Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, , 1:33:34 to 1:43:05
Discussion on median resolution times for court disputes versus the Minister's public claims of two-year delays, and liaison with the Attorney-General's Department.
Topics: Workplace relations, Attorney-General
Speakers: Senator Paul Scarr, Greg Manning, Elizabeth Brayshaw, Simon Duggan, Unknown Speaker
on or prior to the announcement?
I know that in estimates on Monday, the Attorney General's department gave evidence about contact with the Federal Courts. We certainly that's a matter for them given their portfolio arrangements, the court sitting in those portfolios. So this department wasn't having any engagement with the Federal Courts. That was something we left to the Attorney General's department.
But you weren't involved in those departmental discussions.
Brayshaw to run you through the arrangements in terms of how those consultations were set up, Senator?
Sure.
Elizabeth Brayshaw First Assistant Secretary. And following the establishment of that task force, one of our key pieces was to engage with both the Federal Courts and the Fair Work Commission. We had, I think the Attention General's Department organised an initial meeting on the 21st of August with the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia. And attending that meeting was the acting deputy registrar of the Federal Court and the registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Okay.
And since then we've had a number of engagements with them both at that level but also with representatives from those agencies.
Okay. In terms of working up the briefs, do you have any figures on how many court disputes took, say, more than two years to resolve or any other data that you used in the briefs with respect to the time it was taking to resolve disputes through the current system?
Again, Senator, I'd have to check on notice as to what data was put in in the briefs. I mean, certainly you're going to one of the aims there, and I'm not sure if Ms. Brace or Mr. Costelloe is able to talk about data that we've obtained from the courts to help work up options for government around timeliness.
Senator, uh in terms of the information we've got, we've received uh data that's consistent with what's in their annual reports regarding filings and finalisations of matters uh and also
Uh yes, I can give you Can you just walk through what whatever you've got there at a high level?
Sure. So in 2526, which is the annual report that's just been released. Uh the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division II had 2,023 Fairwork Court filings? And of those, I understand 581 with small claims filings?
And in terms of time for those to resolve those matters?
I need to get you my recollection is that there's a median of three months, but I haven't checked the most recent annual report which was tabled.
But your recollection is it's a median of three months, is that correct?
For small claims?
For small claims?
For small claims. But I don't have that information with me, Senator. I'll just check.
Would the new Fair Work Court as it's proposed extend beyond small claims?
Well, all of the um the the model for the court is is um a matters that uh um we're working up advice the government on at the moment. So government hasn't made those decisions about the jurisdiction of the court.
Okay. So can I put this to you? Uh Minister Rishworth said when responding to a question, no, I'm not making any commentary on decisions that have been made. What we know is that workers sometimes have to wait two years for an outcome. End quote. And Ms. Brayshaw, you referred to a median time of three months. So I'm just trying to marry the what the actual data's saying with Minister Rishworth's comment about the two years.
And Senator, I should say that was the small claims, and I think for Fair Work Matters, it's six six point six months.
And I'm assuming that's a median or a median. A median. So clearly um 50% of them take quite a bit quite a bit longer. And as I said, Senator would take it on notice to um see if we can provide the information that was provided in those submissions. Um I'm not aware of whether or not they're a cabinet confidence of vision, Senator. So um we'll we'll provide that information when we can.
But the two medions you've referred to, Ms. Brayshaw, as six just over six months and three months, which is considerably less than two years. That's correct, isn't it?
As a matter of fact, uh well, I think one is talking about median and one is talking about the experience of individual matters.
Certainly, in for example, in relation to the small claims review timeliness and accessibility were issues that we heard about and that were concerns and as stated in the the announcement of the court that um trying to have quick and effective decision making is an aim of the court, and that's their factors we're feeding into our considerations as we develop of advice on the on the model for the government to consider, Senator.
Oh, okay. Are you happy for me to keep going? Can I just ask one last question on this? Um, can I so I'm trying to work I'm trying to work out what the data tells us about the issue of delay. So can I ask you, did you provide any advice to the minister with respect to this two year point?
Whether or not the specifics of that I've taken on notice, I will have to take that on notice to quit to look at that level of detail. Detail in that list of submissions that we spoke about before, Senator, to see if I can. Certainly we um covered the issue generally around timeliness, but I can't recall what data is.
But you could so you can't recall referring into in in one of these briefs that were provided.
You can't recall whether or not you refer to I can't recall whether that specific that specific um piece of data that you're uh referring to was in it or not. No, that's what I've taken on.
Well, it's not that I refer to, it's what the minister referred to.
You're referring to the minute to that to the end of the year.
No, that's correct. Yeah, okay. If you can take that on notice and whatever other data was contained, or that you have with respect to the timeliness of the resolution of those small debt claims, small claims.
I would just say you said, of course, we we're talking about data from the courts as well. And I just want to make it I suppose the obvious point that there's two portfolios involved involved in it. So normally if there were additional questions it could be that we might have to check with Attorney General's department of the on that as well. We can do that.
Well, that's right, Mr. Manning, but it wasn't the Attorney General who made the comment about two years. It was your minister.
So yes, it just goes to the source of the data is the same.
Well, and that's where I'm particularly interested in, where the minister actually got that data in relation to the two years. If I can put it abruptly, uh the minister uh one way the minister could have referred to it was would be to say, well, the mean is three months, but there are outline cases where it's taken two years, right? That's a bit different from saying just referring to the two-year case, which is presumably at the extremes. So that's why I'm interested in the in the issue and interest in the data you have with respect to what the actual evidence is regarding the resolution of those claims.
Um I'll just point out I mean that the evidence today about um on some of the claims, so not the small claims, but the more complex matters being a median of six point six months, I think was the evidence that was given by Ms. Brayshaw is not inconsistent with some with some people uh experiencing a delay of up to two years through the court. So those two things are not inconsistent, but we have undertaken and we will provide you with the process.
Absolutely, Secretary. But uh you know, I can say as a former lawyer, and probably you're never a former lawyer. There can be all sorts of reasons why a case can take two years, including that the applicant goes missing or you can't find someone. There can be all sorts of reasons as to why a case can blow out, um, which aren't necessarily going to be rectified by establishing a new court under that, Senator.
Just making sure that there was no misunderstanding, our advice has been consistent.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chu.
Senator, can I just also mention I may have said that we met with the uh acting deputy registrar? I meant to say the acting principal registrar of the federal court, so I just wanted to correct the hand side.
Oh, well, that gives me confidence of your rigor, Ms. Brachel. Thank you. Thank you, Chu.