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

I'll just put on the record that I haven't agreed to anything in great detail with the Attorney. But, after consultation with stakeholders, one of the areas that is lacking in the Family Court area, particularly for those that need legal aid, is that they often go to legal aid and get assistance up until the point when they're basically listed to go to court and, in those circumstances, what happens then is the person who's been supported, in essence, gets cut loose. They either have to appoint a lawyer or a barrister or self-represent. This is not in any way disparaging of any self-representing litigant. Often they are forced because they have no other alternative. So one of the things I have talked to the Attorney about is the ability to perhaps look at funding beyond the advice stage into the court stage, and that has direct application in respect of this bill, because one of the aims of this bill is to streamline processes. Again, with no criticism of any self-represented litigant, but they can tie up the court because of their lack of expertise. I know they're only doing it because they have to. This may be an avenue. As I said, the details are not sorted out, but the general principles are that we can perhaps extend this, and that's why it is a pilot. You will have heard the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General talk about a pilot to work out whether or not, by spending money in that area, we can actually assist people and, at the same time, reduce delays in the court.

I also want to respond briefly to Senator Watt in relation to the AAT. I want to confirm that my discussions with the government in relation to the AAT have mostly centred on my concerns about appointees. You might recall that on 1 August 2019 I moved a motion in the Senate relating to the AAT, calling on the federal government to urgently introduce a bill into the parliament to repeal section 7(3)(b) of the act, which is the section that allows attorneys on both sides to appoint people—some might call them mates; others might call non-legally qualified people—to the AAT. Do you know what? There will be silence in the chamber right now because both sides have made questionable appointments to the AAT. I put that to a vote, and I'm looking the Hansard now, looking at the Journals, and Senator Watt voted against that. Those are my most recent discussions in public and in this place in relation to the AAT. Sadly, I was advocating for a change, recommended by no less than Justice Callinan, who had done a review into the AAT, to remove that particular provision that allowed those sorts of appointees. I'm of the strong belief that, in order to be in the AAT, you really do need to be qualified, not because someone, one of your friends, has influence in this building. I just wanted to put that on the record. From memory, that's my last dealing with the AAT, with the government and with the Labor Party. Unfortunately, in both instances, I was not supported.