Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Tuesday 10 February 2026

Continued from Wednesday 4 February 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate concerned technical amendments to Commonwealth legislation required by New South Wales reforms that replaced the office of magistrate with judge of the local court. The coalition supported the bill as a necessary measure to maintain jurisdictional clarity and legal consistency. The National Party member raised concerns about broader issues in the New South Wales legal system, including sentencing and family court delays, while questioning the priority of the title change. The Attorney-General confirmed the bill's purpose was to ensure the smooth transition of judicial powers under federal law.

Outcome

The bill was read a second time and reported to the House without amendment.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Wallace argued that the bill was an uncontroversial and necessary update to reflect recent reforms in the New South Wales legal system. Wallace stated that the legislation ensured Commonwealth laws, including the Acts Interpretation Act, aligned with the transition from magistrate to judge of the New South Wales local court. Wallace explained that the bill contained transitional provisions to preserve existing arrangements between the Commonwealth and New South Wales. Wallace emphasised that these changes would prevent jurisdictional confusion and allow the local court to continue performing its functions effectively under federal law.

Government response

Rowland thanked members for their contributions and confirmed the bill's role in updating Commonwealth legislation following the New South Wales reforms. Rowland stated that the amendments would ensure jurisdiction and powers previously conferred on magistrates could continue to be exercised by the new judges. Rowland noted that the bill also clarified that these judges would not exercise federal jurisdiction beyond the scope of their office. Rowland commended the bill to the chamber, highlighting its importance for the federal justice system.