Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Moreton and thank him for his continued commitment to improving Australia's family law system and ensuring appropriate protections for victims of family violence. As shadow Attorney-General, I am deeply concerned by the government's harsh cuts to Commonwealth-funded community legal assistance. The number of unrepresented litigants in the Family Court and in the Federal Circuit Court—which, of course, deals with most of the family law work in Australia—has increased under this government as a result of those cuts to legal assistance.

Commonwealth funding for both legal aid services and legal assistance services ensures that everyone has access to legal representation. It is this assistance which ensures that victims of family violence are not forced to attend court without proper legal representation. The provision of legal assistance also ensures that victims of family violence are not subjected to vicious attacks from their abuser within the courtroom. Regrettably, our current family law system does allow this to occur. A self-represented perpetrator of family violence is currently entitled to cross-examine the other party—a victim of family violence—and any other witnesses called by them in order to test their evidence. There is, of course, a judicial discretion to prevent the very worst forms of abuse, but, otherwise, our family law system currently allows perpetrators of family violence to personally cross-examine their victims within the courtroom. This is unacceptable because it can amount to a continuation of the abuse. Labor would not allow this to continue were we in government and our election policy stated just that.

Labor would ensure that no victims of family violence have to choose between either seeking a resolution through the courts and facing their abuser or accepting a lower property settlement out of court. These victims may sometimes even be forced to accept childcare arrangements which are not in the best interests of the child because they are making a choice not to go to court, where a judge would determine those questions, in fear of the potential for cross-examination by their abuser. It is unacceptable that victims of physical, emotional or psychological abuse should have to risk experiencing a continuation of that abuse through the Family Court system just to be able to finally move on with their lives. The fear of confronting the perpetrator of the abuse in court may prevent some victims of family violence from seeking the assistance that they need from the court system.

In September 2015, Women's Legal Services Australia conducted a survey on the experience of female survivors of violence being personally cross-examined by their abusers in the family law courts. That survey found that 45 per cent of the participants who had settled their family law matter before trial said that the prospect of being personally cross-examined by their abuser was a significant factor in their decision to settle. Women's Legal Services Australia says that the experience of being cross-examined by an abuser can retraumatise the victim and allow the perpetrator to use the court proceedings to further inflict abuse on their victim.

The family law system is able to be used as a tool by manipulative, controlling, domineering and abusive people to exercise power over their victims. During cross-examination, a perpetrator is given a platform for engaging in emotional abuse. Perpetrators can ask ostensibly valid questions which are deliberately or strategically loaded with hidden meanings or threats. A perpetrator of family violence also has intimate knowledge of the victim, and subtle reminders of this can act as a deterrent to the victim giving proper evidence. At the same time the government, this government, is cutting funding to the very services that could provide assistance.

On 30 June 2017 funding to community legal centres under the existing agreement will drop by 30 per cent. This is despite the Productivity Commission, in an excellent inquiry and report, recommending that funding for civil legal assistance services 'should be increased by around $200 million', and that recommendation was made in 2014.

Family Violence Prevention Legal Services, which serve Indigenous women, have been cut from the Attorney-General's Department entirely and they have been forced to tender for the entirety of their Commonwealth funding. Many centres have missed out on the funding rounds altogether.

If the government reversed their harsh and unfair cuts to community legal assistance then victims would—

Ms Henderson interjecting—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

His time must be up, is it?

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I be permitted to finish my sentence before I am rudely interrupted by Ms Henderson?

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the member sit down. I think the tradition has been—

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, I was not interrupting.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alright, can the member please take her seat.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wait for the call next time—might be a good idea.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both members take your seats, please.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are the one that is being rude. You did not wait for the call.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do not speak to me like—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The tradition is that when a member is opening up—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Ms Henderson interjecting—

Please sit down and please be quiet. When a member is opening a debate, as we are in this forum here, they are usually given latitude and time to open that debate, and that has been the tradition in this House. Now it has not been followed to the letter but that has been the tradition so I am going to allow the member to finish his address. The member for Isaacs.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it is of assistance, I had almost completed my remarks. If the government reversed their harsh and unfair cuts to community legal assistance then victims of family violence who access the court system would be able to do so with the confidence that their vulnerabilities would not be exploited through the process. They will be able to seek safe and effective orders based on high-quality evidence.

