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

I am aware of the minister's portfolio. My question is to do with terror, not terrorists, and not homegrown terrorists but terror in the home—the terror that can come when love turns to hate, especially when children are involved. Minister, the family law system in Australia is in crisis. Judges, legal practitioners, frontline service providers and families have all been calling loudly for better resources in the Family Court—calls that have not been heard by the Attorney-General. There are currently five judicial vacancies in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. These are funded, budgeted positions that are not filled, despite the backlog on dockets continuing to grow like Topsy.

The 2017 Turnbull budget announced $12.7 million to establish parenting management hearings, a vague announcement that has caused much confusion in the legal fraternity and the general community, especially for the member for Corangamite, who is the chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into family law. What will parenting management hearings be like?

The Attorney-General, in his $12.7 million media release after the budget announcement, described parenting management hearings as being a:

… forum for resolving simpler family law disputes between self-represented litigants.

However, during Senate estimates, the Attorney-General said he wanted to deal with 'the most difficult and intractable of those matters that come before the family law system'. Just yesterday the member for Corangamite, in a committee inquiry, said that she 'assumed that parenting management hearings would not include contested matters'. Here is a tip, Member for Corangamite: if they are not contested, they have agreed, and they would not be there in the first place. In his media release the Attorney-General said that:

… those managing the hearings will run inquiries and gather evidence to inform their decisions.

The description in the budget paper says that:

PMHs will be given powers to make binding determinations …

However, during Senate estimates, Senator Brandis said that determinations will need to be embodied in a consent order.

So we will have determinations and we will have consent orders. This Attorney-General really could not organise a rock fight in a gravel pit, that is clear. If the determination of this parenting management hearing needs to be embodied in a consent order, then before it is binding it would be a toothless tiger. Parents would essentially have to agree with the determination after the hearing and then sign a consent order confirming that they agree. How often do you see both parents come out of a family law hearing saying they agreed with the judge's determination? Most often neither is completely happy with the decision, as the judge's focus, rightly, is on the children.

It is troubling that the Attorney-General is moving children's matters away from being heard by a Family Court judge or a Federal Circuit Court judge. I am very concerned that the Turnbull government has a policy to create an alternative, nonjudicial venue for parenting disputes, a venue where it will not be a judge with experience in family law who will be making determinations.

Of all the decisions judges make, surely determining how a child spends their childhood is the heaviest burden. Why would we even consider outsourcing these decisions to anyone other than the most respected and experienced decision makers? Children have many rights under part VII of the Family Law Act; parents have none. Parents have duties and responsibilities; they do not have rights. The Attorney-General should remember this when developing radical new policies on the run.

The government would be wise to reconstitute the Family Law Council, the statutory body whose mandate is to advise and make recommendations to the Attorney-General about the workings of the Family Law Act and other legislation relating to family law. Incredibly, that statutory body currently has no members, as the Attorney-General has failed to appoint any. If you want further confirmation that the Attorney-General has no interest in family law, look no further than Senate estimates yesterday, when he said, 'In other jurisdictions it is now very common practice for the court to require there to be a form of mediation before all the cost and expense of a trial is engaged on. If ever there was a system in which we ought to be doing that it is in the family law system.' It is a great quote, a great idea, in fact. In fact, if the Attorney-General looks at section 60I of the Family Law Act he will see the requirement for compulsory family dispute resolution for all parenting matters. It is unbelievable. The Attorney-General has no interest in family law and no interest in properly resourcing the family law system.

Minister, have steps being taken to fill the five judicial vacancies? When will those replacement judges be appointed? When will the Family Law Council be reconstituted? How will cases be screened for suitability before a parenting management hearing? What cases will not be allowed: cases involving family violence, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse? Will these hearings be mandatory or will parents have a choice? Will a determination be binding without having to enter into a consent order? Who will be hearing parental management hearings?

See this speech in context