Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

We're debating the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019. Over the past year it has been an immense privilege to be the role of Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. The work of the committee has revealed what many of us know—that the proceedings, structure and systems of the Family Court profoundly impact more Australians than any other part of our legal system and too often that impact has devastating effects.

I first brought up many of these issues and problems in and around the Family Court back in 1996. I have never wavered in my belief that the Family Court requires a far-reaching and thorough overhaul if it is to properly serve the millions of Australians who come under its influence. These bills and the changes recommended are close to my heart. I speak with the benefit of firsthand knowledge. I have personally experienced and survived the Family Court first as a wife, then as a mother and later as a grandmother. Yes, I have experienced domestic violence. I have described the scope of these impacts previously in this place and I can think of no better way to focus our minds on the human motivation for this legislation than to quote my words from Hansard. I said:

The family law system has been, and continues to be, plagued by deep emotions, sadness, financial hardship and bankruptcies, long-term psychological damage, abuse, stress, suicides and, in some cases, murder—

including the murder of children by both male and female parents and extended family members—

Unfortunately, there are those in the community who thrive on the pain of those going through separation and the courts, lawyers who charge exorbitant fees to the point of bankrupting clients, feminists who relish the toxic anti-men rhetoric and jaded partners who will stop at nothing to use their separation and the court system to crush their rivals, including unfounded claims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, they are also harming their children in the process.

…   …   …

Put simply, we need to revamp the system to make it better for everyone involved. The Family Court is in an unusual position of being a rigged, formalised judicial body that is tasked with overseeing challenges that are human, all unique, emotional and characterised by vulnerability. As I've said previously, a one-size-fits-all approach in this arena will always fail.

Participation in the Family Court system, whether willingly or when a person is dragged in and compelled to defend allegations, has taken an all too often terrible toll on potentially millions of people in this country.

This bill is the product of a series of reviews that began with the Semple review in 2008. The Semple review produced a report titled Future governance options for federal family law courts in Australia: striking the right balance. This report found:

… there exists a significant level of duplication of administrative structures and corporate services across the Family Court and the FMC.

The report found that the structure and costs were not financially sustainable. It also found the structure took up a resource that could have been used more effectively to assist people appearing before the court.

The 2012 Skehill review looked at a number of options for action designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of court administration. The 2014 KPMG review found the current funding model for the courts was not sustainable and that simply throwing money at the problem was not a solution. In 2018 there was yet another review: PwC looked at the operations of the courts in relation to family law matters. That brings us to 2019, when the Australian Law Reform Commission review, commissioned by then Attorney-General Brandis, handed down its report. If, following report after report and review after review, you didn't already think there was reason enough to be here today, just listen to the commission's report, which said:

… the family law system has been deprived of resources to such an extent that it cannot deliver the quality of justice expected of a country like Australia …

The report went on to say:

There is a chronic lack of funding for the appointment and proper training of judicial resources … court-based social services professionals (including Family Consultants and Indigenous Liaison Officers), and legal aid services (including Independent Children’s Lawyers). As a consequence, children and families are deprived of sufficient time and attention being given to their matter at all stages of the process, with the obvious risks that this entails.

A decade of reports and reviews confirmed time after time that the system, the structure and the funding of the courts in this most critical of areas were all wrong. They proved that tinkering at the edges left a trail of devastated families in its wake.

At the time of its interim report last October, the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, on which I serve as deputy chair, had received more than 1,500 individual submissions as well as 169 submissions from organisations, academics and other professionals. All of this brings us today to the bill before us.

We are told by the Attorney-General that the structural reforms contained within the bill will help Australian families to resolve their disputes faster, provide appropriate protection for vulnerable people and ensure suitably qualified and experienced professionals are available to support families in need. I also note that the proposed structural reform of the federal courts is intended to:

We are also told that the long overdue structural reform has the potential to allow an extra 8,000 cases to be resolved each year. That's 8,000 cases—just last year we had 45,000 cases come before the Federal Circuit Court. It will resolve an extra 8,000 a year, which, no doubt, will reduce the significant frustration felt by so many families. There has been criticism of the bill from some legal quarters. That does not surprise me. I believe it's fair to say that being appointed a judge of the Family Court of Australia has, until now, been regarded as a golden ticket within the legal profession. Any alteration to the current system will probably upset the long-term retirement and pension plans of some in the profession. I don't doubt that's where a lot of the squealing and resistance is coming from.