We have seen the Family Court system undergo years of progress in terms of the equal treatment of women. We still have work to do to ensure that our system does not disadvantage women, especially victims of family violence, when it comes to property settlements and child custody battles, and I would urge the government to again look at repeated recommendations by the Family Law Council, repeated recommendations by the Law Council of Australia, repeated recommendations from family law practitioners to again look at this vexed area of cross examination—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not push it too hard.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

of victims of family violence by their perpetrators. (Time expired)

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this debate in this chamber today on this very important issue, the issue of protecting all people who are the victims of family violence. But while of course some men are victims of family violence, the government recognise that the vast majority of victims are women and children. Over the last three years the government are incredibly proud of the many ways in which we are supporting the victims of family violence with our very significant investments in our women safety packages and in the approximately $1.62 billion that has been provided over five years to legal assistance services, including $1.3 billion to legal aid commissions and community legal centres through the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services.

I take issue with the shadow Attorney-General's comments in relation to cuts to legal aid funding. There have been no cuts to legal aid funding. In fact I also want to make the comment that a recent audit by National Legal Aid found that 79 per cent of grants paid were for family law matters, including issues of family violence, and that legal aid funding increases by $11.99 million over the life of the national partnership agreement.

I do agree that in one of the main components of this motion a very important point has been raised—that is, the cross-examination of victims by perpetrators. The Family Law Act makes a number of provisions in relation to providing better protections for vulnerable people in family law proceedings. For instance, vulnerable persons can give testimony via video in a closed court. The Family Violence Plan makes it clear that the family law courts have an obligation to identify at a very early stage those who are at risk of violence. That is a very important principle—along with the fairly broad discretion that the Family Court has and that judges have about the way proceedings are run. But I do want to concur with this motion; I think there is more that the government can do in this respect.

I do want to take issue though with the shadow Attorney-General's comments in relation to the provision of legal aid, because he has actually got it wrong. Any person appearing before the Family Court has an inherent right to appear as a self-represented litigant. Many people choose to do that, I think, motivated by ill-will, to cause even more grief to their partner or their ex-partner in Family Court proceedings. So the shadow Attorney-General has not got it correct when he says that funding availability for legal aid means that there are more self-represented litigants. It is one factor, but getting legal aid is not particularly easy; there are very stringent requirements in relation to who can access legal aid.

But certainly I am very pleased that the Attorney-General has already indicated that the government is open to new ways we can better protect victims. I would certainly like to see the absolute maximum protection, so that this practice does not continue. It is something that I have raised in my capacity as a member of the backbench policy committee on legal affairs. It is something I have expressed a number of concerns about.

I also want to commend the government on the very significant work that is being done with other complementary measures aimed at addressing family violence, such as the bench book. In August of last year, the first part of the Commonwealth-funded National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book was released by the Australasian Institute of judicial administration. One of the most common concerns we hear is that judges get it wrong and they do not appreciate some of the incredible issues that confront those who suffer family violence. This bench book is very important.

I had the great pleasure of meeting with Rosie Batty and the Women's Legal Services Australia representatives. They have a very important platform about safety first in family law. I do want to commend Rosie and Women's Legal Services Australia for their five-step plan, which includes developing a specialist pathway for DV cases in family courts and ways we can reduce trauma and support those who are most at risk of future violence and death.

The other three points—if I can just indulge you for a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker—are: intervention early and providing effective legal help for those who are most disadvantaged; the fourth point is to support women and children to financially recover from domestic violence; and the last point is to improve education of family law professionals dealing with domestic violence and trauma.

So I do want to commend the report of Rosie Batty the Luke Batty Foundation and Women's Legal Services Australia. I think that really takes this issue forward, and I am looking forward to how we can act to protect women and children, and some men, from domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Morton for this motion. I join with the shadow Attorney-General and endorse his comments thoroughly. Family and domestic violence are growing problems in our community and it is good to see that these issues are being discussed in this place today.

It is a shocking phenomenon. Domestic violence affects one in four women and is the most likely form of preventable death for women under the age of 45. That is a breathtaking reality. For the Aboriginal community things are even worse: 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of domestic violence and 10 times more likely to be killed.

I come to this debate with extensive experience, both personal experience and professional experience, both within the community sector and in my past roles as minister in the New South Wales government. In my first speech, I spoke about rhetoric having to be matched by action. And the simple reality is that, come 30 June, this government will defund to a large degree many, many legal services.

More than a million women have experienced physical or sexual assault by their male current or ex-partner since the age of 15. Some women may be counted twice if they experience both physical and sexual assault. Thirty seven point eight per cent of women who experienced physical assault in the 12 months before the survey said the perpetrator was a current or previous male partner, and 34.4 per cent said the perpetrator was a male family member or friend. Most incidents of physical assault against women in the 12 months prior to 2005 were committed at home.

