Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Community Safety, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in continuation. I was speaking about schedule 4, headed 'Independent children's lawyers'. Schedule 4 of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 deals with independent children's lawyers and would establish a requirement to meet with children over the age of five unless there are exceptional circumstances. However, as with other parts of this bill, it must be road tested. How will it affect the work of independent children's lawyers in remote and rural areas? How does a child communicate that they do not want to meet? Does that need to come through a parent? These are significant practical real-world issues.

Schedule 5 of the bill is headed 'Case management and procedure'. Among other things, schedule 5 introduces new harmful proceedings orders to prevent a vexatious litigant from filling and serving new applications without first obtaining leave from the court. It also includes a new overarching purpose for the family practice and procedure provisions. As with other parts of the bill, while the intent is sound as a matter of principle, the measures warrant examination. For example, while we welcome clarifying that family law procedures should promote safety, the Law Council rightly argues that family law should aim to minimise acrimony.

Schedule 6 of the bill is headed 'Communications of details of family law proceedings'. Schedule 6 of the bill redrafts section 121 of the Family Law Act to clarify restrictions around public communication of family law proceedings. This is a redrafting of provisions that prevent people from publishing the details of family law proceedings. As with other parts of the bill, there are questions worth exploring: for example, is it appropriate for the bill to protect professional expert witnesses?

Schedule 7 of the bill is headed 'Family report writers'. Schedule 7 deals with family report writers. The most notable part of the schedule is the suggestion that the government could set mandatory standards and requirements in regulations. The importance of consistency in standards of practice is rightly acknowledged, but, as the Law Council and others have pointed out, it is unclear what the practical implications will be.

Schedule 8 of the bill is headed 'Review of operation of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021'. Schedule 8 is a surprise last-minute amendment on which the government chose not to consult. It brings forward the date for the review of the merger of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia by two years. Instead of giving the Federal Circuit and Family Court a reasonable period to bed down the merger, the Attorney has, unannounced, chosen to bring the review date forward by two years, to the end of this parliamentary term. One would be forgiven for thinking this is a cynical attempt by the Attorney-General to leave open the doorway to relitigate the merger of the courts as an election issue in 2025. We reject that type of optimism. Changes to family law systems should aim to reduce the pain, costs and time associated with separation. It should not be a place of political pride.

Schedule 9 of the bill is headed 'Dual appointments'. Schedule 9 deals with dual appointments to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia.

In conclusion, the coalition agrees with the intent behind many of the measures in this bill, but the bill is not yet in a position where the coalition can support it. The problems are well recognised, but we are concerned that the solutions have not adequately been tested or will go further than is needed. These are not the sorts of changes that warrant simply being waved through. We will support the bill going to a committee for careful scrutiny. Ideally, the committee hearing would have already happened before the second reading debate. We should already have heard, for example, from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities about how the measures in this bill will affect them on the ground before the bill is debated in this place. It's a shame that the government has chosen to progress the bill in this way. This bill warrants a very careful and public examination through a parliamentary inquiry so Australians can develop an informed view on whether the changes in this bill do what they are intended to do. The coalition will settle its final position on the bill in light of those public hearings and committee evidence.

Debate adjourned.