Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the second interim report from the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System.

The Greens opposed this inquiry from the outset, not because we don't acknowledge that there are problems in the family law system but because these problems have been the subject of numerous comprehensive inquiries in the past and no action has yet been taken to act on or implement any of those reforms. This politically motivated inquiry sought to relitigate those issues. It sought to delay implementation of previous recommendations. It emboldened—in my view—domestic violence offenders. And it retraumatised victims-survivors and their children. Experts and service providers opposed this inquiry. They noted that survivors would not feel safe, given the predetermined views expressed by the deputy chair and tacitly supported by the government. The Law Council withdrew its initial support for the inquiry, following early hearings. The then president, Pauline Wright, said:

We are now concerned the inquiry is being used for political purposes to undermine domestic violence claims made by women and thereby putting vulnerable families at further risk by inciting hatred and excusing domestic violence.

The government should have prioritised evidence based strategies to make family law safer for victims and survivors of family violence rather than allowing this compromised inquiry to proceed.

I want to place on record our strong disagreement with recommendation 12 of the committee report, regarding perjury. The idea that women routinely weaponise the family law system against their ex-partners and concoct or exaggerate domestic and family violence was the explicit basis on which this inquiry was formed. The tacit acceptance of this idea by the government is incredibly dangerous. It sends a message to victims-survivors that they won't be believed. It emboldens abusers and it can lead women to agree to inappropriate parenting arrangements to avoid the risk and the trauma of a court hearing. Many submissions, and the bulk of relevant expert evidence to this committee, contradicted the prevalence of false allegations in family law proceedings and noted that women often under-report violence because of concerns that disclosures of violence will disadvantage their case and jeopardise the safety of their children. No to Violence, an organisation focused on men's behaviour change, said to the committee:

There is an often-broadcast belief that mothers in the family law court fabricate allegations of family violence to help their family law cases. However, the evidence shows that this is not the case and that women are disinclined to raise family violence allegations due to a fear of not being believed. The research shows that false allegations are much rarer than the issue of victim survivors not reporting abuse and the minimisation and denial of abuse by men who use violence.

The Queensland Law Society held a similar view. So rather than supporting the need for tougher responses to perjury, as we see from the deputy chair and from the committee report, these observations demonstrate the importance of ensuring that family law matters are actually heard by experienced, specialised judicial officers with actual understanding and training in the dynamics of family violence.

Of course, this specialisation is what's at risk with the now-passed-through-this-chamber merger of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. We strongly opposed that merger, which is essentially just an abolition of the specialist Family Court. We heard evidence during the inquiry that increased efficiencies between the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court were already being achieved through administrative processes and practices, such as harmonising the rules, without the need for a full merger. In fact, the formal merger of the courts would simply divert resources from the implementation of those efficiency practices and other reforms recommended by previous inquiries. But, crucially, the merger will also reduce specialisation in a court that relies on specialist expertise to navigate complex matters and to ensure the safety of children. While a number of the judges on the Federal Circuit Court have some family law experience, they don't have the detailed expertise, the jurisprudential experience or family violence training to preside over complex family law matters. That's why the first recommendation in our additional comments to this report is that the merger be unwound. We will continue to oppose that merger.

Funding and resources were the next crucial issue, which I think we all knew about before this inquiry was even begun—and government still seems to wilfully not listen. The significant delays experienced in the Family Court system are due to the complexity and prevalence of family violence matters in the Family Court, and the under-resourcing and understaffing of those courts. Review after review has confirmed that the entire family law ecosystem is overstretched and under-resourced. This was echoed in so many submissions and evidence to this inquiry.

I want to note that we are broadly supportive of the committee report's recommendation for more registrars, but it is crucial that those registrars have the necessary family violence training and practical experience to identify risks and that the resources for additional registrars not come at the expense of specialist judicial appointments. Many family law matters simply can't be resolved in a way that ensures the safety of children without a judicial hearing. There are limits to what a registrar can achieve.

We strongly support the appointment of more Family Court judges and a clear process to quickly fill future vacancies with appropriately qualified judges, to maintain the specialist expertise needed for these complex family law matters. Judicial resources should be directed to registries based on need, not based on special deals with the crossbench to pass a law that will result in reduced access to justice for many women and children. We acknowledge that there are currently nine vacancies and more than 10 additional upcoming retirements, so the government needs to get its skates on.

On the question of funding, we need to ensure that legal aid and community legal centres are properly funded. We welcome a small amount of increased funding through the National Legal Assistance Partnership, but more and secure funding is essential to meet existing demand, let alone predicted demand. We need adequate resources for family consultants, report writers and independent children's lawyers to support the court's work in finalising matters, and we need significant capital investment in the courts so that they have the appropriate infrastructure—hearing rooms, meeting rooms, staff spaces—to not only meet demand but also ensure there is sufficient space for safety.

We made a number of recommendations calling for the urgent appointment of specialist family law judges to fill current vacancies, and to add five more. We need extra judicial capacity. We want those future vacancies to be filled in a timely matter. We recommended that there be additional resources for the appointment and retention of experienced registrars, family consultants and other staff to provide culturally safe, wraparound, responsive support to parties in the court. We called for at least $310 million a year in funding for legal assistance; that is what the Law Council has said we need in order to make up for the cuts that have been brought down on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and other community legal centres. We're calling for $12 billion over 12 years—that is $1 billion a year—under the upcoming national action plan to reduce violence against women and their children, to fund proper prevention programs and to fully fund frontline response services.

We particularly support the recommendations in the committee report about accreditation and ongoing professional development for family law professionals, for judges, for registrars, for family consultants and for report writers, particularly in regard to family law report writers; there needs to be decent accreditation and oversight and ongoing training, given the influential role they play in the system, the delivery of justice and keeping children safe.

Just one final point: we support the committee recommendation for a harmonised definition of 'domestic and family violence', and that must have regard to the growing understanding that coercive control and coercive behaviour—we should have that harmonised approach nationally. But we strongly oppose the proposal not by the committee, thankfully, but by Senator Hanson that domestic violence somehow be categorised into levels of seriousness. The evidence shows that coercive control which is nonphysical violence leads most likely to lethal outcomes more so than physical violence. We strongly reject that assertion. Thank goodness this thing is finished. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.