Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 on behalf of the opposition. At the outset, I wish to indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill, but we have some concerns about certain elements. We have been in discussion with the government about potential amendments to ameliorate the opposition's concerns.

The majority of this bill makes a number of minor, technical and uncontroversial amendments relating to civil justice. The bill amends the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Archives Act 1983, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Domicile Act 1982, the Evidence Act 1995, the Family Law Act 1975, International Arbitration Act 1974, Legislation Act 2003, Marriage Act 1961 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

The bill, which as you can see is very complex, was carefully scrutinised by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee which reported on 10 May 2017. The committee received six submissions which commented on the proposed changes to five of these acts, and I will discuss these comments in more detail. The committee received no comments on the remainder of the bill which is entirely non-controversial.

The committee made four substantive recommendations for improvements to the bill, subject to which the committee recommended that the bill be passed. Labor is pleased that the government is implementing two of the recommendations of the committee to make improvements to the bill. We will continue to discuss with the government two other recommended amendments to the bill that we believe are important.

The first recommendation of the committee that the government has implemented relates to amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. Schedule 3 of the bill would make an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act. Some submitters raised concerns about these amendments. The Law Council of Australia noted that the proposed amendments do not provide jurisdiction to the Family Court in bankruptcy in circumstances where a person has been discharged from bankruptcy, albeit that their estate remains vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. To remedy this, the Law Council recommended that the definition of 'bankrupt' and 'bankrupt party to a marriage' be clarified. The committee agreed with the Law Council and recommended the bill be amended. Labor is pleased that the government has accepted the Law Council's advice and acted on the recommendation of the committee by clarifying that a bankrupt 'includes a reference to a person who has been discharged from bankruptcy, and whose property remains vested in the bankruptcy trustee under the Bankruptcy Act'.

The second recommendation of the committee that the government has implemented relates to the amendments to the Family Law Act. This bill makes a significant change to Australia's response to international parental child abduction, clarifies the range of persons who may perform the powers of the registry managers in the Family Court or any other court and improves the consistency of financial and other provisions for de facto and married couples. The bill contains provisions that would create new offences regarding 'retaining a child outside Australia' in the Family Law Act. The explanatory memorandum notes that these provisions would remedy a gap in the existing legislation.

The Australian Human Rights Commission raised their concerns that there are circumstances where it would be inappropriate to expose parents or others to criminal sanction for taking, sending or retaining a child outside Australia—for instance, where there is evidence that, in some cases, children are taken or retained abroad by parents fleeing family violence. An analysis of return and access applications under the Hague convention revealed that 70 per cent of child abductors were women and the most common reason for the abduction was fleeing from domestic violence. The committee formed the view that the bill should be amended to include a defence of 'fleeing from family violence', to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful transfer and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances of family violence. Labor is pleased again that the government has accepted this recommendation of the committee. Labor is firmly committed to responding to family violence and supporting measures that reduce gender inequality. That is why we believe in supporting legislative reform to better deal with family violence, as well as measures to improve the capacity of the judicial system to deal with family violence. This amendment will ensure that victims of family violence who take their children overseas with them to flee the abuser will not be committing an offence.

The Australian Human Rights Commission also expressed their concern that 'consent' is not a defence for the existing international child abduction offences in the Family Law Act or the proposed new offence of retaining a child overseas. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to include a defence of consent, to ensure that the existing and proposed offences do not apply where oral or another form of consent has been provided. Labor believes that this is a worthy recommendation because it acknowledges the practical reality of parenting and relationships in Australia and the agreements that might be reached between parents orally or can be inferred from a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation. We will continue to discuss this amendment with the government, to ensure that the proposed offence will not criminalise conduct from parents acting with the oral consent of the other parent.

The Family Law Act currently provides that a person who is authorised by the court to arrest another person has powers related to the use of reasonable force in making the arrest and powers of entry and search for the purposes of arresting persons. In its submission, the Attorney-General's Department noted that the current arrest powers in the Family Law Act are subject to fewer limits than the arrest provisions available to the other federal courts, are broader than the arrest powers available to police officers in the Crimes Act 1914 and lack limits and safeguards. This bill authorises additional persons to make arrests under the Family Law Act, including a marshal, deputy marshal, sheriff or deputy sheriff, police officer or the Australian Border Force commissioner.

