Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the members for Moreton, Robertson, Macnamara, Hasluck, Bradfield, Flynn and Fisher for their questions. I'll aim to deal with each in turn in the time I've got available.

In relation to the member for Moreton's questions about family law, there is, of course, no greater responsibility for an Attorney-General than keeping children safe, including those caught up in the family law system. The current family law system is confusing and leads to poor outcomes. The government's Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 will put the interests of the child at the centre. The government has the right priorities here. We are acting on the Australian Law Reform Commission report from 2019, the largest ever report into the Family Law Act, which the Morrison government sadly ignored. Our priorities are very different from those of the opposition, who met with a disgraced so-called men's rights organisation just days before voting against the government's Family Law Amendment Bill. In relation to the member's question about the merger of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, the bill now before the parliament contains provision for a review of the structure of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, to be completed next year.

In relation to the member for Robertson's questions regarding the Voice, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is about two things: listening and recognising. It can do no harm, only good. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was a generous invitation from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and the Albanese Labor government has pledged to implement it in full. We know that better policies are made when they are informed by those most affected.

In relation to the eloquent statements and questions from the member for Macnamara, he knows better than most why banning Nazi symbols is important—in response to the recent disgraceful activities that we've seen in Melbourne—as, equally, is securing faith based places, which is the subject of a program that we have recently announced with $40 million. Of course, we would all wish that we did not need such a program, that we did not need to provide faith based organisations with money to better secure their institutions, but this is all too clear. In each of his statements over the last three years, the Director-General of Security, the boss of ASIO, has spoken about the present threat from far-right extremist violent groups that pose a threat to faith based places. So, sadly, this program continues to be needed.

In relation to the member for Hasluck's questions regarding the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was, of course, a key election commitment of the Albanese government, and we have delivered on that commitment. I'm very proud to say that the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be up and running in just over two weeks, opening its doors on 1 July. There has been extensive consultation with Commonwealth departments and agencies ahead of the start day. We have an excellent commissioner in former justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Paul Brereton. We have deputy commissioners appointed, an inspector appointed and a CEO appointed, and the staff of the Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, in whole, are going to transfer as the inaugural staff of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We are going to return standards of transparency, accountability and integrity to government.

In response to the member for Fisher, the ignorance that his questions displayed about longstanding, consistent dealing with settlements and litigation by our government is extraordinary. In particular, Ms Higgins' claim was managed consistently with the Commonwealth's obligations under the legal services direction 2017, which are publicly available. I would suggest to the member for Fisher that he goes away and studies the legal service directions issued by the Attorney-General under the Judiciary Act 1903. They set out binding rules for Commonwealth legal work.

Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds' legal representation was managed by the Commonwealth consistent with the parliamentary business resources regulations. Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds sought and were granted assistance by the Commonwealth in respect of the claims that had been made against them. Senator Cash and Senator Reynolds were under no obligation to seek assistance from the Commonwealth but they did so, and that means that they will then be subject to the management of the whole claim by the Attorney-General, in accordance with the legal services directions. It's very disappointing that the opposition are seeking to proceed down this path. At the request of Ms Higgins, with that settlement, the parties agreed that the terms of the settlement are, and we will keep them, confidential. It is entirely consistent with everything that has been said, in particular by the Respect@Work report about the need in some cases for confidentiality.

I would say in respect, finally, of the member for Bradfield's statements or questions— (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill, taken as a whole and agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context