George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I will not detain the Senate for very long, but following the contribution that has just fallen from Senator Milne I do feel that I ought to rise and come to the defence of my friend Senator Abetz. The remarks made about him by Senator Milne were inaccurate and, I am sorry to say, very, very ignorant. Let us remind ourselves of what the Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill 2008 before the Senate is concerned with. The bill before the Senate is concerned to invest the Federal Court of Australia with a criminal jurisdiction so as to enable it to deal with criminal prosecutions arising from serious cartel behaviour under the Trade Practices Act. Anyone, particularly people in Tasmania who may be listening to the broadcast, might be forgiven for thinking that this was a bill to deprive the Federal Court of its Tasmanian registrar. It is nothing to do with that.

Paradoxically, notwithstanding the intemperate nature of the language that has fallen from Senator Milne, in fact Senator Milne agrees with the coalition’s position. Senator Milne may or may not be aware that there was a second reading amendment carried on the voices a little earlier on in this debate, calling for what Senator Abetz—not you, Senator Milne, but Senator Abetz—has led the charge on all year: to prevail upon the government to rescind its decision to close the Tasmanian registry of the Federal Court of Australia. If the government does change its position, that will be as a result of the advocacy of one senator—not you, Senator Milne, but Senator Eric Abetz.

Be that as it may, we are seized with a bill about cartel criminal jurisdiction. The government has pointed out to the opposition—and, notwithstanding that, I yield to no-one, Senator Milne, in my criticism of the lack of trust one can place in the assurances of Mr Kevin Rudd and some of his ministers—and, yes, nevertheless grown-up political parties actually do deal with one another. I have received through my office an assurance from the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland, whom I regard as a very honourable person, that the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Bill 2009, which is currently on the Notice Paper—and which is in fact listed for debate tomorrow in the noncontroversial items of business—if it becomes a vehicle for dealing with this issue, can be removed from the noncontroversial items and brought back onto the Notice Paper very soon, certainly in the next sitting week of the Senate. I have received an assurance to that effect through his officers. My officers have received an assurance from the Attorney-General’s officers that that will happen, and I see the parliamentary secretary representing him in this chamber nodding in confirmation that that is so.

Let me say on behalf of the opposition that I accept that assurance. It is as plain as anything can be that the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Bill 2009, which is a bill of a general rather than a specialist character, is a much more suitable vehicle for an amendment of the kind that the Greens wish to make to the current bill and can be the subject of such an amendment at the time. I suspect it will not be being moved by you, Senator Milne; it will be being moved by Senator Abetz.