Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

First of all, I'll just go to some of the claims being made by the Labor Party. I want to put on the record that I've been involved with this bill for well over two years. I was involved in the Senate inquiry back in December 2018 and, since that time, I have been advocating to the Attorney-General for additional resources for South Australia. That's my job as a South Australian senator. So I want to make it very clear that the measures that have been announced by the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General today are measures that I had talked to and advocated to the Attorney-General two years ago. This is not something that was come to overnight. I, as a South Australian senator, will always advocate for South Australia, and I'll point out that there's nothing that stops Senator Watt from wandering over to the Attorney-General's office and advocating for the registry in Brisbane, if he chooses to. Unfortunately, he's bound by party lines. If you look at the Constitution—I know you know it, because you are a very learned lawyer, Senator Watt—you will note that in the Constitution we don't have parties. We don't have parties in the Constitution; we have senators that represent their states. What you may have done in failing to advocate for Queensland is put your party ahead of your state.

I proudly stand here and say that I have advocated for my state to deal with an issue that I know has caused difficulties for the community in South Australia—that being a lack of resources in South Australia. Please do not stand up in the chamber, Senator Watt, and suggest there is anything wrong with a South Australian senator advocating for resources for South Australia. I make it very, very clear: I made this arrangement with the Attorney-General in the last parliament; this is not an overnight thing. I've been advocating for this for well over two years, and I'm very grateful that the government has listened to my advocacy. I've presented my case, and the Attorney has listened and granted these resources. Try it. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Watt is a Queensland senator, but—as far as I'm aware, and he can stand up and tell me if I'm wrong—he hasn't gone to the Attorney and sat down with him and said: 'This is what I'd like for Brisbane. This is what I'd like to have happen in the Brisbane registry.' He doesn't, because he's got to comply with his party guidelines. So I just wanted to clarify that in relation to the advocacy that I've done for South Australia for some time.

I want to go to some issues. I might point out that, throughout this entire process, I've been engaging with Mr Dreyfus in the other place. They've been respectful conversations. I won't go to the nature of those conversations, but, in almost every conversation I've had with him, I've asked him what the alternative arrangements would be. You revealed tonight, Senator Watt, that you don't have alternative arrangements; you're going to make those arrangements public just prior to the next election. I wanted to see what the alternative might have been to the government's proposition, and the Labor Party would not tell me. In your speech on the second reading—I listened very carefully to it, Senator Watt—you advocated the New South Wales Bar Association's model. I want to go to page 6 of the document that I tabled. It talks about lack of resources in the courts across both governments, but it also says:

The Family Court can be a gold star institution once again but this requires reform in two key areas—

One of them is resourcing. The other is:

… structural improvement to unify the family law system by creating a single family court …

I ask the minister: isn't the effect of this bill to create a single court, a single point of entry, under what is now called the Federal Circuit and Family Law Court?