Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to this cluster mess that we've got in front of us here. There is nothing more powerful than when you hear from senators who speak on an issue that they have either lived or breathed recently, or for many years. It is powerful and it is even more moving when they can share their experiences of the topic at hand. I myself have been lucky; I have not had to go to the Family Court. I have been a visitor at times to certain other courts. Senator Gallacher, that was all in a fair day's work, wasn't it, mate?

Before I talk about the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions), I want to touch on the statement of Senator Lambie. I was in here earlier this morning to hear Senator Lambie's passionate contribution; it was powerful. What got me was when Senator Lambie made one statement. She said, 'it's gone from a lawyer's picnic to a lawyer's banquet'. I just want to share a few stories here. I consider lawyers essential when you've got yourself into a bit of manure and you need to get out of it, but, to me, they are like insuring your car—no-one wants to pay it but, by crikey, you wished you had when you prang it.

I'm pleased to hear Senator Lines's one wasn't too bad, but, from the experiences that I've heard about and the conversations I have had with many people in the Family Court, I don't think I have heard of a happy divorce. What I have heard anecdotally is how drawn out the time is that it takes to get to the Family Court. A lot of it is created because, as Senator Lines said, there are resource issues—I get that. I'm not at all having a crack at the judges and the fine people who work in the courts, but I'm scathing of the lawyers' picnic, banquet—whatever you call it.

Let's not forget that a lot of the times there are children involved. I can see how it could be a very traumatic experience, even if it only went for a few weeks or a month, but these go on for years—years and years. I'm going to say this and I make no apology to the legal fraternity out there: by God, there are some parasites amongst you people. When I was running my trucking business, I wished I could charge what you people charge. You know what I would have given to be able to charge 30 bucks for a photocopy? Do you know what I would have given for the blood, sweat and tears that I lost over the years between Perth and the Northern Territory if I could charge by the minute? My goodness me! Not only that, I've heard stories from friends of mine who have gone through this. When they have made offers to their partners and, for whatever reason, their partners have said no—this is male and female—they then go to the parasitic legal firm that gives them false hope. I say 'false hope' because it is false hope when they stretch it out. They get in their ear and say, 'We can go for this,' or, 'We can go for that.' They say, 'We'll want more, so let's just get another hearing. By the way, we can't get there for eight months or 12 months. But we'll get there!' Then someone might not turn up and it's 'here we go again' for another four or five months—tick-tock, tick-tock. You can hear the dollars falling out of the poor devils' pockets into the pockets of the parasitic legal firms.

I experienced a lot of this when I was on the road. I might not see a mate for a month or so until we crossed each other's path, and then I'd say to them, 'How's your divorce going, mate?' They'd say: 'Oh, crikey. You're not going to believe this. It's cost me'—X amount of dollars. I'm not talking 10 grand, 20 grand or 30 grand but massive amounts of money for them to be dragged through the courts and for their partner to be dragged through the courts. A heck of a lot of dollars goes to the legal representatives of both sides, who have been leading these poor devils down the wrong path all this time. They're walking away with 100, 120 or 150 grand while many times the settlement has been what the first offer was. Who in the heck thinks it's a good idea just to give these people a licence to print money whenever they like?

I just had to get that out, because no-one in this land will convince me that I'm not on the side of the angels here. There is no-one in this parliament who will convince me that I may be a bit rough on the lawyers. I don't care who the lawyers are: it goes for the lot of you. Let me come back to the bill and the merger of the two courts. I've been listening to the contributions that have predominantly come from this side of the chamber—they're probably all from this side of the chamber at this stage. Where are the government senators on this? It would be lovely to know. This is the problem: when you get lawyers making laws in this building and they're not lawyers outside, where's the influence coming from? There are so many questions that haven't been answered.

The Attorney-General, another lawyer—fancy that!—did not undertake any meaningful consultation in relation to this proposal to effectively abolish the Family Court of Australia. He didn't undertake any consultation, yet there's a bill that will go through tonight. They've got the numbers; it's going to happen. There was no meaningful consultation with the legal profession or with family specialists. Crikey, you'd have to talk to them, wouldn't you? Counsellors didn't get consulted. Child psychologists, I'm told, didn't get consulted. Most senators have touched on the pain and the grief that families go through. And then when the kids are used as pawns—I don't even want to go down that path. It's painful enough for the people who have been through that; fortunately, I haven't. There was no consultation with users of the family law system, so Australian families didn't get a say in this. Other than the Chief Justice, the government did not even consult with the judges of the Family Court.

Senators, I ask you: how are we going to sit here tonight and watch a bill go through which, on the surface, appears to have been a good idea between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice. The Liberals' and Nationals' party rooms said: 'Yes, tick it off. No worries, mate. She'll be right. Let's go for it.' Anyway, I know those opposite are distracted because there are other things going on, as there are in this building all the time.