The bill also provides that the power to arrest another person is conferred on 'an APS employee' in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The scrutiny committee considered this bill and asked whether the bill can be amended to require a certain level of relevant training be undertaken by those APS employees authorised to exercise these coercive powers. The Australian Human Rights Commission shared the scrutiny committee's concern. On this basis, the committee urged the government to amend the bill to limit the delegation of arrest powers so that they only apply to employees of the Australian Border Force who have received appropriate training. This would ensure that coercive powers are only being delegated to appropriate persons. Labor is pleased that the government has proposed amendments to the bill which limit the APS employees authorised to exercise these powers to only employees of the Australian Border Force. However, the amendment does not specify that the powers will only be delegated to those who have received appropriate training. That is why Labor will continue also to discuss with the government an amendment to specify that the arrest powers may only be used by the Australian Border Force officers who have received appropriate training.

The bill also repeals section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which exempts discrimination against women in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in Australian Defence Force positions involving combat duties. Labor fully supports this change, which removes gender restrictions from combat roles and is an important step towards equal opportunity for women.

Also, this piece of legislation makes some changes to the Archives Act 1983. As I am currently a parliamentary representative on the Archives Committee, I'm very pleased to know that this particular segment of the bill will go through as we support it. It's considered non-controversial, and I know how long Archives have been waiting for this to come through. That was my ad to the process.

To conclude, Labor are broadly supportive of the bill but will continue to discuss with the government amendments that we believe would improve its operation.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, to which this bill was referred by the Senate. The committee did investigate the bill and made certain recommendations. These are numerated in the second reading speech and the minister will no doubt discuss them as well, and Senator Moore has just given a fair summary of the committee's report. I'm pleased to say that the report of the committee was a unanimous report. There were no additional comments or dissenting reports.

I do thank members of the committee, who include the deputy chair, Senator Pratt; Senator Fawcett; Senator McKim; Senator Hume; and Senator Watt. I want to thank the committee secretariat: Toni Matulick and the Senior Research Officer and Administrative Officer, Nicholas Craft and Jo-Anne Holmes respectively, who assisted the committee in coming to the conclusions that it did. I also want to thank all of the submitters. There were six submissions made in response to the committee's advertising for submissions. These were from the Australian Human Rights Commission; the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant; the Law Council of Australia; Ms Rona Goold; the Attorney-General's Department; and the Law Society of New South Wales.

I think this exercise indicates that Senate committees, when they work together collegiately and with a mind to what is best for Australia, can work in a way that brings in a unanimous report, which, to my understanding, the government has actioned in the bill before the Senate that we're dealing with today.

Recommendation 1, which was a recommendation that the bill be amended to reflect the recommendation of the Law Council in relation to the proposed bankruptcy amendments, has been dealt with by the government in clauses 1 and 2 of the bill before the Senate at the moment.

The second recommendation, that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act to include a defence of 'fleeing from family violence' to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances of family violence, is dealt with in paragraph 6 of the bill as an amendment at the end of section 65Y.

Recommendation 3, that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act to include a defence of consent to ensure that existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances where a written consent has not been given but where there is an oral consent in the form of a consent, is referred to in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the bill before the chamber.

Recommendation 4, which the committee recommended be amended to amend the Family Law Act to limit arrest powers and use of force so that they apply only to employees of the Australian Border Force that have received appropriate training—Senator Moore's already mentioned that. The bill before us, in paragraph 5, makes the provision to limit that to those who are in the Australian Border Force. Senator Moore mentions that the comment about having received appropriate training is not there. I'll leave that to the minister, but my understanding is that all relevant Australian Border Force people who are in a position to make arrests do, of course, receive appropriate training, and adding that to the bill would only be superfluous verbiage. But I suspect the minister may explain that further.

