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

I want to make very clear—and I am sure that I speak for others on the crossbench and all in this chamber—when I say that no-one is condoning false allegations. My understanding of the effect of these amendments is that this in no way goes to exempt perjury, let perjurers off the hook or fail in the sense that perjury cannot be established or you cannot have a debate or your day in court in relation to a false allegation. No-one is suggesting that there are not repercussions in that respect and that people do not have the opportunity to challenge in some way or, indeed, deal with through the courts or otherwise the issue of perjury or of false allegation.

There is an aspect to this particular provision in this legislation that we fear has a deterrent effect in relation to the reporting of family violence. Now this is not just some fringe group or non-mainstream perspective; this is something that was backed up by a number of submissions and evidence and, indeed, signed off on in a committee report that had cross-party support. Clearly it set alarm bells ringing for a number of members of this parliament—a number of senators, backbenchers, people from all political parties—as well as some of those representative and key groups who understand and deal with on a day-to-day basis not just some of the court and the legal issues but some of the issues in relation to family violence and family break-ups et cetera.

This is a serious provision, to which Senator Ludwig has offered one solution, which is to go back to the drawing board, wait for the review. At least have some understanding of the impact of this provision before you pursue it in the chamber tonight, before this is rammed through in a way that has little regard for the potential deterrent in terms of reporting violence that so many people are concerned that it may have. One act of violence is one act too many. We have to ensure that the provisions in this legislation are not preventing people from reporting acts of violence. This is one provision that people are broadly worried about—there is wide concern about this particular provision. The Australian Democrat amendment will remove these provisions and in the meantime will enable review, as Senator Ludwig and others have suggested, and it will prevent any deleterious effect that this provision may have.

I would have thought that this would be a sensible solution, at least in the interim, for the government, given that the consequences of this could be so negative. To me it makes sense to wait for the Institute of Family Studies review or to at least investigate this particular clause in some more detail and to listen to the views of the backbenchers—the cross-party backbenchers who, through the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, expressed their concern and came up with the recommendation that this should be removed. Mr Temporary Chairman, I have made clear that this is the second area and the final area I would like to divide on if the voices are there, but I will not comment on this section any further.