I'm told that no fewer than 110 stakeholders, ranging from the Law Council of Australia to women's legal services, community legal services, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services—as we heard before from Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy—child protection advocates and disability services from across Australia, have written to the Attorney-General to ask him to abandon this proposal. I'm well-informed that, sadly, they've been ignored. That doesn't surprise me, because this Attorney-General, Mr Porter, has form on ignoring people. How do I know? Because I was at his office with a heap of women who were seeking access to JobKeeper, because the government had shut down their industry. All they wanted to do, in a peaceful protest, was to present a document. They knocked on the door and asked to speak to Mr Porter. He wouldn't even meet with them. So I'm not surprised. He's got form. I'm still waiting for him to correct me. I know, because I was there.

These 110 individuals and organisations oppose this proposal because they believe that it will harm vulnerable children and families in need of specialist family law assistance. How are you going to sleep at night with reading just that one line? I'm shaking my head, hoping I'm going to wake up and it's a bad dream. It's going to increase, rather than decrease cost, time and stress for families and children in the family law system. So, Mr Porter, please explain to me how you think that's a great idea. You can't, because you got together with someone—and we're not quite sure who it is—and made up this decision without even consulting anyone. But you'll be right, mate. You'll tuck yourself in your safe office, you'll get your $400,000 a year and, with a bit of luck, you won't even have to talk to your staff if they put another door in the building for you.

These individuals also say that it will place further stresses on the Federal Circuit Court judges who are struggling under unsafe, unsustainable and unconscionable workloads. I touched on that. I couldn't imagine the workload of a judge. I know our workload, but I sympathise with the judges because of their workloads. They also say it will fail to address any of the fundamental problems plaguing the family law system, including the risk of family violence survivors falling through cracks. Surely that would be a red flag for the Attorney-General who doesn't like to talk to people. I would love to hear from the lawyers in the party. I would love to hear that those on the opposite side even just challenged their Attorney-General to find out what the hell is going on, as they quite rightly should. I would love to know why that hasn't happened—if it has happened, sadly, he doesn't even listen to his caucus.

The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System received no fewer than—those of us who have been around this place for a while and those who have just arrived, wait for this figure—1,700 submissions. I thought I had read the wrong figure; I thought someone had got an itchy finger and put on another zero. I can't remember how many inquiries I've been on or how many motions I've seen go through this place to send bills to committees. Apart from maybe the royal commission, I don't know whether we have ever seen as many submissions go to one inquiry. Gobsmacking! As a senator representing the great state of Western Australia, I would like to take the opportunity to read into the Hansard some of the concerns and reasonings from organisations and individuals in WA who made submissions, so we can look at this debate from their perspective. As we've heard, the ALRC released a landmark report on the family law system in 2019, which, sadly, this government has ignored. The Family Law Practitioners' Association of Western Australia, the principal representative body of Western Australian lawyers practising in the area of family law, in their submission to the inquiry on Australia's family law system said they were:

… concerned this inquiry is being conducted in circumstances where the Government is yet to address the recommendations of the recent ALRC report, 'Family Law for the Future – An Inquiry into the System'.

They also said that they hoped that their submission:

… directs the Committee's attention to some of the relevant recommendations of the ALRC Report …

Community Legal Western Australia, headed by my former colleague and member for Hasluck, Sharryn Jackson, in its submission made a stand-alone recommendation which relates to exactly what this bill is trying to achieve. Community Legal WA recommended:

Any proposal to merge the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court of WA be abandoned, with any discussion of future amendment to structural arrangements based upon the recommendations of the ALRC.

Again, this is the very ALRC that was tasked by this government to produce a report to look into the family law system in Australia. The ALRC produced that report, all 583 pages of it with 60 recommendations, and the government has still ignored it. I know it might take Mr Porter a lot longer to read 583 pages—I understand that—but wouldn't you think he would at least have the decency to respond when you ask people to send recommendations or write reports?

The very first Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Elizabeth Evatt, AC, has said:

The proposed merger of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court (FCC) will lead to undesirable outcomes for children and families.

For any senator or any member of the House of Representatives in this nation, surely that would be the first thing you look at and say, 'Why?' Why would I go to my caucus room and play Geppetto and get them all dancing up and down while I'm pulling the strings telling them what a great thing it is, even though I'm not answering anyone and I'm not going to tell them what I'm going to do? Who would think that you could pass a bill, then pull the guillotine on it if you're running out of time, and not think if it's going to harm children and families? Who in their right mind will wake up in the morning and think, 'Geez, I might pass a bill, and with a bit of luck I'll be able to harm some children and a family'?

If I was the A-G, I would be defending my stance on this. I would be busting down every door to get into every place I could to say, 'You're wrong, and these are the reasons you're wrong.' But, typical of Mr Porter, he's the phantom—puff! And he disappears in a puff of dust: 'God almighty, there are people at my door.'

I'm sorry, I've just run out of time. We're rejecting the bill.