House debates

Monday, 4 September 2006

Adjournment

Federal Courts

9:14 pm

Photo of Nicola RoxonNicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I apologise. If the Attorney does not intend to raise these matters, I will. I hope that today I can start a proper, responsible and informed debate about where we need to go from here.

Given time constraints of this debate, forgive me for just briefly listing some of the matters that I think need to be included as a part of that important debate. Should the Federal Magistrates Court become a court of first instance, a sort of trial court or district court for federal matters and, if that is the direction that we go in, how will that affect the jurisdiction of the other courts? What is the optimum number of judges for each court and how should they interact with each other? What resources does each court need to do its job properly? We also desperately need a decent debate about our appointments process. The current one is shrouded in secrecy. I have already made it clear and public that I support more transparency in the process, but we should have a full debate about all options including a judicial commission. In some countries these commissions deal with appointments as well as complaints.

We need to acknowledge a current weakness in our system for the handling of complaints against judges that can range from the mischievous to more serious matters of health or misconduct. We need to have a full debate about the best way that we can go forward with this. I think we even need to include in this debate what powers a head of a jurisdiction should or should not have over the court over which they preside. And there is another whole group of issues, some arising around the retirement age of 70 as the general health of our population improves, and the perennial queries over pensions and superannuation.

These are all very weighty issues that cannot be solved or even properly debated today. My purpose is to flag that if we are, for example, to change the role of the Federal Magistrates Court then let us debate a proper plan rather than do it by stealth. A change of direction or planning cannot be easily implemented from day to day, nor should it be. There must be an overarching strategy and this is sorely lacking from our current Attorney. I call on the Attorney to consider a public process which engages the parliament, the community and the courts in this vital and overdue discussion. We must not keep making appointments of judges today that last a lifetime but have no plan for the work that they might do beyond this electoral cycle. It is just not good enough.

Comments

No comments