This legislation will provide a single pathway for Australian families to have their family law disputes dealt with within the federal courts. Our first priority is the people of this nation that are not only going through the hurt and pain of a separation from their loved ones, their families and their children but also have to face our family law courts. They are our main priority. If we could address this system, clean it up and make it easier for them, that is our job. I'm not interested in what the law fraternity want or their comments. It's all about the people in Australia. Under this reform, there will be a single set of rules, procedures, case management and practices. But, as the law currently exists, these changes cannot occur without a majority of judges in each court agreeing to respective rules. That's why these bills have been drawn up; they can't come to any decision because it may affect them personally. That's why we have to make the decisions on behalf of the people of this nation.

I've explained to a lot of people in this chamber that I've gone through the family law courts as a wife, as a mother and as a grandmother, and I've seen my children go through pain and anger during the process that they've had to go through. How many in this chamber have actually experienced that? How many have actually experienced domestic violence? Those are questions that we need to ask. People need to know, because some sit here in judgement of people when you've never worn their shoes. People tell me this all the time. They pull me up and say: "Please do something. I can't see my children. The system has made me wait this long." They can't get to see their kids or they see them under supervision. People feel pain and anger. There are suicides, murders, the murders of children, filicide.

I constantly talk about the fathers out there, because in many cases they are the forgotten ones. That shouldn't be the case. We talk about filicide, which I've raised in this chamber. The stats show that filicide is committed by women more than men. Filicide is the murder of your children. But, no, don't discuss that. These facts need to be made public, because I will not have any man wrongly accused, pointed at or downtrodden by feminist organisations or people with their own agenda. It's not about the sex of the person; it comes down to the children. It's about the marriage break-ups and what's happening. We have to address all this as a whole so that we can find the answers to it. This action takes it out of the hands of judges, who have been appointed for life, and puts it in the hands of the people through their elected representatives, us. In other words, it takes it out of the hands of those who have a vested interest in maintaining the system and retaining extraordinarily well-paid jobs for life, and puts it in the hands of politicians who remain directly answerable to the electorate.

This restructuring, we are told by the Attorney-General, will not lead to a diminishing of specialisation. In fact, in the federal circuit courts we have about 63 judges, and 50 of those judges are specialised. They have an average of 25 years experience in family law, and a lot of the Federal Circuit Court judges go on to become family law court judges. They hear an extraordinary number of cases each year; not only family law cases, but migration cases, civil matters and other matters as well. In the family law court, they don't have the same workload as do the others in the Federal Circuit Court. If you want a decision in the family law courts, you're waiting over 26 months. In the Federal Circuit Court, the average is 23 months for a decision to be handed down. No wonder there are so many suicides, so much depression and so many problems. And it's not only the parents who're going through it but the children who are going through it as well, because they don't have contact with their parents. They're denied that right.

I've got to say that it was One Nation that brought to the government's attention over three years ago the Lighthouse Project, which has now been installed in the court system. This is working to help with domestic violence. It was One Nation that actually brought that in, because I could see the potential and that it was a wonderful thing. It's being utilised now, and I'm pleased to see that.

I will be proposing many other changes to the committee that I'm deputy chair of, but this needs to happen. We need to merge the two courts. The restructuring has to happen. I can't accept that this restructure will in any way diminish the experience or the expertise of judges involved going forward. The restructuring proposal in the bill is long overdue. Its intended relief for families before the court is urgently required. I have maintained my efforts to reform the Family Court for over 20 years, and I am genuinely happy to strongly commend and congratulate the Attorney-General for presenting this bill in its current form. It represents a significant step forward, and I confirm that One Nation will be supporting the bill.