This is a very important point to understand. Community legal centres give women the capacity to take back control, through the legal processes that are already in place, but so often women are not able to access the courts system. They do not know how or they are scared to confront their attackers. Community legal centres can help close that gap. But, as the motion before this place also points out, cuts to legal aid mean that the perpetrators of violence are increasingly representing themselves, and this means they may personally cross-examine their victims. This cannot be allowed to happen. Victims are already traumatised. By the time they have made it into the courts system, they have already displayed bravery beyond what should be required. In communities in which there is already immense pressure on women to stay silent, this will provide yet another barrier.

There has been much discussion of domestic violence in the Aboriginal community over the last few days. I have been part of that discussion. Some have suggested that Aboriginal people are silent, and I want to repeat that this is not the case. I will have more to say on this as the days pass by. But it is true to say that some people in communities, families and friends of perpetrators, can and do exert pressure on women to stay silent—but stay silent they do not.

It is also important in this debate to understand what domestic and family violence is. It is not limited to physical assault. We know that there are women who live in fear who are emotionally abused or financially abused by their partners. As local members, many of us will have heard these stories—women left with no money to pay bills, often in the most desperate of situations, women for whom access to the legal system is limited by their lack of control over their finances and for whom the emotional abuse has made fleeing all the more difficult.

The opposition's proposal which sees perpetrators prevented from cross-examining their victims is a sensible one and would go some way to combating this issue. So would restoring cuts to legal aid, community legal centres and women's legal services. It just seems incredible to me that there is so much rhetoric, so much talk, about domestic violence but the very things that assist women in pursuing justice through the legal system are going to be ripped away by this government, despite what the member for Corangamite said. It is a reality that 30 June will bring to fruition. I implore the government to adopt these changes and to reverse its stinging cuts to vital services. Safety must come first in family law. I commend this motion to the House.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are thousands of families across Australia whose lives are at threat in their own homes at the hands of family members. There are children who witness violence on a daily basis. There are children who are subjected to violence. Let me say from the outset that I recognise that not all domestic violence is committed by men against women and that men too can be victims. However, it is also true to say that the very large majority of cases are thus and that dangerous, abusive and violent behaviour is a daily occurrence in some families. At least one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner in Australia.

I am appalled at the prevalence of violence in the home, and that is why, as a White Ribbon Ambassador, I attempt to send a message to men that violence is simply unacceptable. This topic raises many challenging issues for the Australian parliament. Why do so many relationships end in violence? Are the levels of violence, and particularly domestic violence, rising or is it just being reported more often? What on earth is happening to our society that so many families are so dysfunctional? How do seemingly normal people ever arrive at the point where they believe that violence against anyone, and most particularly life partners, is an acceptable outcome?

There are far too many issues and the set of issues is too complex to be properly covered in the limited time available to us here today, but the drivers of the breakdown of family values in this, the first quarter of the 21st century, should be considered by all of us in this place when we contemplate change—whether that be to family support, the availability of unsuitable material on a whole range of media and communication platforms, changes to our social institutions and, of course, as we are considering today, the suitability of our legal system.

Family violence can involve men, women and children as victims. There is elder abuse and even adolescent violence against parents. It imparts a profound and long-term toll on the victims' health and wellbeing, on families and communities and on society as a whole. It is the single largest cause of homelessness for women and it results in police call outs once every two minutes, on average. Thankfully, we have come a long way since the days when it was assumed that a woman must have provoked her partner in some way, almost deserving a beating, or when police would dismissively refer to a call out as 'just a domestic'. While legal sanctions cannot bring an end to family violence, the law is an essential component of any response to domestic and family violence.

The motion of the member for Moreton raises the issues of victims being forced to face perpetrators of violence in court. He makes a good point, but he would also be aware that courts bend over backwards to avoid that circumstance and that if such a circumstance is likely to cause stress a video appearance is provided. We should also not lose sight of the fact that, without due process, we elevate the chance of a severe miscarriage of justice. In short, everyone must be heard fairly in our legal system. The legal process can be an emotional and difficult time for victims of family, domestic and sexual violence. Many cases of domestic violence go unreported through perceived loyalty to the perpetrator, shame and fear. The combined health, administration and social welfare costs of violence against women has been estimated at $21.7 billion a year.

