Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I'd like to say that I take it as given that every single person in this chamber simply wants to do their best to make sure that Australian families going through family law issues get the best outcomes for themselves and for their families. Secondly, I want to say that I deeply respect the legal practitioners who have raised concerns with respect to this bill and I've considered those concerns. However, upon reviewing the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that this is a necessary reform. I say that for six fundamental reasons.

Firstly, at the moment, family law matters are being dealt with by two courts: the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. That's the reality now. Those listening outside of this place to this debate, if they are listening to some of the contributions being made, would think that we have a system where all family law matters are being dealt with in the Family Court. They simply aren't. Nearly 90 per cent of matters dealing with family law are being dealt with in the Federal Circuit Court—not the Family Court, the Federal Circuit Court. That's a fact today. One of the fundamental aspects of the reform which is contained in this bill is to provide a single entry point, when claims are made or proceedings initiated with respect to family law matters, and that's important.

Secondly, it will provide a single set of rules. I cannot understand why we cannot have a single set of court rules dealing with family law matters. At the moment, we have the Federal Circuit Court Rules. Then we have the Family Law Rules. Why can't we have one single set of rules, on the basis that this will promote efficiency and decrease cost? It's common sense.

Thirdly, specialist family law skills will be maintained. They are maintained under this bill. That is not put in jeopardy by this legislation at all.

Fourthly, all of the services which are currently provided in the context of family law matters by the Family Court will continue to be provided and, in fact, are already provided in the Federal Circuit Court when it's dealing with family law matters.

Fifthly, there will be a more efficient appeal system. As Senator Patrick commented, I cannot see why, in the family law jurisdiction, judges who are hearing appeals cannot also hear matters at first instance. That occurs in the Federal Court. I see absolutely no reason why it should not happen in all family law matters. That reform will be brought about by this legislation.

My sixth reason is a really fundamental point in this legislation, and it deals with the legal profession. The bill will create a new obligation imposing a duty on parties to act consistently with the overarching purpose of facilitating:

… the just resolution of disputes according to law, and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible …

I want to read that again:

… facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law, and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible …

I was listening very carefully to Senator Watt's contribution to this debate, as I always do. I couldn't help but notice that, when he referred to the terms 'efficiency' and 'throughput', he did so with a measure of disdain, as though we shouldn't be totally concerned with throughput and efficiency. We need to be absolutely concerned with throughput and efficiency. We need family law matters to be dealt with as efficiently and as quickly as possible so that the families and family members can get on with their lives and not spend years in the system, chewing up family assets and going through a process to try to get resolution. The current system is simply not working for hundreds of thousands of Australians.

Two important amendments were made to the legislation in relation to specialisation and the formulation of court rules. Senator Patrick touched upon these two important amendments. I wholeheartedly support these amendments, and I congratulate the members in this place who made representations seeking those amendments. Firstly, there will be a minimum of 25 Division 1 judges. That's the division which constitutes a continuation of the Family Court. It will have to continue to have a minimum of 25 judges. It's not in the regulation; it's in the legislation. That's important. I support that amendment 100 per cent. Secondly, there will be a period of only 18 months, on a transition basis, for the Chief Justice to develop one set of court rules. Then, after that 18-month period, the position will revert to the usual situation with respect to input and decision-making across the judiciary. Again, that is as it should be. I support that amendment. I can see absolutely no reason why those opposite would oppose a situation where there is a merger of the Family Court with the Federal Circuit Court, which deals with nearly 90 per cent of family law matters. Then, on a transitional basis, the Chief Justice has an opportunity to develop one set of court rules to apply to the merged entity. To me, it's absolute common sense. I can't see the downside in terms of this reform. I've truly looked for it, but I find it extraordinarily difficult to find any downside whatsoever. I can find a downside if I go back to 2010, which those opposite, the Labor Party, proposed. I know that my friend Senator Watt wasn't in this place in 2010, but there are those opposite who were. That was an abolition of the Federal Circuit Court—an abolition of a court rather than a merger of two courts. Of course, that was a failed reform which got no currency, no traction and was not proceeded with. Those opposite should reflect quite carefully on the history of these matters before they attack this reform.

The second point I would like to make in relation to Senator Watt's contribution is that, as I stated, he talks about throughput with almost disdain: 'We don't need to consider the throughput of our court system.' The efficient delivery of justice to Australians seeking orders that can be legally enforced to allow their families to move ahead in their lives is absolutely crucial, and that is not occurring at the moment. We need to do something to correct the efficiency of the system. As I stated, the Family Court is not the only court that deals with family law matters; nearly 90 per cent of family law matters are dealt with in the Federal Circuit Court. This is not a case where we have only judges in the Family Court dealing with family law matters. It's been mentioned by previous speakers that close to 50 judges on the Federal Circuit Court have over 25 years experience in family law matters.