companies shifted matters from the Federal Court to the state courts. Consequently, in the 2013 calendar year the Federal Court collected $24.6 million in revenue but in the 2014 calendar year it collected $12.8 million in revenue. Its revenue decreased by 48 per cent.

This is the legacy that those opposite left us. They raised fees, including almost trebling the concessional fees, and they did nothing towards returning the courts to sustainability. In a typical Labor-Greens comedy of errors, the previous government hiked the fees of the Federal Court so much that its business was halved and its fee revenue smashed. The additional fee revenue from the government's family law fee changes is a critical element of the package of court reform measures announced by the government in the 2015-16 budget, including the additional $22.5 million to be injected into the federal courts to enhance their capacity to provide services in key areas such as family law.

Other measures, including merging the court's back office functions, while important, generate insufficient savings to address the court's deficits and to meet the election commitment to streamline savings without accompanying fee increases. Given the structural deficits currently facing the family courts, the only alternatives would be to cut front-line court services, close registries and not replace judges—which would severely undermine access to justice for the Australian community. Dishonestly, the Labor Party and the Greens have characterised these fee increases as impacting on the vulnerable—who, they say, will not be able to afford the new fees. However, fee exemptions, deferrals and waivers will still apply to vulnerable litigants as before. This includes litigants who have been granted legal aid, who are holders of concessional cards, who would be subject to financial hardship by paying a fee, or who have an urgent need to file a document. Can I stress that: the government has left untouched the concessional fee arrangements. I repeat—especially for Senator Lazarus, Senator Wright and Senator Collins: the government has left untouched the concessional fee arrangements. I say that for a third time, in case you did not get it: this means that those facing financial hardship or other difficult circumstances should not be affected by these changes, and those opposite should not be peddling misrepresentations in relation to this—

Opposition senators interjecting—

You should not be peddling misrepresentations. It is appropriate to seek from court users a greater contribution towards the cost of running the courts, consistent with recommendations of the 2014 Productivity Commission report into access to justice arrangements. However, and I repeat: reduced fees for divorce applications will remain unchanged for vulnerable applicants in both the Family Court and the federal circuit court. Further, registrars have substantial discretion in granting reduced fees and deferred payment arrangements, even where litigants do not qualify for the concessional fees. It is only the actions of this Senate, in voting to disallow the fee regulations, that put these arrangements at risk.

Senator Lazarus interjecting—

Senator Lazarus, what part of that very simple comment did you not understand? Not only have we left untouched the concessional fee arrangements; registrars also have substantial discretion in granting reduced fees and deferred payment arrangements, even where you have litigants who do not qualify for the concessional fees. Not only that but, if the additional funding is not available, the government will have no choice but to consider the other, much less palatable methods of addressing the structural deficit. The Senate, in voting for disallowance, is in effect asking the government to consider registry closures and service reductions. This is a matter for those opposite but no-one will be left under any illusion about whose responsibility it will be.