Contrary to one of the points made in this motion, however, the Australian government is not cutting funds dedicated to addressing this important issue. In fact, we are committed to reducing the unacceptable levels of domestic, family and sexual violence in our community. That is why we have allocated an additional $100 million in the 2016-17 budget to implement a third action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.

I turn to those points where the government has been accused of terminating funding. In fact, one of the tranches of funding was the $6.8 million that the shadow Attorney-General, in fact, implemented back in 2013. It was a finite amount of money, and the Attorney-General at that time made that point clearly—that it was a one-off funding arrangement—so the extra $100 million is coming in to build ongoing funding around the $27 million a year that underpins the 12-year national plan. It also supports ongoing services like 1800RESPECT and primary prevention organisations like Our Watch and Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety.

On 1 April, COAG agreed to support in principle the six areas for action and the 28 recommendations of the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence Against Women and their Children. The advisory panel's report is informing the development of the third action plan. I have run out of time, but I applaud the government's commitment. (Time expired)

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved today by the member for Moreton, and thank him for his commitment to shining a light on yet another way that our system is currently letting down victims and survivors of domestic and family violence. I am pleased that Labor has been pushing for changes to the family law system in this area. We made it our election policy to ensure that no victim of family violence need be cross-examined by their abuser in a courtroom. We will continue to push for these changes because it is unacceptable that a victim of physical or emotional abuse at the hands of a partner, or former partner, should have to continue to experience that abuse simply to seek a resolution.

The matters that are heard by the Family Court or the Federal Circuit Court often involve the most extreme cases of abuse. When non-abusive relationships break down, those people are more likely to be able to come to an agreement themselves about how to amicably terminate a relationship—how to sort out property issues and child care arrangements—without involving the courts. What we are seeing play out in the Family Court is often the other end of the spectrum. One party to a family law matter may have suffered such a severe level of ongoing abuse to the point that they might choose to receive no property settlement or lose care and responsibility for their child simply to avoid having to face their abuser in court, or maybe even just to avoid being in the same courtroom as their abuser. But our current system means that victims of family violence not only have to be in the same courtroom as their abuser but can, indeed, be cross-examined by their abuser. They can be questioned about the most intimate parts of their lives, have personal experiences used against them and be subjected to the subtle tactics of emotional abuse throughout this process.

I once heard a story about a perpetrator of family violence who would wear the same piece of clothing every time he physically assaulted his wife and children. Over time she developed an instant emotional reaction to seeing that piece of clothing. That man wore that piece of clothing in the courtroom when dealing with the end of their relationship. Needless to say, she was terrified and unable to give proper evidence on the day. It is horrific that our court system would allow someone to be put in such a vulnerable position and be forced to endure that kind of emotional abuse. She was re-traumatised from that experience.

Women's Legal Services Australia conducted a survey in September 2015 that tells us that this experience is common amongst victims of family violence going through the court system. Many victims of family violence experienced further violence in the courtroom. Perpetrators use the family law system as a tool and an opportunity for them to continue to exercise power and control over their victims. The fear of confronting their perpetrator means that victims do not proceed to trial. Instead, they reach out-of-court settlements or agreement to consent orders that are often not in their best interest or in the best interest of their children.

Victims of family violence are likely to receive less than 40 per cent of a property pool at the dissolution of a relationship. That is why Labor is pushing for these protections. We believe in putting appropriate safeguards in place so that victims can enforce their legal rights and have a greater chance of becoming financially independent and live a life free of a cycle of violence. To make these protections possible, the government, in addition to legislative reform, need to reconsider their unfair cuts to legal assistance. This is one of the first issue that I spoke about in this parliament—the cuts in the first Abbott budget to Community Legal Centres support. Indeed, it was in this very room.

When I was asking questions about that first Abbott budget, it was very clear to me that, at the time that those cuts were made, there was very little appreciation within the government or among parliamentarians of the volume of work that Community Legal Centres do in addressing family violence. They are on the front line of this scourge. The cuts particularly from that first budget had a real-world consequence on women seeking protection from the courts and fleeing violent partners. In addition, Legal Aid makes it possible for perpetrators of family violence to always have access to legal representation, so that proper evidence can be obtained without direct cross examination. That is why Labor committed $43.2 million over four years to avoid the re-traumatisation of victims and survivors from being cross-examined by alleged perpetrators personally and, instead, provide for both parties to be legally represented. In March last year, Labor committed over $40 million to frontline legal services to assist victims of family violence. Instead, the government has continued with their unfair cuts of millions of dollars.

