Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. I thought I had best frame my response to Treasurer Hockey's budget by just quoting some of his words so that I, as a member of the opposition, can respond to what he has put to the Australian people and the Australian Parliament. Obviously, the Prime Minister and Treasurer Hocky have been out and said a few things loud and strong. The Prime Minister said:

There is now a budget emergency.

The Prime Minister also said:

We've got to get the budget under control because right now, with debt surging towards $400 billion, frankly Labor has given us a budget emergency.

The Prime Minister also said:

… governments don’t seem to have grasped that you can’t solve a problem caused by too much debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit.

The Treasurer, the person who spoke on budget night, has also made comments. He said:

I mean, we have been saying for years, that there is a Budget emergency; we have been saying for years that there is a major problem at hand.

He also said:

… it would have looked odd and it would have looked deceptive if we had come up with a Budget that just spent money and said to people, 'she'll be right' …

I just wanted to start my response to the budget by quoting those things from the—

I beg your pardon, Deputy Speaker, I think I actually have my notes from last year's budget reply speech, not this year's budget reply! I do apologise. I might just ask my companion, the member for Bendigo, if she is able to look for the correct speech because obviously I am quoting last year's quotes from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, not this year's budget reply speech.

While the member for Bendigo is helping me out, I will just say a couple of nice things about the budget. I have the budget papers here in front of me so I will focus on something good that I know we all agree on, and that is obviously the Prime Minister's signature policy—the paid parental leave policy. That is no doubt something we can all agree is important. It is his signature policy and he announced it on Mother's Day, I seem to recall. He was all for paid parental leave—so I will just say a few good words about it being detailed in this budget paper.

Moving on! It is a bit awkward here when you turn up without your notes and you realise that these things have changed from last year to this year! Obviously, last year was a budget emergency and now we see Australia's net debt is at $285 billion, higher than at any other point in Australia's history—under the Abbott government: unbelievable! And the deficit that was the budget emergency from last year at $17.1 billion; a budget emergency, and 12 months on what do we see? A deficit at $35.1 billion—unbelievable for a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who said there was a budget emergency.

The Liberal Party and the Nationals are always saying that government spending is a bad thing. Well, let's have a look at government spending—a great measure according to the Liberal Party test of a budget as to whether the 2015 budget is a good thing. Spending is now at 26 per cent of our total economy. I repeat it, Deputy Speaker, because you might not believe it: 26 per cent of our total economy. The last time spending was that high was during the global financial crisis under Prime Minister Rudd. Yet under Treasurer Hockey and Prime Minister Abbott they have ratcheted up spending to 26 per cent of our total economy. Obviously, from the Liberal Party—always the party of small taxes, one would assume—in this budget, despite a clear promise before the election that there would be no new taxes, we see 17 new taxes. Tax is now at 22.3 per cent of our total economy, the highest it has been since John Howard was the Prime Minister. And when I say 17 new taxes I am not mentioning those other things like the divorce tax that I will come to later in my speech when I talk about my portfolio matters.

The Prime Minister says he cares about jobs and he guaranteed that he could create one million jobs in five years. And yet here we are in their second year of government and we see in their own budget papers—these budget papers—that unemployment is predicted to reach 6.5 per cent. That is 800,000 Australians out of work, all of those households with the curse of unemployment. The last time we saw unemployment this high, predicted to reach 6.5 per cent, was when Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, was the employment minister—unbelievable!

There were no surprises in the budget delivered on a Tuesday night a fortnight ago. It was as unfair as the budget that Treasurer Hockey brought down last year. It still hits the most vulnerable and arguably is even crueller than the 2014 budget. If you break down society into five quintiles you see that nine out of 10 people in the lowest quintile, the poorest households, will be worse off—nine out of 10. Then you flip it around and look at the highest quintile, the wealthiest quintile: nine out of 10 of those households will be better off. That is an un-Australian budget if ever there were one. It is un-Australian to attack the poor and give the benefits to the rich—that is not the Australian way. Not since Federation, not since the harvester decision—you would have to go back a long time to see an Australian society that benefitted the wealthy at the cost of the poor.

In my portfolio, as shadow parliamentary secretary to the shadow Attorney-General, I am particularly interested in justice. I see that the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are hit by this budget. The Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are the engine room of the family law system.

It is obviously more desirable for most of us to reach a settlement in a family law dispute by means other than having a judge make a decision. But, sadly, that is not always the case. There are many factors that can contribute to a dispute becoming intractable and to having lawyers involved. And family violence sadly is often a big factor.

With that in mind, it is essential that parties in family law disputes are represented or can access appropriate legal assistance, that the court process is efficient, and that access to justice is not delayed due to courts being underresourced. I stress again the three things you need for a good justice system when it comes to family law: you need legal advice; you need efficient courts; and you need no delay.

One of the most mean-spirited acts in this budget has been to hit couples who are experiencing a breakdown in their relationship with higher court filing fees, what I am calling a divorce tax. The Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, has not yet disclosed how much these fees will rise but it has been reported—in The Australian, I believe—that it may be as much as a 50 per cent fee hike. So it will cost people nearly twice as much to get a divorce, twice as much to apply to have a property settlement, twice as much to ask the courts to help in a family dispute involving domestic violence, and twice as much to ensure that children are safe and out of harm's way in a parenting dispute.

