Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, under this bill, who would be protected by this immunity?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The measure would provide that a judge of division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has the same immunity as a judge of division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you please explain what immunity is given to the judges of division 1 of the family court.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Case law suggests that judicial immunity applies to judges of inferior courts more narrowly than it does to their superior court counterparts. This has created uncertainty for litigants and for judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court division 2. The bill would minimise the risk of vexatious litigation aimed inappropriately at division 2 judges from those who are dissatisfied with the outcomes of their decisions. This bill would also support the underlying aim of the doctrine of judicial immunity by enabling division 2 judges to discharge their judicial functions impartially, fearlessly and in accordance with their assessment of the facts and their understanding of the law without undue influence or the threat of being sued.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If a person was not happy with a decision of the courts and if you'd allowed immunity to that judge, what course of action would the person have?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The appeal process.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the appeal process, you would talk about the decision that judges have brought down. As I said in my remarks, a lot of these people are at their wit's end, and they don't have any more money to throw at solicitors to actually put their case forward. What other process could there possibly be for them if they feel that they've already spent years waiting for the courts to make the decision? A lot of the parents that I've spoken to have said that they feel that there is a bias against them in the courts because of who they are and because of lies that have been told.

My concern is that I've spoken to a lot of parents who go to the courts and give their evidence, and in the court system there is perjury, yet they don't feel that the person who is going against them in their case—their ex-partner, ex-wife or whatever—is being held accountable. Lies are being told—and, I've got to say, by men as well. Lies are told in court. There's no accountability in the court system. There's no accountability for perjury. The judges don't pull them up for perjury. Why are we then giving the judges immunity when the judges themselves will not adhere to the rules of the court, where perjury is not allowed?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the FCFCOA Act empower the heads of jurisdiction to consider, investigate and handle complaints about Federal Court and FCFCOA judges.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does that mean?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered the question.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you please translate that into everyday language.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts asked a very direct question of the minister with regard to an explanation of the statement that he just made. In light of that, please make the statement in layman's terms so that even I can understand it, if you would please. I would like to understand what you've just said in this chamber. Can you please explain?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the FCFCOA Act empower the heads of jurisdiction to consider, investigate and handle complaints about Federal Court and FCFCOA judges. So that's the additional process. Obviously they've got the appeals process that someone could be entitled to pursue legally as well. You're asking about what additional measures there were. That was the additional measure.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If someone feels that they've been wrongly treated in the court system, that someone has perjured them as a witness on the stand or that they've perjured themselves, what course of action do they have if the judge will not take that into consideration? How does that respondent deal with it? If the judge can't be held to account for the decisions that they make, you're basically giving them complete immunity if they make the wrong decisions, such as when they haven't run their court correctly and haven't pulled up anyone for perjury.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the same answer as the one before.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many times have the additional measures been used?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know. I'm happy to see if I can take advice on that and come back to you.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My concern is the legal system is a closed system. I can give you an example to labour the point: someone has been trying to get justice for nine years. He's been thwarted by the plaintiff, who is a very large corporation, and thwarted by the lawyers representing him and the major corporation. This is a closed system, a closed club. How can people be reassured that this will not lead to less openness?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The courts act independently.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have a big problem with in our society is the time judges take handing down their decisions. It can actually be as long as one year, two years or even longer before they hand down their decision. By you giving them immunity—meaning someone can't sue them when for it—where does it leave these people who are so frustrated with these judges that have taken so long to hand down their decisions? What recourse do they have? What can these people do while waiting for these long answers?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The standard complaints process would enable them to complain to the chief justice of that court.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't keep this going. I have my grave concerns about this bill. I think you're giving immunity to judges when they need to be made accountable. I think I've made my comments quite strongly on that. My concern is for the general public—that they don't have recourse anywhere. You're shutting the gate on them. You're not making these judges accountable to the public, and it's a real shame. It's a closed shop, and I hear that constantly.

People are distraught. They don't know where to go. They turn to politicians. I tell them all the time that it's a separation of power, that we can't get involved in this and that they have to keep fighting on. Like I said, when I talk to people on the telephone or when I get called aside in a shopping centre or wherever I go, people tell me their stories of how they've been separated from their families, from their children. They're distraught. They're at the bones of their backside; they've got no more left in them. They've got no money. They've lost their houses, and this just goes on and on. Yet you're in this chamber telling me that you're going to give the judges immunity. Where's the immunity for the public?

You passed further legislation just last week on the family law courts. You're going to do more damage to the families there. What's going to happen in child support? Who knows what you're going to do with that one when you bring that bill before this parliament! I feel that the people of Australia haven't been listened to. You don't have the answers. Like I said, you're just protecting the judges, who are in fear, who don't want to be sued. How many judges have been sued? One. Therefore we must make sure that it doesn't happen to another judge. Yet hundreds of thousands of people have been affected by the court system and what it's done to the people of Australia.

I don't believe this. You're so quick to move to protect the judges from being sued but you don't worry about the Australian people. You don't worry about getting it right in your family bills and law bills that are being passed in this place. It's a real shame, and I'm sure with the next one you pull up, the child support bill, you'll be doing the same—slapping people in the face.

Anyway, I've made my point here. I'm sure that the coalition and Labor will cuddle up beside each other on this bill again and pass it with no real oversight or thinking about what the public have to deal with now. One Nation will be opposing this.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't see judicial immunity as for the personal benefit of judges; we see it as something that protects everyone who comes to court by ensuring judges can make independent decisions free from external influence. That's why we think this is important.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I acknowledge the fact that there are two sides to this. What Senator Hanson and I keep hearing are essentially two points. There's a hell of a lot of regulation, and that regulation, wherever it's immense, favours the big boys: the big corporations, the wealthy. The legal system is becoming less and less accessible to everyday Australians—along with housing. Is the government doing anything to make it more accessible?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, this is actually about judicial immunity. It protects everyone who comes to court by ensuring judges can make independent decisions free from external influence. We think that benefits everyone who comes before the court in this instance.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.