|
senate vote 2021-02-17#13
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-15 09:01:58
|
Title
Bills — Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019; in Committee- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and another - in Committee - Increase minimum judge number
Description
<p class="speaker">Lidia Thorpe</p><p>by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1207 together:</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-17.191.1) moved by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Greens), which means it failed. The amendment would have increased the minimum number of judges set out in the legislation from 25 to 40.
- Senator Thorpe [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-17.191.1):
- > *As at 17 February there are 32 judges currently listed on the Family Court's website, who would become Division 1 judges, not including the Family Court of Western Australia judges. The government's amendment requiring 25 judges doesn't make any sense. It's going backwards from the current number of 32 judges. It does not make any sense to go backwards at this time, particularly to a figure of 25 in view of the crippling backlogs and workloads facing the courts.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:*
- >
- > *(1) Amendment (1), subclause (3), omit "25 Judges", substitute "40 Judges".*
- >
- > *(2) Amendment (1), subclause (4), omit "25 Judges", substitute "40 Judges".*
- >
- > *Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019*
- >
- > *Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000*
- >
- > *Amendments (1) and (2)*
- >
- > *Amendments (1) and (2) are framed as requests because they amend the government amendments to the bill to require that the minimum number of judges to hold office in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) is 40 rather than 25. As this will have the effect of increasing the number of judges to be remunerated, it will increase the expenditure under the appropriation proposed by clause 18 of theFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019.*
- >
- > *Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000*
- >
- > *Amendments (1) and (2)*
- >
- > *If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the appropriation proposed by clause 18 of theFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.*
<p class="italic">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:</p><p class="italic">(1) Amendment (1), subclause (3), omit "25 Judges", substitute "40 Judges".</p><p class="italic">(2) Amendment (1), subclause (4), omit "25 Judges", substitute "40 Judges".</p><p class="italic">Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019</p><p class="italic">Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</p><p class="italic">Amendments (1) and (2)</p><p class="italic">Amendments (1) and (2) are framed as requests because they amend the government amendments to the bill to require that the minimum number of judges to hold office in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) is 40 rather than 25. As this will have the effect of increasing the number of judges to be remunerated, it will increase the expenditure under the appropriation proposed by clause 18 of theFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019.</p><p class="italic">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</p><p class="italic">Amendments (1) and (2)</p><p class="italic">If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the appropriation proposed by clause 18 of theFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.</p><p>I'm happy to rise to seek the support of my fellow senators for my amendments, particularly Senator Patrick, as he seems pretty keen to support this shoddy legislation on the condition that there is a minimum number of judges in the legislation. I want to be clear: I completely oppose the merging of these courts because, as the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services have made clear, this merger will not fix the root causes of the problems of the family law court. As at 17 February there are 32 judges currently listed on the Family Court's website, who would become Division 1 judges, not including the Family Court of Western Australia judges. The government's amendment requiring 25 judges doesn't make any sense. It's going backwards from the current number of 32 judges. It does not make any sense to go backwards at this time, particularly to a figure of 25 in view of the crippling backlogs and workloads facing the courts.</p><p>The Chief Justice made a statement in November 2019 that at least one extra judge is required in every major registry to make a massive difference to the backlog. That would make it at least 40 judges. The Chief Justice said, '"an extra judge in every major registry would make a massive difference" to backlogs'—quoted in Tony Keim, ‘A family (court) affair’.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>One Nation will not be supporting the Greens' amendment on sheet 1207, with regard to increasing the judges from 25 to 40. I was involved in the committee that actually looked into the merger of the two courts. After hearing evidence that was given, and especially being involved as deputy chair in the Family Court matter presently on foot and the advice that we actually heard, yes, there is a backlog in the court system, and, yes, the judges are terribly overworked. Why I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to support this is that it's not really more judges that we need; it's more registrars and their support staff that we need. It has been shown that by putting registrars and senior registrars into the positions they can actually triage, hear the mentions and even the contraventions of orders and do a lot of the work of the judges. They can actually even hear determinations. That has been supported by judges and the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice.</p><p>I'd like to point out to Senator Thorpe that by appointing judges into the Federal Courts their appointment is until they're 70 years of age. They can't be sacked, unless they're sacked by both houses of parliament. That is rarely ever done. When you have registrars appointed, they can be utilised when needed in the court system, and we can bring in more or less. They are doing the work and helping the judges. A Federal Court judge in the Family Court Division 1 is basically costing the taxpayers approximately $500,000 a year. That is a huge cost to taxpayers. We found that a lot of these judges are stressed and a lot of them are overworked and that, hence, a lot actually take a lot of time away from their work because of this and they're still being paid, yet the work is not being completed—work which could be carried on by registrars.</p><p>People do need to get their cases heard, but I truly do believe that instead of putting more money into judges—because in the Family Court their average of 27 judges heard approximately 500 cases a year, yet the Federal Circuit Court judges heard about 500 to 600 cases a year each—we need to look clearly at how we're going to do it. I do support the Attorney-General's move to a minimum number of 25 judges and the appointment of more registrars.</p><p>There has been a lot of streamlining that has been happening in the court system to actually address people's needs, and their submissions are being taken up under the Lighthouse Project, which is working extremely well. I think the Attorney-General is doing an excellent job addressing the needs of the courts.</p><p>I must say that the Labor Party complains that the Liberal Party has done nothing in the last seven years. Well then, I'd ask the same question of the Labor Party: what have they done in their time when they were in parliament here? Absolutely nothing, because the increases happened. So it's alright to point the finger and have your say now on what the Liberal Party has done, but the Labor Party have in fact done absolutely nothing themselves.