Mr LINDSAY (4:51 PM) —I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the parliament on the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005. For some time I have shared the view of the government, and indeed the High Court, on the use of multiple appeal processes which, on the face of it, seem to be delaying tactics or are unmeritorious and result not only in the High Court’s time being unreasonably taken up but also in those who are taking the action before the court in really delaying the inevitable conclusion that in 90 per cent of the cases that is what is resolved. It has been terribly inefficient and a waste of everybody’s time. This bill seeks to in a proper way address that issue.

I am particularly pleased to see the suggested use of the Federal Magistrates Service. There is a federal magistrate sitting in Townsville. The Federal Magistrates Court is next to the Family Court judge. Both the federal magistrate, Justice Coker, and the Family Court judge, Justice Monteith, work hand in hand, unlike in relationships between the FMS and the Family Court in some other parts of Australia. In Townsville the relationship is 110 per cent. The Federal Magistrates Court works very well indeed. What is more, it is a system that can work quickly. It is also a system that can work at low cost. Many of my constituents have never quite understood that taking matters to the Federal Magistrates Court can be a low-cost option. It can in fact be an option where you can represent yourself very easily. Many of my constituents do not understand that federal magistrates are very sympathetic and helpful when people appear before them—they understand that, in their appearance, people are often quite stressed.

I have spent time just sitting in the Federal Magistrates Court in Townsville, listening to how matters are dealt with. The matters can be dealt with through people actually appearing in the court or through video conferencing. I have seen both, and they work very well. I was quite surprised when sitting in the Federal Magistrates Court by how the court is able to help both sides of the argument—listening to both sides of the argument and being very sympathetic and understanding to get not only the proper outcome at law but also the proper outcome for the parties concerned. When I saw this bill proposing that some of these migration matters should go to the FMS, I was heartily in favour because it is a low-cost option, a speedy option and it frees up the High Court to do the much more complex matters that it should be doing.

In relation to facilitating quicker handling of these migration cases, this bill will require applicants to disclose previous applications for judicial review of the same migration decision and it will expressly provide for the High Court to remit migration and other cases on the papers—that is, without a hearing. That is certainly going to help.

I understand that some people will be concerned about the bill’s intentions to deter unmeritorious applications. The government does understand that not all applications are unmeritorious. But I say to those who do not agree with what is in this reform bill that, at the end of the day, it is the judges who will decide. It is the judiciary who, on hearing all the evidence, will decide whether an application is unmeritorious; it is not the parliament. This bill actually allows the High Court, the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court to dispose of a matter summarily, on their own initiative, if they are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success.

The bill will also prohibit lawyers, migration agents and others from encouraging unmeritorious migration litigation, with the risks of personal costs orders for contravening this prohibition. That is a pretty big thing, but we have seen occasions many times over where lawyers apparently, for whatever purpose, encourage their clients to go to court when there is no prospect of success, or for other reasons—for example, delaying their removal from Australia, if that is going to be the final outcome. I think we have all felt that that is unfortunate.

I was pleased to support this bill when it came before the government for its consideration before it was brought to the parliament. I do think that it is a move in the right direction and something that will be valuable. It does have, apparently, the support of the courts. From my own experience with the Federal Magistrates Court, I think that that is useful as well.

I would like to conclude on this point: I think it is time for the government to consider extending the Federal Magistrates Service—the FMS. It has worked wonderfully well. I think it should be further resourced. I think the Attorney-General should take a case to cabinet to increase its resources so that we can put more federal magistrates on the ground throughout Australia to give people more access. I am lucky to have an FMS in Townsville; but that service is not in Cairns, for example, without the federal magistrate in Townsville going to Cairns. I would like to see federal magistrates based in the major cities of this country, providing an equivalent service across the country. It must be hard for the magistrates to do the travelling that they do at the moment to service the rest of Australia in areas that currently do not have a Federal Magistrates Court. Indeed, if a second magistrate were placed in Townsville, I am convinced that the current backlog in the Family Court could be reduced down to perhaps three months. That would be a great outcome. I support the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005.