Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of all the things that the New South Wales government has on its plate at the moment, you would think this would probably be the least imperative and important, but, given the fact that amongst one of its so-called 'primary reforms' was the abolition of the statutory office of Magistrate of the Local Court and the establishment of a new statutory office called Judge of the Local Court, we find ourselves having to update all our statutes, books and paperwork involved in this. Now, of course the coalition supports this bill, but I do want to make a few pertinent remarks in relation to the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill of 2026 and other related matters pertaining to our legal system.

Now, in the Local Court and Bail Legislation Amendment Act 2025 New South Wales made a series of amendments to the Local Court Act 2007 and related statutes. We know that because that's why we're here doing this supposedly perfunctory bill. The matters that are coming before the New South Wales courts at the moment are pretty important. And whilst I appreciate a lot of them aren't going before what were once local magistrates are and are going before other levels of courts in New South Wales, I do really worry about some of the sentences and some of the decisions being made in that state. It is my home state, and I care a lot about it and care deeply for the people of New South Wales. To be honest, I don't think—I can say this given the fact that I have parliamentary privilege here—that the people of New South Wales are being well served by some of the sentences being handed out. When you've got Justice Belinda Rigg making a decision against the Premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns, who is doing a good job, and Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon, who is doing an excellent job—when they go and apply to the courts to have protests stopped and Justice Rigg then decides to overrule them and allow protests to go ahead, and we see what we saw on the Sydney Harbour Bridge on 3 August, I do question why then the NSW government seems to see a priority in changing the titles of people running their courts.

What we saw on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and again last night comes back to the fact that I don't believe our courts are doing well enough when it comes to stopping these protests and, moreover, sentencing those people who end up in the courts as a result of those protests. We have a right to demonstrate in this state and in any state. In Australia, there is that God-given right. We live in a democracy, and may we long uphold that. As Voltaire once said, I mightn't agree with what somebody says, but I very much fervently believe in their right to say it. But with free speech comes responsibility.

What we saw last night, what we saw on 3 August last year and what we saw on the steps of the Opera House on 9 October 2023, two days after the initial Hamas attacks, is not the way we should be living. Then we've got the New South Wales parliament deciding that, 'Gee, let's change the name "magistrate" and call them "judges".' Really? Why is this important and imperative? I don't understand it.

The other thing that is happening and that we see so often is with the system of family courts. My predecessor, Kay Hull, who was a very good member and was the member for Riverina from 1998 to 2010, told me when I took over from her that one of the most heart-rending things that I would oversee and hear about was the situation of family courts and often men being denied access to their children. Justice—or so-called justice—in our family court system is too lengthy. I know the wheels of justice turn very, very slowly, but, if there is anything that we can do to speed up a good and due process in the family court system, I would appeal to the Attorney-General, a person of good heart and good faith, to do just that. Whilst it has been overtaken by the shambles that is the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we still have people—often men—not being well served by the family courts, and often the cases are taking way too long to hear. The biggest sufferers from this are the children, who seriously don't know whether they're Arthur or Martha. They are pulled and dragged from one home to the other and from one court to the next. It's just not right, and it is just taking too long.

Why I mention Kay Hull in this context is that she presided over a parliamentary committee hearing where they released a report called Every picture tells a story. It was groundbreaking in the recommendations that it made to improve the family court system. But, unfortunately, in New South Wales—and no doubt elsewhere—there are people who just feel powerless. Don't just take my word for it. An online 8 September 2025 article, a well-written piece by Isabella Ross for the ABC News, was headed just that—'$1m on legal fees and feeling "powerless": Parents detail "crushing" Family Court experiences'. Attorney, if you could look into that as a matter of some urgency, I would implore you to do so. I appreciate it's not just New South Wales; it's the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. But often these matters start in a local court in New South Wales and they go up the chain and they cost people so much money, so much time and so much of their health. It is exhausting. It is expensive. As Isabella Ross wrote:

Financial abuse from "high conflict" ex-partners, lawyers "maximising fees" and a family report writer's warning to a client that "your case is a murder-suicide waiting to happen".

These are just some of the allegations parents have told the ABC about their experiences in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

I would add, as I said before, that often these cases start before what was once a local magistrate. Isabella Ross writes:

But it is the emotional impact on their children that these parents say has taken the biggest toll.

Over the last two decades, approximately one in two divorces involved parents with children aged under 18 years.

For the co-parents swept into family law, it can be an exhausting journey.

It's a sad situation. It's getting even sadder given the fact that marriages aren't lasting as long as they used to. They simply are not. I appreciate that's a matter between adults, but, for the sake of the kids, I think we need to do better and be better.

Just on background, this bill makes minor and technical amendments, as I said earlier, to the Acts Interpretation Act, which dates back to Federation in 1901, and other Commonwealth legislation as a result of the Local Court and Bail Legislation Amendment Act of 2025 in New South Wales, which replaces the office of a New South Wales magistrate with the office of judge of a New South Wales local court. We are talking about state courts, and that previous sentence or two of mine mentioned bail. I spoke recently to a woman in Melbourne, in the home state of the member for Mallee, who woke to find a large man in her bedroom at 6.15 in the morning and shrieked. The police came. Apparently, he'd got himself through the doggy door and was at the end of her bed. She has three young children. When the police came and apprehended this felon, he had already been bailed 67 times. Just think about that—67 times.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What? It's insanity.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is insanity, Member for Mallee. Victoria is a mess. It is a complete mess. I do hope that there is a change of government there soon. When you think about that case and you think about what is going on at the moment in New South Wales, our largest populated state, with the protests, with the lack of tough sentencing on people who are doing dreadful things to the police, it is no wonder that people are uptight.

Then you've got the New South Wales government wanting to change a word—wanting to change the title of a magistrate to a judge. I have to say that I believe words are important, and 'magistrate' probably suits the role that they do and the court that they preside over. Whether or not they deserve to be called a judge might be a matter, perhaps, for other legal minds to decide upon. But I don't know why we go down this path, because it then involves us getting up and talking about it.

No doubt the Attorney-General thinks that I've probably just taken up 11 minutes of her life that she's never going to get back, but truly, really, doesn't the New South Wales parliament have better things to do? Don't our courts have better things to do? Doesn't our Commonwealth parliament have better things to do than to be going through the perfunctory bureaucratic nonsense that we are now faced with because these amendments are necessary to ensure so many aspects of the change from magistrate to judge? I just wonder, when we've got everything that's going on in New South Wales at the moment, why the government that runs that state thought that this was a priority. You really have to scratch your head and ask yourself why.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members who have contributed to this debate, and I was delighted to be able to be here for the member for Riverina's contribution. I always learn something listening to the member, and I thank him very much.

The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026 will make a range of important amendments to Commonwealth legislation in response to the Local Court and Bail Legislation Amendment Act 2025. On commencement of schedule 1 of the New South Wales act by proclamation, the office of New South Wales magistrate will be replaced by the office of judge of the New South Wales Local Court. The bill will make amendments to Commonwealth legislation and set out transitional provisions to ensure that jurisdiction and powers conferred on state magistrates by Commonwealth law can continue to be validly exercised by judges of the New South Wales Local Court. Conversely, the amendments will also ensure that judges of the New South Wales Local Court will not be able to exercise federal jurisdiction and powers beyond the intended scope of their office. This bill will ensure that the New South Wales Local Court can continue to perform its important role in the federal justice system, dealing with a range of matters under Commonwealth law, including both civil and criminal proceedings.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.