Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition welcomes the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill and it's the focus of my contribution. This bill builds on the work identified by the coalition in its time in government to better support families through challenging times by ensuring that family courts have the information they need when making orders in parenting matters. This change can actually make a difference to families who, unfortunately, through family breakdown, need to go through the family law system for an outcome, noting not all separations require court intervention. We know that parental separation affects 50,000 to 60,000 children in Australia each year. Separation, of itself, is painful and difficult, but when it involves children in dispute, that pain and complexity is elevated. The court system is complex and, yes, we can do better.

In 2020-21, there were nearly 50,000 divorce filings and nearly 22,000 interim order filings. Interim orders are temporary orders that are put in place until final orders are made by the court. In 2021, 50.3 per cent of family law applications related specifically to matters concerning children. The likelihood is that if a family matter has reached the courts, the relationship between the child's parents is already a difficult one.

As shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, I hear often of issues that impact child protection and family law. I'm pleased that this bill will address some of these issues. In the 2019-20 budget, the coalition provided funding to enable the co-location of state and territory family-safety officials in family courts to improve information sharing between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. In my many conversations with the family violence and child protection sector, with workers on the front line and with families, people often talk about the positive change that has occurred from the co-location of these services in the family law courts. The Australian Law Reform Commission handed down its report Family law for the future, and the coalition agreed with the recommendation to implement a national information-sharing framework.

Far too many family law disputes involve family violence, and we are all too aware of the devastating and long-term impact family violence can have. We know that an estimated 11 per cent of all Australian adults, or over two million people, have experienced violence from a partner. Children, unfortunately, are often less visible but, nonetheless, they also experience violence and trauma as witnesses and as victims. It is a massive problem that is growing at an alarming rate, and it exposes the need for even more responses that support those concerned about escalating behaviour and those who already use violence, to help them prevent escalation.

The National Framework to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-23 and its associated action plans must ensure prevention and early intervention are giving appropriate attention to men, women and children if the framework is to deliver on its target of ending violence within a generation. For that to happen, when family members identify their behaviours are not safe or when perpetrators reach out for help, help needs to be there for them. It must be timely, it must be responsive and it must be appropriate for their needs. These are sensitive issues, but we must make it easier for people to reach out. If we did that, it would mean prevention and early intervention that was timely and responsive would serve them better. Doing that better might also avoid the disruption, harm and trauma that come with experiencing violence, which in turn might just mean fewer people experiencing separation and/or heading to the courts.

Timely information is important. We know all too well that, when a family is off to the courts, the situation can change quickly as their family law matter progresses through the courts. Information that was put before the courts, say, six months ago might not be the information the court needs to make the best possible orders today. For instance, if family violence has escalated or other matters around child protection arise, the court needs to know that the situation has changed in order to make a good decision for the entire family. Single Mother Families Australia and the Council of Single Mothers and their Children told the committee looking into this legislation that, indeed, the lack of shared information has been an impediment to both good court processes and workable, fair parenting orders. The National Children's Commissioner hopes this bill will allow the Family Court to be better placed to consider comprehensively and holistically what is in the child's best interests, based on information relating to a child's individual needs and circumstances.

The national information-sharing framework was intended to guide the sharing of information between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. The timely sharing of critical information about the safety, welfare and wellbeing of families and children can indeed keep people safe. That work progressed in partnership with all jurisdictions through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General and its successor bodies. In November 2021, all jurisdictions endorsed the National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems. One of the features of the national framework was a shift away from subpoenas issued by the parties to a family law dispute. It had one very simple objective:

… to promote the safety and wellbeing of adults and children affected by family violence, child abuse and neglect, and support informed and appropriate decision-making in circumstances where there is, or may be, a risk of family violence, child abuse, or neglect.

The framework moved towards targeted requests for information and court initiated orders. Rather than relying on parties to issue subpoenas, the framework was intended to empower courts to access family safety information.

The national framework envisaged that a broad range of state and territory agencies would be information-sharing agencies. It expressly included state and territory child protection or child welfare departments, state and territory policing agencies and firearms registries. But it also envisaged flexibility to include other bodies into the future. This could mean that Corrections, Youth Justice and even non-government organisations such as specialist family violence services could participate. The former coalition government intended to give effect to a very simple principle: if a person's safety is a concern in court proceedings, all relevant information should be before the court to ensure decision-making is fully informed. Imagine that. Imagine a system where information-sharing was the norm, not the exception—a system that truly protected and cared for the parties involved in family disputes.

This bill achieves four main things. The first achievement of this bill is to introduce two different types of information-sharing orders: the short-form order, which is called an order for particulars, and an order to produce these documents or information. These provisions replace the existing, more limited information-sharing provision in the Family Law Act. Secondly, the bill allows the family law courts to obtain a broader range of information than is possible under existing information-sharing arrangements. This recognises that family violence and child abuse and neglect are complex and can take a number of different forms, and that they can impact children, even if not directed at them. The Family Court should not be unduly limited in the information it can take into account when making parenting orders. Thirdly, the bill expressly outlines legal exclusions to information-sharing, such as documents that are privileged or information that would endanger a person if disclosed. Fourthly, it restricts the issue of subpoenas without leave of the court. The bill says that if an information-sharing order requires the production of documents, a party can only issue a subpoena with leave. This is intended to reduce duplication and avoid the cost and time associated with subpoena processes.

The bill will rely heavily on regulations to prescribe state and territory bodies as information-sharing agencies, and those agencies can be directed to produce information. The regulations will also create rules around the production, storage, disclosure and disposal of information in line with the national information-sharing framework.

I acknowledge the sector contribution that has gone into informing the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill. A lot of their work has contributed to this bill. This bill does make sense. This bill is a welcome development.