James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to make a contribution on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. This bill, as some other senators have mentioned, is an omnibus bill which will amend a number of acts, including the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Archives Act 1983, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Domicile Act 1982, the Evidence Act 1995, the Family Law Act 1975, the International Arbitration Act 1974, the Legislation Act 2003, the Marriage Act 1961 and the Sexual Discrimination Act 1984. The bill largely makes minor and technical amendments to these acts in order to modernise, simplify and clarify these pieces of legislation and also to repeal some redundant provisions within these bills. The combined effect of these amendments would be to improve the efficiency and operation of the civil justice system. I regard, in aggregate, these amendments to be largely uncontroversial, although we have seen some commentary by other senators on particular small aspects of the omnibus bill already this evening.

One of the objectives of this bill is to make all Commonwealth legislation coherent, readable and accessible to the widest possible audience. To this end, the bill will amend the Acts Interpretation Act and the Legislation Act to clarify the validity of ministerial acts and the management of compilations of legislation on the Federal Register of Legislation.

This is a very important part of this omnibus bill. In this place, we pass an awful lot of laws, and some of them, by design, are quite complex. When we're dealing with complex matters, that is unavoidable. But it's our duty as parliamentarians to make sure that the laws that we pass are as accessible and understandable as possible for as many Australians as possible. The reason we have an obligation to do so is that, for any citizen of this country, ignorance of the law is no defence. It is no excuse in any proceedings that might be brought against them. Because there are so many laws and because many of those laws are so complicated, it's quite a task for an average citizen to know what is lawful and what is unlawful. As far as possible, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that these laws are understandable and accessible. I'm sure the government would concede that this amendment in this omnibus bill doesn't complete that task. It only begins that task, and it's a task of quite some magnitude, but I'm very pleased to see that it is a feature of this omnibus bill. It is a principle that I think we should strive to uphold more often in this place if we can.

Amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003 would clarify the validity of ministerial actions and the operation of provisions about the management of compilations prepared for the Federal Register of Legislation.

Amendments to the Archives Act 1983 would provide the National Archives of Australia with an enhanced ability to appropriately manage high-volume applications requesting access to records and make other minor technical amendments, including repealing outdated provisions that do not reflect the Archives' current services or technological advances. Australia has an almost peerless National Archives system. It is vital not just to the proper functioning of government but also to the work of future historians in cataloguing why decisions were made and how they were made and, of course, to a public understanding of the law and activities of government. An updated, technologically literate version of the Archives Act is a worthy task.

Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 would clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act.

An amendment to the Domicile Act 1982 would amend the act so that it applies to territories currently specified in the Domicile Regulations 1982.

An amendment to the Evidence Act 1995 would update the presumption about when postal articles sent by prepaid post are received, to accord with changes to Australia Post delivery times.

Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 would strengthen Australia's response to international parental child abduction; clarify the range of persons who may discharge the powers of registry managers in the Family Court of Australia; improve the consistency in the application of provisions for de facto and married couples; and update the arrest, entry and search powers under the act and add additional safeguards for the exercise of these powers. The bill would also make minor and technical amendments to the Family Law Act to clarify definitions and remove redundant provisions. I recognise Senator Griff's thoughtful contribution on this aspect of the debate earlier. The details that he was sharing of forced family separation and, particularly, the separation of children from their parents in an unnecessary way were particularly moving and should be on the minds of all of us as we contemplate these amendments.

Amendments to the International Arbitration Act 1974 would specify expressly the meaning of a 'competent court' for the purpose of the model law; clarify procedural requirements for enforcement of an arbitral award; modernise conditions governing arbitrators' powers to award costs in international commercial arbitrations; and clarify the application of confidentiality provisions to arbitration subject to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration.

Amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 would remove outdated concepts and ensure consistency with the Family Law Act in relation to parental consent for the marriage of minors. Technical amendments of minor policy significance would also be made to improve the operation of the Commonwealth marriage celebrants program. The register of overseas marriages would also be reinstated, remedying a defect in the existing legislation.

Finally, an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 would repeal section 43 of that act to remove the ability for women to be discriminated against in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in Australian Defence Force positions involving combat duties. I wasn't in the chamber earlier when Senator Bernardi made comments on this issue. I did hear briefly Senator Fawcett's contribution here and I won't make extensive comments myself, because I have a sneaking suspicion that my friend and colleague Senator Reynolds may do so herself, and she's in a much more qualified position to comment than I am, given her very honourable service to this nation in uniform, like many thousands of women in our Defence Force who've given very honourable service.

But it seems to me that a very important Liberal principle is at stake here, and that is that no-one should be discriminated against on the basis of totally irrelevant considerations. No-one would argue that anyone, male or female, should be appointed to a position in the Defence Force or anywhere else where they are not suitably qualified for that position. But surely we would all agree that anyone who is qualified shouldn't be prevented from doing so on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic such as their gender or, in fact, any other irrelevant characteristic. In my very brief engagements in my time here in this place with the Australian Defence Force through the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, I have been consistently impressed by the very high quality and calibre of men and women that I've dealt with, and I don't see any reason why anyone who meets the physical, mental and other tests required to fulfil a position should be prevented from doing so. So I look forward very much to Senator Reynolds's contribution to this debate.