Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, Minister, despite your answer, in its submission to the committee inquiry on this bill, this is also what the Law Council of Australia said:

However, while it is broadly supportive of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Bill, subject to the below recommendations, the Law Council has received feedback from the legal profession that Schedule 2 remains complex and difficult to understand overall.

That's not exactly consistent with the evidence and the answer that you have just provided to me in relation to my question.

This is, without a doubt, one of the most important schedules in the bill. Why do I say that? Because, for anybody listening in and for anyone who is involved or has been involved in family law proceedings, you will know that this deals with the enforcement of parenting orders. This is an incredibly important part of the bill because there are consequences in relation to you breaching one. Failures to comply with parenting orders are often some of the most difficult and damaging parts.

So, despite what the minister has said, if this schedule is complex and difficult to understand for people whose job it is to run family law matters, seriously, what hope is there for an unrepresented litigant? What hope does an unrepresented litigant have when the ACT Bar Association itself says this in relation to the legislation that will pass this Senate tomorrow:

The ACT BA does not consider that the proposed changes would make the division easier to understand. They are, instead, a different complex mess.

So, to anybody listening in, guess what? Don't be fooled by the Attorney-General of Australia's submission to you that says, 'Hey, guess what, I'm simplifying the system and making it easier for you,' because that's not what the ACT Bar Association says. And in response to what the minister said to me about the evidence of the Law Council of Australia, let me just reiterate what the Law Council itself says:

… while it is broadly supportive of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Bill, subject to the below recommendations, the Law Council has received feedback from the legal profession that Schedule 2 remains complex and difficult to understand overall.

To any person out there who thought you might be taking a step forward in relation to the enforcement of parenting orders, I hate to tell you that you're not. You're probably, quite frankly, better off with the current system. At least people understand that it's a complete complex mess. All you're going to be doing now is trying to interpret another complex mess.

I'll now turn to schedule 3. Schedule 3 amends the definition of 'relative' as it applies to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child to the following:

… a person who, in accordance with the child's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture, is related to the child.

In your government's amendments you have added the words, '(including, but not limited to any kinship systems of that culture)'. Minister, on average, how many people are related to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child on Palm Island, according to that child's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander's culture, including by virtue of kinship systems?