Suffice it to say that I do have great confidence in the Australian Border Force. They have done a wonderful job in recent years. They were in very difficult circumstances during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd term of government, where there were literally thousands—indeed tens of thousands—of illegal maritime arrivals coming across the border, putting a huge strain not only on the Border Force but also on departmental officials. I've often had occasion, in my committee and particularly in estimates, to thank officers of the Department of Immigration—the Border Force people or whatever name they came under at a particular point in time—for the work they've done under very stressful and difficult conditions at a time when they were simply overwhelmed by the thousands and thousands of illegal maritime arrivals who chose to enter our country illegally, jumping the queue over others. The Border Force departmental officials did a wonderful job at the time and continue to do a great job.

This shows how committees of the Senate, when they're working constructively together, can get a unanimous report, which the government then deals with in a very serious manner. I'm pleased that all of the committee's recommendations have been accepted by the government. As a result of that, the legislation will be better than it would've been, without in any way detracting from the government's intention in its amendments to this particular legislation. I recommend to the Senate that the bill be passed.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which, as senators would know, is an omnibus bill that seeks to amend 10 pieces of legislation administered by the Attorney-General and make consequential amendments to nine acts administered within other portfolios. The majority of amendments in this legislation are largely or predominantly technical in nature; however, some amendments, particularly in relation to the Family Law Act 1975 and the Bankruptcy Act 1966, have been of concern to stakeholders.

As we heard from the previous speaker, the bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which reported halfway through last year, in May. The committee made five recommendations, four of which proposed additional amendments to the bill: firstly, to reflect the recommendation of the Law Council in relation to the proposed bankruptcy amendments; secondly, to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to include a defence of fleeing from family violence to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances where there is family violence; thirdly, to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to include a defence of consent to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances where written consent has not been given but where there is oral consent or some other form of consent; and, fourthly, to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to limit arrest powers and use of force so that they apply only to employees of the Australian Border Force who have received appropriate training. These amendments, as the Greens understand it, are being moved by the government and would implement the recommendations made by the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs. I can indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting the amendments.

In relation, briefly, to the amendment put forward by Senator Leyonhjelm, it is fair to say that those issues were comprehensively examined during the debate at the end of last year on marriage equality. That amendment will be opposed by the Australian Greens.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In making a brief contribution, I want to put on the record my deep concern about this bill that allows women in combat roles in our military. I understand that there are many people who are going to have a different view about this and that this is couched as a striving for equality. But I believe that this striving for equality is more of a political move with the top brass in the military, of whom I note there are some in this chamber—including you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, and you have my unending respect for your service to our country. But it's about blurring the lines between political correctness and sound tactics in the name of what I think is social justice.

The Daily Telegraph last year reported something that highlights the dangers, if I can put it like that, behind this move to push for females into combat roles in the armed forces. It said:

Of 70 women who applied for the Infantry Corps, just 40 progressed to training. Of those 40, just 11 have graduated, seven into the Regular Army. That's A drop out rate about four times that of our male soldiers.

Anecdotally, what you hear is that women are "breaking" during recruit training, which includes running up hills carrying 40-60kg packs, the typical load for Afghanistan, and casualty rescue exercises dragging an 80kg mannequin 50m.

Officially, says Defence media: "women moving through infantry training are more likely to be injured than their male counterparts." … US Marine Corps studies show a cumulative injury incidence of 80 per cent for females in basic training.

How does "breaking" women advance feminism? More to the point, how does it enhance our war-fighting capability?

That is from The Daily Telegraph. The same newspaper last year wrote:

Five years after the former Army chief and former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick launched a social engineering experiment aimed at stamping out the male "Anglo Saxon" warrior culture, the troops are unimpressed.

"People just think it's crap," said one young officer. To overcome such common sense thinking, diversity experts have designed a $30,000 program effectively to brainwash young leaders in the Army to become "champions of change" and stamp out the "white Anglo-Saxon male" culture which no longer has a place in the military.

I'm interested to know, from the section of the act immediately before the section that this amendment intends to remove, how this is lawful? It is lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sex, gender or identity by excluding persons from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of the competitor is relevant. Let me get that point across: where stamina, strength or physique of competitors is relevant, you are allowed to discriminate and exclude individuals, for sport. But we are not allowed to do that in our armed forces. It's okay to say, 'Yes, women should play three sets of a grand slam tennis match instead of, potentially, five sets.' Or that, 'AFL women players are not to be in the AFL draft because they're women.' It's okay to say, 'You can't have a transgender person trying to get into the AFL women's competition, because physically they are a male.' The list goes on and on and on, because there is deemed to be an unfair advantage.