</p><p>This is a way forward. I have been involved in this for many years and have raised the issues continually in this house. I have reviewed it, possibly more than any other member in this place, so I feel that I am very much across this and I am supporting the government's bill. I will not support the Greens' amendment to this.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I have a couple of questions for the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General in respect of these amendments. The Greens say they won't support these laws. If these laws are not passed tonight, what's the minimum number of justices under the current legislation?</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>Senator Patrick, there is no minimum under the current legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>So the government's amendment has significantly raised the bar. I want to get an understanding. That's not the number that the Attorney is setting; that's a safeguard, as far as I understand it. Is that correct? You announced tonight the appointment of an additional justice. I want to make sure that that's a safeguard rather than a target number.</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>That's correct, Senator Patrick. The number that has been specified in the amendment is a minimum floor. It's not to suggest that is going to be a fixed number at any time and it does represent an increase from zero under the current arrangements.</p> <p class="speaker">Kim Carr</p><p>Senator Stoker, you participated in the Senate inquiry with me. You are obviously performing a different role here this evening. I'm wondering whether you recall the Senate being advised that there were five judicial vacancies at the moment, and that's not including the four additional positions that were announced in the budget. Can you seek some advice from the officers as to why those vacancies haven't been filled? In so doing, perhaps you could also advise the chamber why, when the Attorney-General is given significant notice of impending retirements, it has taken so long to fill the vacancies.</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>Senator Carr, I can answer that question. It is true that those vacancies exist, so your data is right on that front. They are not yet filled because a process is underway, which you would expect, Senator Carr, would be done with care and due consideration. These are important appointments. It's important we get them right. It is the case that the work is being done at the moment to fill those ones as soon as that process is complete.</p> <p class="speaker">Kim Carr</p><p>I appreciate that the Attorney-General would be anxious to make sure he got the right appointments, but one could also be concerned that, if it takes a long time to fill vacancies—and we started from the premise that he didn't want to fill the vacancies at all—it does imply there is a lack of real motivation to fill vacancies. Obviously the circumstances suggest that the Attorney-General has had a long time to fill the vacancies. I ask you specifically: Does the Attorney-General intend to fill the vacancies? When will that occur? It's no good saying to me, 'I just have to make sure I get the right person.' It takes a bit more than that. Given the lack of certainty there has been about this Attorney-General's interest in maintaining the administrative efficiency of this court, how is it that it has taken so long to fill the vacancies that occurred?</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>Senator Carr, I'll clarify something I just said. You gave the total number of vacancies. That number is correct, although it should be clarified that most of those are in the Federal Circuit Court and only one is in the Family Court, as they currently stand. There is an intention to fill the vacancies. That process is underway. I have otherwise answered the question.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>How many people have actually put up their hands to do that job, and when did they do that? How many weeks ago did they do that? Could you please give me a number on how many have actually put up their hands to do that job?</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>I don't have that information and it's not something that is ordinarily aired prior to appointments.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>We've got positions out there that need to be filled and we've got a backlog, but you can't tell me—and it's not in-confidence—how many people have put their hands up to fill that job so I can determine who's being lazy and why the job isn't being done. How many people have put their hand up to do that job and how long ago? Come on. If you've got nothing to hide, just give the numbers. This is getting ridiculous. This is an embarrassment for the Liberal Party.</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>Senator Lambie, it's a process that's cabinet-in-confidence. It's being done the same way that it always has been done. It is being carefully considered and those appointments will be made in due course.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>Could you please tell me exactly what the process is? What is the average time for that process and, usually, how many put their hand up?</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>It's a process that's managed in consultation with the heads of jurisdictions, the chief justices and often in consultation with members of the representative bodies of the professions. It is a process that varies in the length of time that it takes depending on the complexity of those consultations. It doesn't have the usual recruitment time frame that you might have for hiring an office clerk or something of that nature, but it is the method that has always been used. It's a cabinet-in-confidence process and it is underway.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>Let me get this right. We have a problem in our courts but you can't tell me a time frame for the Attorney-General to pick a mate to put in the job. That's exactly how the process works. We all know how it works, so please didn't give me the run-around. The Australian people would like to know what the time frame is going to be for the Liberal Party or the Attorney-General to get these jobs filled. I think it's a fair question. I think it's a serious question. The people of Australia would like to know, especially those people—not like you, who have probably never been through the Family Court system—who have got kids who are feeling that pain. For goodness sake, just answer the question please!</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>Senator Lambie, I don't accept the premise of your question, which was rather pejorative. As a process it will take as long as it takes to get it right. It is underway and I rely on my earlier answers.</p> <p class="speaker">Lidia Thorpe</p><p>Minister, Justice Forrest, in Brisbane, resigned a fortnight ago. This is a busy registry and His Honour should be replaced as soon as possible. In addition, there are 10 judges across the Family Court and Federal Court due to retire in 2021 and 2022. These judges should be promptly replaced with new appointments to avoid exacerbating existing delays. Further, judges may also be required to work through COVID-19 backlogs in view of the court's reliance on audiovisual link hearings since March 2020. Could you please explain what the process is to ensure that they are all backfilled in a timely manner?</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>Justice Forrest's announcement of His Honour's intention to retire came prior to the prescribed age of 70. When there is a retirement that is out of the ordinary expectation—and I guess it is a little earlier than expected—there's sometimes a little more time required for that to be filled. That process is underway. I don't expect it's far. We are taking every step we can to make sure that those appointments are as timely as possible, because, like you, we appreciate that they are important to getting through the critical work of the court.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|