The Case for a National Civil and Administrative Tribunal for Australia
It’s time for a National Civil and Administrative Tribunal for Australia.
Burns v Corbett and a range of subsequent decisions have created complexity and cost in that Tribunals are not Chapter III courts and cannot exercise federal jurisdiction.
Litigation has become more costly because of this, complicated and always at risk of transfer to a Court.
So why file in a Tribunal? It has jurisdiction in certain areas such as domestic building as an example. And Tribunals cna work well when appropriately funded.
Plus there are massive productivity advantages. Insurers operate nationally. Construction companies, developers and professionals work nationally.
We have the Australian Consumer Law consistent across states but different procedural law.
Australia should seriously consider establishing a National Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
It would solve many of the issues that lawyers see everyday and the community questions whenever they engage with the tribunal system.
A national tribunal could deliver:
- consistent procedures,
- reduce compliance costs,
- simplify dispute resolution for businesses operating across Australia,
- provide greater certainty for litigants,
- reduce unnecessary duplication between states,
- encourage greater competition in the delivery of legal services,
- create a more efficient system for resolving everyday civil disputes.
It would create a framework for more federal consistent laws too.
The constitutional issues exposed by Burns v Corbett have only strengthened the argument.
That decision wxpised the limits of State tribunals exercising federal jurisdiction and has now resulted in disputes about jurisdiction.
Lawyers are now forced to spend time considering whether a tribunal can hear a matter before dealing with the substantive issues. In some cases, proceedings are transferred. In others, they must be commenced again.
Forum selection has become a strategic consideration rather than a practical one.
That is not a criticism of the High Court.
It is a reflection of the constitutional framework within which our tribunals operate.
Of course, creating a national tribunal would not be easy. It would require genuine cooperation between the Commonwealth and States. Governments would need to agree on a range of things. However, it would be one of the most significant justice reforms in decades. It would be positive change and that saves money and creates efficiency.
Plus Australia has implemented similar changes before…
Corporations law.
Consumer law.
There is no reason we cannot show the same ambition when it comes to civil justice.
Every government speaks about reducing red tape, improving productivity and making justice more accessible…
Here is an opportunity to achieve all three.
This article is a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Recent articles
-
Why Plumbing in Victoria Has No Insurance Safety Net
The amount of plumbing related building defects I see in Victoria is astonishingly high. Often they exceed all other defects. Yet the insurance that should respond has become a farce.
-
A Neighbour Is Building and Why a Protection Works Notice Is Never Just a Form
More and more I am seeing protection works disputes become disputes about access to land, adverse possession, boundary issues, building defects and property damage.
-
A New General Insurance Code of Practice but Will It Change Anything
The headline change is that many of the Code's obligations are proposed to become legally enforceable. On paper that is a significant shift.
-
The Case for a National Civil and Administrative Tribunal for Australia
Burns v Corbett and later decisions mean tribunals are not Chapter III courts and cannot exercise federal jurisdiction. It is time to consider a national tribunal.