Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is dealing with the bill, as amended, and with Greens amendment (1) moved by Senator Bob Brown.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asking the government last night about the departure of the registrar from Hobart and whether his job in Hobart had effectively terminated yesterday. Given overnight consideration, I wonder if Senator Stephens could tell me that.

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

Senator Brown, yesterday when we were having this discussion the department advised me that they had been advised that was to occur tomorrow, and I have not received any contrary advice since that time. I have just received advice that there is a farewell function for him today but that the position actually ceased on 4 September.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the position ceased on 4 September and here we are, dealing with this amendment now. There has been a commitment to allow the amendment, which I have moved to ensure the continuation of that job, to be attached to the next potential bill dealing with the Federal Court. Has Senator Stephens been able to establish whether there is a commitment from the government to pass that bill this year if this amendment is attached?

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

Yesterday you asked me that question as well. The response now is the same as the response then: the government has given an undertaking to the opposition that that bill will be dealt with expeditiously and appropriately. That is as much as I can say to you at this time.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will accept that from Senator Stephens, because there are other people making these decisions, but it means that the government, in its own good time, is now wide open to dudding the coalition, and therefore Tasmania, on this matter. I ask the senator representing the Attorney-General if she could, having also given this overnight consideration, come up with an assessment of what the travel and communication costs will be for Tasmania and Tasmanians, both public and private, of dealing with the registrar in Melbourne as against having the registrar available in Hobart.

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

Senator Brown, when we discussed this yesterday and we discussed the decision-making process around the Federal Court’s determination on this issue, the figure of $200,000 was mentioned, which I understand is in the public documentation. The commentary was that it would represent a saving of $200,000. The department has not been able to provide me with any additional information in answer to the question that you have just posed.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The problem there is that, as we all know, that $200,000 does not take into account the cost being borne by litigants and their representatives in Tasmania by the need to communicate with Melbourne or go to Melbourne. It may be a saving for the court of $200,000, but part of that impost is transferred straight across to the Tasmanians who are disadvantaged by this decision. The government are unable to give answers as to what that cost will be. In other words, the survey that was done of the cost was loaded to give an outcome that sounded good but in effect did not take into account the costs to the people who matter here, and that is the people who want to approach the Federal Court, defend themselves or take action in the Federal Court, and their legal representatives in Tasmania. We know that it will be tens of thousands of dollars, but it is the sort of figure that should be made available here. If we are going to make a decision based on the incentive of saving $200,000 then the Commonwealth—and, indeed, His Honour Chief Justice Black and the court—should know what that cost is. But apparently there has been no assessment of it, and that is simply not good enough.

I want to complete this submission by saying here that I think the coalition is potentially going to be totally dudded by the government on this matter. That is okay because that is how things happen in politics, but it is not okay for Tasmania. It is not okay when it comes to ensuring that this office is not taken out of Tasmania because it is described as a minor or small or less significant place to make available these facilities. I can only appeal to the coalition to reverse yesterday’s wrong decision and to support the Greens amendment to ensure that the registrar is kept in Hobart.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have one question for the government and it is in relation to the contention that clause 18N of the legislation, by saying that a district registry must have a district registrar, actually sets up the context for Tasmania having its own registrar. So I would like to ask Senator Stephens whether the government took legal advice as to whether it could abolish the position in Hobart and still comply with the law. I would like to know whether legal advice was sought and I would like to know whether the decision to declare the Victorian registrar to be also the Tasmanian registrar was taken in light of that legal advice.

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

First of all, for those people in the gallery who are trying to work out what is going on, we are debating the Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction)Bill 2008, which sets up a procedural framework to ensure that the Federal Court can exercise the criminal cartel justification that it will be given under the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Act 2009.

We had a long debate from the Tasmanian senators about a decision by the Federal Court to reorganise its own resources and to make adjustments to the Tasmanian registry. There is no intention that the Tasmanian registry will close. While registrar services will be provided from other Federal Court registries, three staff will remain there. It is very important that we understand that those services to Tasmanians will be still available and that there is no suggestion that Australians living in Tasmania will not be served well. On the question that Senator Bob Brown asked: I can guarantee that the civil litigation bill will be dealt with this year. On the advice that I provided to the Senate yesterday, that the registrar of the Victorian registry will hold the dual role of registrar for the Victorian and Tasmanian registries: it is not the practice of the government to comment on the legal advice that it has sought or has been given in any circumstances so I can neither confirm nor deny that that has occurred.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am fully cognisant of the fact that government does not have to divulge to the parliament what its legal advice is. That is why I asked the question: did the government seek legal advice? It is quite within the remit of the parliament to ask these questions. Did the government seek legal advice on this matter? Was the decision to name the Victorian registrar as also the Tasmanian registrar made as a result of the advice? I recognise that it is up to the government to determine whether they answer that. It is incumbent on the senator to explain to the parliament whether they took legal advice on this. The mere taking of advice confirms what I am actually saying here—that is, that under section 18N, Personnel other than the Registrar, there is clearly an intent. At 1(a) the provision says there will be:

a District Registrar of the Court for each District Registry …

That implies that you would have a registrar with a registry. That is why I seek advice from the government as to whether they sought legal advice on this matter.

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

What I can say to Senator Milne is that this is the decision of the Federal Court and it is the Federal Court that has determined that this is an appropriate way to go.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Bob Brown’s) be agreed to.