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

I present the second interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

When Labor leader Gough Whitlam introduced the Family Law Bill in 1974, its purpose was to eliminate, as best as possible, the high costs, delays and indignities experienced by so many divorced couples under the existing Matrimonial Causes Act. The bill was passed by parliament and became known as the Family Law Act 1975. For anyone who has been through the divorce court since, the Family Law Act is regarded as a failed piece of legislation that has destroyed too many lives, separated children from their parents and allowed lawyers to feed off the bones of families like vultures. The countless inquiries that have previously been conducted all agree the system does not meet the needs and expectations of many of those who go through it.

Over a period of 46 years, the Family Law Act has been amended more than 110 times, yet, rather than make it better each time, the changes have only made it more complicated. The current family law system has created a lottery of winners and losers. When someone loses their family, their children and everything they have worked so hard for, it brings about enormous suffering and an increase in suicide numbers among those people who are victims of the family law gamble. For the past 25 years, I have advocated for change to this unjust system.

The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System received over 1,450 confidential submissions. The evidence received was nothing short of heartbreaking. Many participants knew there was nothing the committee could do to help their past cases, but I want to thank those people, because their focus was to ensure that no other family or child would feel the same pain.

There was also a wealth of evidence given regarding domestic violence. Let me make it very clear: domestic violence is unacceptable and won't ever be tolerated. But this inquiry has convinced me domestic violence must be broken down into three categories. I have suggested that those categories include domestic harassment, domestic threat and domestic violence. As the definition of domestic violence stands, it carries unintended consequences for separated parents, blue card holders, police, military and the livelihoods of anyone requiring a gun licence. The current definition differs between states and territories, and simply stating that you are 'in fear' can constitute domestic or family violence. Such allegations are increasing adversarial hostilities in our courtrooms and fuelling a greater divide between non-custodial parents and their children. The committee is of the view the Council of Attorneys General should review the definitions of 'domestic violence' at Commonwealth, state and territory levels to bring about a uniform definition.

That brings me to another point made evident by inquiry participants: domestic violence allegations are increasingly used as a means to avoid the legal requirement for mediation. I'm very strong in my belief children have a right to see both parents unless a parent has demonstrated violent or abusive behaviour towards the child. Children must not be the collateral damage of marriage breakdowns. Parents must look past self-interest, pain and vindictiveness. I am fed up with feminists and organisations pushing their agenda that paints men as the only ones capable of domestic violence. I accept that men account for 75 per cent of this behaviour, but we cannot ignore the 25 per cent of domestic violence committed by women. The truth is domestic violence should not be tolerated by either sex.

The same applies to filicide. For those unaware of the term, it is the name given to the killing of a child by their parents. Again, there can be no excuse for heartless action taken by parents who murder their own innocent kids. The government's website relating to filicide statistics shows that, between 2001 and 2012, 76 per cent of the 284 children were killed by a parent. Forty-six per cent were by the custodial mother, 29 per cent by the custodial father, 14 per cent by a step-parent and 10 per cent by a non-custodian. We need to stop demonising men, because perpetrators come in the form of women and men.

The plight of grandparents mustn't be overlooked. The rights of the child must also be considered when addressing regular contact with extended families. I've recommended that grandparents be granted a mandatory five hours a month in personal contact, or at least contact via Skype or phone, with their grandchildren.

On the subject of legal cost, submissions throughout the whole inquiry were scathing of lawyers' fees. One case reported 5½ years in the court and a legal bill above $700,000. Another was $635,000. Another was $950,000. This is ridiculous. Many legal costs were around $50,000 to $100,000. The evidence stated a belief that lawyers are dragging cases out and stinging clients with exorbitant fees. When the New South Wales Bar Association was questioned they stated legal costs vary between $8,000 and $20,000 a day. My reply to them was, 'I'm on pretty good money, but I couldn't afford you.'

Disappointment fees were another contentious issue raised many times throughout the inquiry. This is the fee charged by some lawyers if they put the day or the time aside for the client and the case doesn't proceed. The committee recommends the prohibition of the use of disappointment fees in all family law matters. Also, the committee believes the courts should better case-manage and encourage the resolution of matters to avoid excessive legal costs. This includes a provision setting the maximum costs and disbursements at $50,000 or 10 per cent of the combined value of the parties' property and superannuation, whichever is the higher.

We also heard evidence of perjury, false allegations and a lack of avenues to fight it. The law states perjury is an offence, but only one case has been brought against a person who perjured themselves in family law. Former Chief Justice Diana Bryant believes people don't commit perjury. Instead, she is convinced witnesses believe what they are saying. On the other hand, retired judge of 14 years in the Parramatta family court David Collier said: 'Allegations of child sexual abuse are becoming increasingly invented by mothers to stop fathers from seeing their children. The worst are those mothers who direct false allegations of abuse against former partners.' Proven false allegations and statements must be dealt with. Allowing false allegations to go unchecked destroys our justice system. People must have faith in the courts.

Hence my recommendation and belief that the government should set up an independent judicial tribunal where people can take complaints of perjury and not wait and hope that the courts will report it to police. The panel could also take complaints about judges. In my office, I have had eight individual complaints and allegations about one judge. They have fallen on deaf ears, from the Chief Justice to the Attorney-General. Under the Australian Constitution, judges in the Federal Court are appointed until 70 years of age. No other profession is guaranteed a job for life. A judge can only be sacked by both houses of parliament. If the authorities won't deal with rogue judges then let the people have their say through the review tribunal.

Due to COVID-19, the committee was set back in its efforts to bring down recommendations on the child support system. We are hopeful to address this by 30 June. It is my opinion that the system is failing many parents. We must develop a fairer system. I believe it should be based on a standard 38-hour working week, not including overtime or a second job, and based on a person's net wage. People should have incentives to move forward in life and, in some cases, build new lives for themselves and their families. If the cost of raising children was better shared we would see fewer people withholding children from the other partner for financial gain through child support. I also believe more parents would work instead of opting for the dole to avoid paying child support.

I encourage all Australians to work out their differences without the heartache of family law proceedings. No-one wins, especially the children. Many have said they would not wish their experience on their worst enemy. Others have lost their lives by way of murder or their own hand, only to leave confused and grieving families and children behind. I am grateful for the opportunity to spearhead this inquiry. The committee's recommendations are far more than what I have mentioned here today, but in truth the Family Law Act has been band-aided too much and in my opinion it needs to be thrown out and replaced by a simpler act.