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

Unfortunately, for those listening in, it's 12 minutes past eight, and the government is guillotining debate on this at 8.30 pm tonight. So that means that, in relation to one of the most important bills to ever come before the Australian parliament, we do not have an appropriate time to actually interrogate it. I would have thought that—based on the questions that are being asked, the body of evidence that has been provided and the insufficient answers that are being given—anybody listening in would know we are not going to be doing justice to this bill.

The bad news for everybody listening in is this, though: this bill is going to pass the Australian Senate, and the very sensible and considered amendments that the coalition has put forward in a bipartisan manner will not get support. Unfortunately, the Australian people are about to find out what the impact of sloppy drafting and unintended consequences is.

At the outset of this debate, I said that there are very few things in the Commonwealth Attorney-General's portfolio that have a more direct impact on Australians than family law. Every year, thousands of Australians will find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation, and, in a small proportion of those cases, disputes will be decided by a judge in Australia's family law courts. As a nation, we should aim for a system that resolves those disputes as quickly and cleanly as possible. Regardless of the circumstances, if children are involved, we should at all times prioritise their best interests.

The coalition's track record on family law is one of sensible, careful reform that recognises problems and looks to build bipartisanship wherever possible. In 2003 we recognised that outcomes in the family law system were not meeting community expectations, and we worked for years to build the bipartisanship that led to the historic, landmark 2006 reforms. Those reforms changed the approach to family law to reduce litigation—that is a fact; I've read out the evidence—and improve outcomes across the family law system. In 2019 we recognised that the Family Court system had become inefficient and slow, burdened by a dual court system that was drawing out the pain of family law litigation for too many families. The courts merger under the former government, which finally went ahead in 2021, has been a stunningly successful project—the evidence shows this—that has drastically reduced the wait time for Australian families.

Again, on this side of the chamber we acknowledge that there are parts of the family law system that are in need of reform. We have been consistent in this. Throughout this debate we have said publicly and repeatedly that we recognise that many of the issues this bill seeks to address are problems in need of a solution. We have been constructive. We have followed the recommendations of bodies like the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Law Council of Australia and the extensive work of committees like the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. We have compromised where possible, and we are moving sensible amendments where we think we must, in one of the most difficult and sensitive areas of law reform. These amendments have been rejected by the Albanese government.

Sadly, I cannot say the same about this government's approach to the Family Law Amendment Bill. We do not agree with the solutions adopted in many places in this bill. It is not a bill that has been worked through over many years. It is not even a bill that has been subject to proper scrutiny. There are actually more schedules in the bill than there have been hours of committee inquiry. It is embarrassing. Even with the small amount of scrutiny that we have been able to give, it has become increasingly clear that the government consistently puts its ideological agenda over the best interest of Australian families. Let's face it: yesterday the government started falling apart after just 90 minutes. We come in here today and find that this debate is being guillotined.

It is worth recapping, though, the very many areas where there was a better way forward in relation to the Family Law Amendment Bill. In its changes to the parenting framework, we have the absurd situation of the Attorney deciding to remove every piece of guidance from the objects and principles, and we went through that in detail. By removing those provisions, the government sends a disturbing message: the parenting framework is no longer intended to achieve outcomes like parents cooperating in the care of their children.

On equal shared parental responsibility, we have talked through this tonight and I am not satisfied with the answers we have been given. In fact, it's the exact opposite. It has only confirmed what so many have said: a political and ideological approach of a left-wing Labor government. We have the Attorney-General of Australia ignoring the recommendations arriving from the years of careful reviews, which acknowledged that the drafting could be improved—which, as I said, we agree with—but repeated that the principle of equal shared parental responsibility is sound. Instead of the measured approach that adopts the work of independent and expert bodies, as I have outlined tonight, the Attorney-General has adopted the preferred ideological approach of three Labor backbenchers.

The changes to the enforcement of parenting orders have been criticised as replacing one complex mess with another complex mess, and the amendments to the definition of 'relative' and 'member of the family' for Indigenous children are fine in principle but beset with unintended consequences that have never been road-tested with communities on the ground.

The independent children's lawyers framework, for some baffling reason, requires an additional hearing into the conduct of the lawyer. What is this going to do? One, it's going to act as a disincentive. Why would you bother? Two, it adds time, cost and delay.

The changes to case management and procedure give no regard to the objective—such an important objective—of minimising acrimony in family law matters. As we know, the change to schedule 8 is a political decision, recommended by no-one. But we have had the minister here tonight telling us how the Attorney-General relied on different pieces of evidence. The change to schedule 8 is a political decision that is intended to give Mr Dreyfus a trigger to demerge the courts after the next election. This is despite the body of evidence that shows that the merger of the two courts has had positive benefits for families in Australia.

What is so sad is that these types of changes could have been fixed. We could have made the bill better. But, at every step, Labor has put ideology over the needs of Australian families. Australian families would do well to remember the arrogance and intransience of this government and, particularly, of this Attorney-General. As I said, there are parts of this package that we agree with, and there are other parts where it is pretty obvious that there are problems. It is not just the opposition saying there are problems; it is a body of evidence, experts, saying that there are problems. The government has been warned. When the family law system now produces delays, problems and sadness, quite frankly, that is going to be on the Attorney-General's head.

I will now briefly ask some final questions, in the last nine minutes. In fact, I might actually see if Senator Hanson wants to make any comments. There are nine minutes left, Senator Hanson. I've made my final statements, if you'd like to make any comments.