If the government are truly committed to ending the scourge of family violence—and I believe the will of those opposite—they need to match this will with funding and they need to end their unfair cuts that reduce access to justice for Australia's most vulnerable people. No-one should have to go through the court system seeking either the protection of their interests or the protection of their physical safety alone. People need representation.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While it has certainly been an issue, family violence has brought the whole subject from the shadows into the bright lights of public awareness. The number of victims is escalating at an alarming rate. Many in the community, including myself, have been shocked by the many outrageous violent acts perpetrated by spouses against those who they have sworn to care, love and protect—their partners. Read the daily papers; it is in just about every paper you would like to pick up. The majority of victims are women, but, as mentioned before in the debate, some of them are, sadly, men. More than one woman per week is murdered in Australia. That is a shocking statistic.

While the nation is going through a discussion about how to deal with the destruction of families by violence, regions like Central Queensland are grappling with some of the nation's highest rates of family violence. While our society generally wishes to protect the victims, we still see too many reactions to family violence doing little more than protecting the perpetrator of these acts—yes, the perpetrator first, the victim second. Sadly, children are used as a lever in these bitter battles within the Family Court system or outside the Family Court. We get many cases through our doors, as federal politicians, on a weekly basis and some victims come to us for help who must be referred on.

Even our media outlets are very keen to cover criminal activities which do not often involve domestic violence or brutality. They prefer to leave that alone. They do not want to bring it to the front, to protect the victim. However, are they protecting future victims from such violence? It only validates that victims should feel ashamed and keep the issue swept under the rug. I think we should be bringing these cases out into the open more often to make people aware of this alarming rate. It is escalating at a very quick rate and it has changed over the last 10 years. The stats are horrifying. The first step to get the nation to discuss the topic openly will take a long time because of the culture of denial that surrounds this domestic issue and abuse of women.

One of the great achievements of this coalition government for the victims of family violence is the permanent appointment of a Federal Circuit Court judge in Rockhampton. Since March this year, Judge Anne Demack, herself a Central Queenslander, has presided over the Family Court disputes in the region. Based in Rockhampton, she travels to Gladstone, Emerald and Mackay on a regular basis. Having a judge permanently in Central Queensland means that those utilising the service are not left behind. The victims do not have to travel to far away places like Brisbane to have a judge look at their case, which costs travel time, money and accommodation. Quite often the victims have not had the funds to actually have their case heard, or they might have travelled that distance to be turned down by the court, saying that the judge is sick and cannot hear the court case that day. What does she do? What does he do in that case? That is why the federal government has committed a further $100 million to help the cause of the victims. We, as a society, have a long way to go to see these dreadful crimes minimalised—a great service for victims. I hope we can see a turnaround in these dreadful statistics.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I met with one of my constituents a couple of months ago and when I saw this motion I was reminded of her. She was nearly 75 years old, fearful that her ex-husband was about to be released from jail again. He had been in and out of jail since he was first jailed for assaulting her when she was around 30. And every time he gets out of jail, he finds her, somehow, in spite of her name changes, and then ends up back in jail for assaulting her. This went on, for this woman, for 45 years and was still continuing on the day I met her. So we had seriously let this woman down as a community. She had nowhere to hide and lived her life in fear. So this is for her and many other women—even though she is perhaps an extreme example—who have spent significant periods of their life in fear and have been permanently damaged by their experience of domestic violence. In New South Wales alone, the recorded crime statistics for July 2015 to 2016 for domestic-violence-related assault was 29,200 people, and they are the reported incidences. We know that there would have been many, many more that were not reported. This is a major area of crime in our community and one that deserves serious attention by this place.

Most members of parliament would have received representations from Women's Legal Services Australia and 90 other organisations back in May this year calling on us all to put safety first in family law. In response to that, the Labor Party went to the election with a commitment that no victim should be cross-examined by their abuser. We need to be clear that in our courts at the moment victims are being cross-examined by their abusers. The abuse continues in the court itself and through the court processes. Because an unrepresented litigant has the right to cross-examine the victim to test their evidence in a trial, unrepresented perpetrators of violence can continue to put fear into the hearts of the abused even as the court case continues.

Cuts to legal aid exacerbate that situation, as will the cuts to the community legal centres which will take place in 2017, which will see 30 per cent of the funding go from our incredibly effective community legal centres. This is something that we really do have to address.