The Liberal government is happy to pay $600 to a Public Servant to give a couple a $200 marriage voucher to keep a relationship together, but when things go pear-shaped, as they sadly do in 40 to 50 per cent of relationships, they will put brakes on that process, brakes that are especially harmful when there are children and/or domestic violence involved.

It is not enough that the Attorney-General has hiked up court fees in the Family Court and the federal circuit court. What is most galling is that the extra funds harvested from the fee hike will not be going into an already underresourced court; instead, it will be going into the Treasurer's pockets, into consolidated revenue. This is nothing but a divorce tax on separating couples, exploiting those who have no choice but to resource to the courts after the unfortunate breakdown of their relationship.

And the Family Court in particular—weighed down by the workload it is forced to cope with—currently has two judges fewer than when Senator Brandis took office. Senator Brandis has not replaced either of the Family Court judges who have retired since he became Attorney-General. What has he been doing? Reading the books on his bookshelf, maybe; deciding what artistic works will go on in Australia? Family Court judges have resorted to apologising to litigants in their judgements for the delay in delivery due to their workload. That is embarrassing.

This is not a court that is underworked and overresourced. Statistics show that 40 to 50 per cent of marriages end in divorce. And that does not take into account de facto couples separating; they will also use the Family Court and the family circuit court. The workloads of both of these courts is not likely to decrease any time soon, yet we are two judges down. These courts need more resources, not fee hikes that go into the Treasurer's pocket, and they need these resources now.

The Productivity Commission, the nation's bean counters, in their report Access to justice arrangements, delivered late last year, was scathing about delay. They heaped praise on the justice system, where it was due—particularly with community legal centres. We have not hear Senator Brandis talk about this report, even though it was handed to him. I do wonder if he has even read it. There is a whole chapter in that report dedicated to family law. The Productivity Commission says: 'It is clear that family violence is core business for the family law courts.' One of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission is, 'when resettling the impost on parties should not materially increase in cases concerning family violence'. Even the bean counters can see the implications of the fee hikes. In the 2013-14 year, 14.6 per cent of final order cases heard in the Family Court had filed a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence form. Clearly, any hike in fees for these courts is going to impact on this very vulnerable sector—family violence and children.

The Productivity Commission recommends a whole swathe of measures to increase access to justice, including recommendations concerning community legal centres and legal aid, two other areas that Senator Brandis took his hatchet to in the budget. It was revealed last week that legal aid funding will also be cut. Legal aid in New South Wales is set to face a cut of $16.7 million over the next five years. Deputy Speaker Conroy, I know that will have implications for your electorate.

There is a growing trend in the family courts for self-representation. They cannot afford lawyers. Many litigants find themselves not eligible for legal aid but also unable to afford representation, leaving them no choice but to represent themselves in any court proceedings.

Any reduction in legal aid funding is going to increase the number of self-represented litigants in family courts. The Productivity Commission had something to say about this. They said:

Lack of representation in family law matters can have particularly negative consequences where family violence is involved

They went on to say:

The importance of appropriate … representation can hardly be overstated in parenting cases, especially those that involve issues of family violence. Where one or both parties are unrepresented, even with the benefits of increased judicial involvement arising from Division 12A [of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)], it can be almost impossible for the court to receive the sort of evidence and argument that can lead it to make an informed decision about the child's best interests.

Senator Brandis is putting at risk not only access to justice for adult litigants in the family courts but also the welfare of all those children whose fates are decided by these courts.

Some litigants who have represented themselves in Family Court proceedings have had the benefit of seeking guidance from community legal centres along the way. I say 'some' because there is always far greater demand for the services of those centres than resources that the centres have to meet that demand. I know a little about the Brisbane Women's Legal Service, at Annerley in my electorate of Moreton. My partner and one of my staff members both do pro bono legal work at the Brisbane Women's Legal Service. They tell me that women line up hours before the doors are even open in the hope of securing a coveted place in the queue for the advice clinic. Many of these women and their children are turned away from each clinic. So, with the likelihood of a far greater number of self-represented litigants, there will be even more desperate family law clients seeking advice from these services.

Ironically, Senator Brandis has also drastically cut funding for community legal centres, which are already the leanest of lean legal advice providers in the nation. Twelve million dollars a year will be cut from community legal centres from 2017. Coincidentally, that will take effect just after the next election. Reflecting on the importance that the Productivity Commission place on legal assistance services, the commission recommend that additional funding for legal assistance should be provided. The Productivity Commission—yes, those bean counters—estimate that the total annual cost of legal assistance to government should be $200 million, so it is hard to marry the Productivity Commission's recommendations with the actions of Senator Brandis. They are so far at odds that one must question whether Senator Brandis really did read that report—or he must be of the view that he knows better. Somehow, I believe he is arrogant enough to believe that.

Next month, we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. The importance of access to justice was recognised 800 years ago in that field in Runnymede in England. Chapter 40 of that auspicious document, the Magna Carta, says:

… to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

Eight hundred years later, we have our Attorney-General, the most senior legal officer in the land, refusing and delaying justice through his mean-spirited cuts to legal aid and legal assistance services and his failure to fully resource the family law courts. We should not be surprised. In family law, it is often quoted that the best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour. The unfair budget of 2014 is well and truly reflected in the unfair budget of 2015.

See this speech in context