Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. This bill 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 Federal 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, once fully implemented, is forecast to deliver $5.4 million each year in savings from the amalgamation of the 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 the 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. 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 indicated that it had only one issue it wished to raise. Can I particularly address this in the context of the matter that you raised, Senator McKim. The Family Court submission indicates that its key remaining concern is the unconstrained powers of the Federal Court CEO, particularly in relation to the courts' information technology systems. 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 and the Federal Circuit Court and the heads of jurisdiction in relation to corporate services, including IT. 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 also 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 short, the bill will deliver much-needed savings to be reinvested in the courts' front-line services while protecting and upholding their independence. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Bill read a second time.