The processes in our courts affect victims of violence perhaps more than they affect relationship breakdowns where there isn't violence. Where the relationship break-up is civil we often find couples finding their own agreements, but if violence is involved it is very, very likely that the case will end up in court.

In the Parramatta court, which is one of the busiest in the country, we have had incredible delays over the last couple of years. We have 12 great new courts, which were built very recently. In the 2013 elections we had eight judges in Parramatta and by March this year we had four. We lost four and they have not been replaced. One went to Melbourne. After another judge retired it took 560 days before the Attorney-General replaced that judge. In the Family Court in Parramatta, we have had delays of up to 2½ to three years, and sometimes longer, before final orders. Lawyers were increasingly encouraging their clients to go to mediation. Mediation is not necessarily possible in a situation where there has been domestic violence. It is not necessarily possible to put the two people in the one room and find a mediated solution. Those cases were taking incredibly long periods of time in court. We had situations where custody cases were taking three and four years before final judgements were made, causing incredible stress for families and for the children.

I would like to thank the member for Moreton for moving this motion. It is an incredibly important one. We know that far too many people live in fear. There are far too many instances of violence perpetrated, quite often in the home, and we as a community and as a parliament are obliged to support victims of violence in whatever way we can.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moreton for raising the issue of domestic violence. I agree with the sentiments that victims of domestic violence need to be protected against further trauma when seeking justice.

There are few places in Queensland that witness higher rates of domestic violence than in my electorate of Capricornia. The Capricornia police district reports the highest rate of domestic violence in Queensland. One of the most shameful areas is north Rockhampton. According to Rockhampton police the rate of domestic violence attacks there is 141 per cent higher than the state average.

Adults must accept responsibility for their own actions. Under no circumstances are domestic violence acceptable. Practices that advance the plight of victims—families and children—caught up in the cycle of family abuse are worthwhile discussing at a political level. However, I find the Labor Party's sudden interest in the subject of domestic violence to be hypocritical. Last year, to assist families in trauma that were caught up in the cycle of domestic violence and other Family Court matters, the Turnbull-Joyce government took a bold and positive step to appoint a permanent Federal Circuit Court judge to be based in Rockhampton. Judge Anne Demack held her first sitting on 7 March, presided over by the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court, His Honour Judge John Pascoe. I lobbied hard for the Commonwealth Attorney-General to make this appointment in a city where family violence is out of control. This appointment was both supported and hailed by the Central Queensland Law Association as the most significant decision for the legal industry in Capricornia in over 40 years. It directly helps some of the most disadvantaged families that are caught up in the cycle of domestic violence and subsequent custody and family law disputes.

The new permanent Federal Circuit Court judge services all of Central Queensland, including Rockhampton, Mackay, Gladstone and Emerald. But the Labor Party were against this appointment. They actually criticised it. Queensland's state Labor Attorney-General, Yvette D'Ath, and the federal shadow Attorney-General both denigrated the appointment of the new judge in Rockhampton. D'Ath threatened to stop the judge operating out of Rockhampton's court precinct unless the federal government built an entire new courthouse. This ignorant and backward approach was egged on in Canberra by federal Labor. The shadow Attorney-General has no regard for the victims of domestic violence in Rockhampton, otherwise he would have supported this appointment. After all, Rockhampton is rattled by the highest rates of domestic violence outside of Brisbane.

We know that Labor fails to care for Central Queensland, because in the recent federal election the federal Labor candidate and the Leader of the Opposition failed to back job-creating projects like Rookwood weir or the construction of a five- to six-storey car park at Rockhampton Base Hospital. Estimates suggest that Rookwood weir would have created up to 2,500 new jobs for the region, while the hospital board informed me only last week that the construction of a new car park—an investment of at least $21 million—would create many further jobs.

We know that stress in any family facing tough financial times is one of the catalysts for domestic violence. Today the people of Capricornia can clearly see that the Labor Party have failed to support both the appointment of a Federal Circuit Court judge to Rockhampton and big infrastructure. They have failed to back initiatives that would lead to more jobs for our community and thereby possibly help alleviate family financial stress, which is a catalyst for domestic violence. In the so-called Labor heartland that is Rockhampton city, the Labor Party have failed the most vulnerable families at a time when they need jobs and Federal Circuit Court time the most. High-profile lawyers and barristers tell me that both Labor's state Attorney-General and federal Labor's shadow Attorney-General were offensive and out of order. Labor would rather that nothing happened in the city of Rockhampton than give credit to the coalition's positive steps to appoint a permanent Federal Circuit Court judge to help families in crisis.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.