Mr WILLIAMS (Attorney-General) (9:02 PM) —The government opposes the opposition amendment. The opposition opposes the entire schedule 25 dealing with Workplace Relations Act 1996 matters. The schedule would give the Federal Magistrates Service jurisdiction under section 127 and part XA of the Workplace Relations Act to make various other amendments consequential upon the conferring of that jurisdiction. Section 127 allows orders to be made by the court after orders have been made by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to stop or prevent industrial action, and part XA contains the freedom of association provisions.

In the minority report from the Senate committee, the opposition indicates that it opposes the jurisdiction being vested in the service on the basis that such matters involve complex areas of law, and the opposition alleges that there is a government plan to prevent the Federal Court from hearing such matters. There is no plan that I am aware of in that respect.

The one thing that we have not had acknowledged it seems to me in either the Senate committee report or the reasons given by the members for Barton and Bruce in relation to the amendment is a recognition and acknowledgment that the Federal Court would have concurrent jurisdiction. So it would be up to the litigants to determine in which court to commence proceedings, and not every case that is going to arise under section 127 or part XA is going to be complex. The reason for setting up the Federal Magistrates Service is for it to deal with simple and less complex cases. The only case we hear mentioned is the waterfront case from last year. I cannot imagine that the applicants to the Federal Court in that case would have ever contemplated commencing their proceedings in a magistrate's court.

No jurisdiction is being removed from the Federal Court. The parties would simply be able to choose whether to proceed in the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court. A proceeding would be able to be transferred between the Federal Magistrates Service and the Federal Court on the application of a party or on the initiative of the court. This would ensure that proceedings are dealt with in the most appropriate forum, and in many cases the Federal Magistrates Court would be the most appropriate forum.

The object in giving jurisdiction to the Federal Magistrates Service is to provide appropriate access to quick, low cost relief, particularly for ordinary workers in relation to breaches of key aspects of workplace relations law—something that one would have contemplated the Labor Party might have supported. The Federal Magistrates Service is being set up specifically to deal with more routine matters, freeing up the superior courts to deal with complex cases. I have no doubt that more complex cases would continue to be dealt with by the Federal Court.

The member for Barton mentioned that unfair dismissals jurisdiction is not conferred on the Federal Magistrates Service under the legislation. My recollection is that the unfair dismissals jurisdiction is now exercised by the commissioner, not by courts. On that basis, there is no reason for amending the arrangements. I indicated that the government opposes the Labor Party amendment. I would invite the Labor Party, in further debate on this particular aspect of the bill, to try to eliminate some of the paranoia that seems to surround its consideration of the issue.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr McClelland's ) be agreed to.