Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is a crucial step towards placing the federal courts on a sustainable funding footing.

As has been noted before, there is a pressing need for the savings forecast from the bill, given the significant budgetary pressures and ongoing deficits faced by the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court. This bill would ensure that more of the courts finite budgets are targeted at the thing that really matters: their delivery of justice to the Australian community. This is not only sensible, it is a matter of duty to the Australian taxpayer.

The bill's objective should not be conflated with calls to address broader concerns relating to the family law system, nor should such arguments be allowed to denigrate what the bill seeks to achieve. The reform is forecast, once fully implemented, to deliver $5.4 million each year in savings from the amalgamation of back-office functions. The reform will also create scope for the courts to identify further opportunities for efficiencies into the future, so the final impact could be even greater. Let me reiterate: this is no government grab for savings to be returned to consolidated revenue. All of these savings made by the courts are to be retained by the courts for the benefit of the courts. Clearly, funding injections are not sufficient to ensure the courts' long-term financial sustainability. Despite a significant funding injection in the 2012-13 budget, the family courts are now in a grave financial position. Realistic savings and efficiencies must come from within the system. The bill is vital to the courts achieving long-term financial sustainability; however, in a tight fiscal environment, there must be a continuing focus on all court administrative practices.

The bill contains numerous measures to safeguard the integrity and independent identity of each of the courts. It addresses the unsatisfactory situation at present where the separate management of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court is impeded by their sharing of a single CEO. It guarantees the integrity of the separate budgets of each of the courts by preventing one court's funds being spent on another without appropriate consent, and it ensures that relevant delegations will be made from the administrative head of the organisation to support the courts independent management. The bill has been developed in close consultation with the courts, and many of the key measures are the result of close consultation with the chief justices and the Chief Judge.

In its submission on this bill, the Family Court has indicated that it had only one issue it wished to raise: the unconstrained powers of the Federal Court CEO for managing corporate services, particularly in relation to the courts' information technology systems. The narrowness of the Family Court's concerns is indicative of the close consultation with the courts undertaken throughout the bill's process. The Federal Court CEO's ultimate responsibility for the delivery of corporate services is required to ensure that projected savings can be delivered, which will be critical to averting the need for cuts to frontline services. This is particularly necessary in relation to information technology, which is key to the savings to be achieved. The Federal Court CEO will be required to consult the CEOs of the Family Court, the Federal Circuit Court and the heads of jurisdiction in relation to corporate services, including information technology. This will ensure that their delivery is tailored to the needs of the courts. The heads of jurisdiction of the other two federal courts have advised that they do not support the creation of a board to oversee the functions of the Federal Court CEO. Adopting the proposal that the Federal Court CEO's decisions be voidable would create uncertainty in relation to the courts' contracts.

Although corporate services will be run by the Federal Court CEO, I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in place. Consultation requirements have been built in to ensure that each Chief Justice, the Chief Judge and the CEOs are all consulted in relation to the delivery of corporate services. The retention of corporate services functions within the courts administrative entity, and their management by a court CEO, will ensure the delivery of these functions is closely aligned with the needs of the courts. This offers a better alternative to the approach taken prior to self-administration, where the Attorney-General's Department provided administrative support to the courts.

In the debate on this bill, some honourable members opposite have complained of vacancies in the court. I can tell those members that on 25 February the government announced the appointment of six federal judges. Four of the six appointees are women. The government is considering the vacancy in the Federal Circuit Court's Melbourne registry following the recent untimely passing in office of Judge Whelan. But for this vacancy, each court has its full complement of judges. There are no other vacancies in the federal courts.

The government continues to monitor the resourcing of the federal courts. Court funding and appointments must be considered in the context of other budget priorities. Consistent with the independence of the federal courts, the chief justices and Chief Judge are responsible for allocating available judicial resources. This bill will deliver much-needed savings to be reinvested in the courts' frontline services, while protecting and upholding their independence. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context