Senator ABETZ (9:32 PM) —On behalf of the coalition, I rise to speak on the Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008. This bill contains a range of measures intended to improve the efficiency of the Federal Court system. The measures include: introduction of a power to refer all or part of a proceeding in the Federal Court to a referee for report; amendment of the Federal Court of Australia Act to permit a single judge to make interlocutory orders in proceedings that would otherwise be heard by a full court; amendment of the International Arbitration Act 1974 to confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court, concurrent with state and territory supreme courts, in matters arising under that act; permission for federal courts and tribunals to negotiate and execute leases on their own behalf; authorisation of court officers to take certain security measures in respect of court premises; and amendment of the Family Law Act to strengthen the enforceability of binding financial agreements—for example, prenuptial agreements.

The opposition considers that these proposals have substantial merit. The power to refer issues to a referee for report is one that already exists in most state jurisdictions. It is particularly important in cases which require detailed examination of financial records or which involve complex technical issues. It has significant potential to reduce the cost and length of litigation. The power to negotiate and execute leases is a necessary component of the self-administration of courts and tribunals. That responsibility previously rested with the now defunct Department of the Arts and Administrative Services. The Attorney-General’s approval is required for purchases over $1 million.

The coalition welcomes the proposal to extend the court’s jurisdiction in respect of international arbitration matters. Australia is a centre of excellence in respect of the provision of dispute resolution services and should continue to strengthen its position as the venue of choice for commercial disputes in our region. The Federal Court, with its superb reputation in commercial matters, should be able to play its full part in that process. The amendment in respect of binding financial agreements is a necessary corrective to the decision in Black v Black, which held that strict compliance with all of the technical requirements in the Family Law Act was a precondition to enforceability of the agreement. That decision was widely criticised. The amendment will provide that, provided a party has entered an agreement on the basis of an informed decision, the agreement will not be voided by a mere technicality.

This bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which reported on 17 February. The only substantive submission was from the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia and was in relation to the amendments on binding financial agreements. The Law Council indicated that the current drafting of the amendment had the potential for further disputes of a technical nature, of the very type the proposed amendments were intended to overcome. There was also a concern that agreements made between 27 December 2000 and 19 January 2004 might have been inadvertently rendered invalid by the proposed amendments or give rise to other technical disputes. The government’s amendments, circulated on sheet PF539, give effect to the Law Council’s technical concerns and, provided those amendments are made, the bill has the opposition’s support.

I note that there are a considerable number of pages—indeed, seven pages—of amendments that have been required. I think this highlights yet again the benefit of the Senate committee system, which has allowed the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of this place to consider the bill in detail and to consider a good submission from the Law Council, which brought about this government response which the coalition supports. I commend the bill to the Senate.