Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make a point but I will not speak too long on it. I would like to acknowledge not simply the lateness of the hour but also the fact that the Senate this week has sat comparatively late every night. I want to make it clear, once again, that this year has a very small number of Senate sitting weeks for a non-election year. Some of the legislation we have dealt with in relative haste this week and in particular today, such as the telecommunications interceptions law and indeed this legislation—fundamental, significant, quite comprehensive complex law—could have been dealt with in a more timely and considered fashion and at a more reasonable hour of the day.

The Democrats have made it clear that we are more than happy to sit more often as opposed to sitting longer hours and through the night. I am not sure whether this is a deliberate process whereby we operate as a sausage factory and ram the legislation through and feel concerned and constrained when it comes to holding divisions and proper debates. I am not sure whether that is the intention or simply that people, understandably sometimes, want more time in their electorate. At times this is farcical and tonight it is very annoying.

The Democrats oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(24)  Schedule 1, item 41, page 32 (lines 13 to 22), TO BE OPPOSED.

This amendment follows recommendation 7 in the chair’s report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. This is another important matter. I said earlier that it was pretty much a line in the sand. This is an amendment that a number of us feel very strongly about. This amendment opposes the introduction of section 117AB, the provision allowing for the award of costs where a false allegation or statement in proceedings is proven.

We have said on record previously—in the second reading debate and in the committee stage—and I say it again now: we fear that the effect of this provision would be further promoting the existing problem of underreporting of family violence or criminal assault in the home. It increases the potential for violence and abuse and we are not convinced that there is a valid reason for the inclusion of this in the bill. I am not sure what arguments the government wants to put forward, but I want to again remind the Senate that the chair’s report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional inquiry was signed off by both major parties. This is a recommendation that, as I understand it, has support from government backbenchers and obviously the Australian Labor Party. I note that the opposition’s amendment is identical to the Australian Democrat amendment.

I hope that item 41 will be opposed, that it will not stand as printed. I urge members of the parliament, including those backbenchers who were members of the committee and have, no doubt, felt strongly about this issue and made it clear in the report of the Legal and Constitutional Committee, to consider this position very carefully.

Once again we are back to the core issue in this debate, certainly the core issue for me, which is the issue of violence and abuse. This goes to the very heart of issues such as underreporting and the potential for violence and abuse in the home through this court order for false allegations or the insistence of the award of costs. I urge the Senate to think carefully. I indicate that this will be my only other division—my third division of the day, despite the fact I have put forward a number of amendments on a number of bills this evening and during the day. This is another one on which I ask the Senate to divide if there are other voices.