Page 1405 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The essence of the cross-vesting scheme is that the State and Territory Supreme Courts are vested with the civil jurisdiction, except certain industrial and trade practices jurisdictions, of the Federal courts, these being the Federal Court and the Family Court, and the Federal courts are vested with the full jurisdictions of the State and Territory Supreme Courts. Another feature of the scheme is that if proceedings are commenced in an inappropriate court, or if related proceedings are begun in separate courts, the courts have the power to transfer proceedings to the most appropriate court, having regard to the nature of the dispute, the laws to be applied and the interests of justice. The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration recently reviewed the scheme and reported that it has worked effectively and efficiently in the course of its short life.
Madam Speaker, I now turn to the principal provisions of the Bill. Clause 4 confers on the Federal Court, the Family Court, Supreme Courts of the States and the Northern Territory, and the State Family Courts all the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Equivalent provisions in the legislation of the other participants in the scheme result in full cross-vesting between Federal courts and the State and Territory Supreme Courts in civil proceedings. Clause 5 operates to ensure that proceedings are always dealt with by the most appropriate court. Detailed provisions are made for the purposes of indicating to the courts the circumstances in which proceedings must be transferred to another court. Further provision is made for the transfer of related proceedings so that all matters can be heard and determined in the one court.
Special mention should be made of the provisions relating to what are called "special Federal matters". These are matters of special Commonwealth concern, generally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Clause 6 provides that the Supreme Court is required to transfer proceedings involving special Federal matters unless satisfied that there are particular reasons, other than the convenience of the parties in the particular circumstances of the case, that justify the Supreme Court determining those proceedings. They are normally admiralty matters, so they will not be very relevant to the ACT.
Clause 8 is particularly important because it allows the Supreme Court to remove proceedings from another Australian Capital Territory court or tribunal into the Supreme Court. This will enable the proceedings to be transferred or to be heard by the Supreme Court in conjunction with proceedings transferred from a State, Northern Territory or Federal court. One other provision that should be mentioned is clause 13, which specifically excludes any appeals from a decision under the cross-vesting legislation as to whether a matter should be transferred to or removed from a court. Any such appeal rights would delay the hearing of the substantive issue in dispute, and it was considered sufficient for the courts themselves to resolve what is the most appropriate jurisdiction in which a matter should be heard, bearing in mind the criteria set out in clause 5.
The scheme to which this Bill relates is a sensible and practical response to the problems created by the federal nature of Australia, with distinct jurisdictional limits of Commonwealth, State and Territory courts. I commend the Bill to the Assembly and present the explanatory memorandum for the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .