Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I move amendment (28):

(28)  Schedule 1, item 11, page 13 (after subsection (6) (after line 15) insert:

    ‘(6A)    Subsections (7) to (12) do not apply unless a sufficient appropriation is in force to ensure that every person who seeks a certificate referred to in subsection (7) (demonstrating attendance at family dispute resolution) may receive three hours of family dispute resolution services wholly funded by the Commonwealth’.

This amendment seeks to put into law a commitment that the government have made to provide three hours of free mediation for families who are going through family breakdown. This is something that the government committed to in the budget but refuse to put into law. We believe that if this is a serious commitment from the government then they will be prepared to put this amendment into law and promise to the public that their commitment to provide three hours of free counselling and mediation will be a rolled gold commitment.

After 10 long years, we on this side of the House have become used to identifying what are core and non-core promises by the Howard government. We do not feel satisfied that this is a commitment that the Attorney is going to keep. We are told to trust him. That is not sufficient for us. The government said that it would introduce compulsory mediation while at the same time ensuring that the public would be able to have three hours of mediation paid for by the government—and we welcome that. As we are going to go down the path of having compulsory mediation, that commitment should be put into the law.

We are not confident that we can simply accept a promise made by the Attorney of the day and think that in two, three or five years time the government—either of the coalition’s colour or our colour—will necessarily keep that commitment. We want to make sure that when introducing compulsory mediation we tie it to a legislative commitment that that free consultation will be made available to the public.

It is a very simple amendment. We do not see how the government can oppose it—it is its policy; it is in its budget material. If the government is serious about the promise that it has made to the public, it has no reason to vote against this amendment. If the Attorney is determined to have each and every member on his side of the House come in and vote against the provision of three hours of free mediation, let it be on his head how we use that in the community. This is something that is government policy; it is something that it should be prepared to commit to. There is no reason not to put it in the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. We call on the government to support this amendment, because it puts into law a commitment that it made through the budget. We support that commitment, but we want a guarantee. We are not prepared to just take you at your word, Attorney; we want this to be in the legislation.

See this speech in context