So, I wonder why we are imposing lower standards in order to achieve this goal of equality that is going to put women, potentially, at the front line of war and combat. In the US, there are a number of female officers who have come out strongly against women in frontline combat roles. Captain Lauren Serrano said:

Interestingly, most of the people who want to incorporate women into—

combat roles—

are civilians or young, inexperienced Marines. Most of the more seasoned Marines with whom I have spoken tend to oppose the idea of women in—

frontline combat.

Colonel Anne Weinberg admits:

there’s anecdotal evidence that female Marines, who make up 7 percent of the force, aren’t rushing to serve in ground combat … Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion.

I don't mind saying that I have spoken to serving men and women in the Australian Defence Force and also in the US Army, and I haven't found more than one or two who have supported women in frontline combat roles. And I have spoken to both men and women.

I recognise that this is contentious, as are most things I say in this place. Senator Moore, I can see you champing at the bit to disagree, but I'd say this: war is not a fair business; adversaries attempt to gain an advantage over their enemies by any means possible. Enemies do not necessarily abide by their opponent's moral standards or rules of engagement. In today's world, we know there are many gory and violent war tactics that are considered immoral, archaic and banned by international law or the Geneva Convention, but our enemies do not always adhere to the Geneva Convention or to international law. Our adversaries still want to give themselves the greatest advantage possible in order to win. We do too, and that means ensuring the combat units are the strongest, most powerful, best trained and most prepared physically and mentally to fight and to win. On that argument alone, I don't believe incorporating women into combat units is in the best interests of Australian national security.

In concluding, there are at least three people in this chamber right now who are far, far better qualified to make these assessments about this circumstance than me, and that includes you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, and Senator Molan and Senator Fawcett. But I do want to put on the record that I have deep concerns about this and what the implications may be, notwithstanding the fact that I stand alone right now.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will touch briefly on the issues raised by Senator Bernardi, but only towards the end of my contribution on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. This bill is an omnibus bill which would amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Archives Act 1983, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Domicile Act 1982, the Evidence Act 1995, the Family Law Act 1975, the International Arbitration Act 1973, the Legislation Act 2003, the Marriage Act 1961, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. As other speakers have highlighted, the bill would make minor and technical amendments to modernise, simplify and clarify the legislation and to repeal redundant provisions. The combined effect of these amendments would be to improve the efficiency and operation of the civil justice system.

We've had some discussion here in this chamber today about small government and the need, where possible, to reduce the amount of government legislation—particularly where it overlaps or it causes unnecessary procedures. One of the early roles of the coalition government when we came into office was actually to set up groups specifically to look at deregulation, to find ways that we could achieve cost savings not only for the public service but particularly for business and people who needed to comply with government legislation. They had great success going through and finding redundant legislation or legislation that could be improved to reduce costs. In the very first tranche of that they anticipated savings of some $700 million. I think that was the figure that was used on the basis of that reduction. So this has been part of a program that, whilst it appears somewhat dry, is actually an important program to make government smaller and leaner and to allow people in our community to get on and do what they do well.

I will step through each of the elements of this bill. The amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003 would clarify the validity of ministerial actions and the operational provisions about the management of compilations prepared for the Federal Register of Legislation. Amendments to the Archives Act would provide the National Archives of Australia with an enhanced ability to manage the high volumes of applications requesting access to records and would make other, minor technical amendments. That is certainly one of the factors that we see in a number of areas of our modern life. As the digital age has come along, the expectations of people to be able to access records, whether they be in archives or elsewhere, has increased exponentially, and we need to have both a legislative basis and systems in place to enable people who are the custodians or caretakers of repositories of information, whether that be archives or other digital records, to manage high workload in that area.

The amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 will clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act. Family law is an area where, again, this government is seeking to bring about reform. Both sides of politics over the years since I started my career in politics in the other place in 2004 have sought to make family law more workable for the tens of thousands of families around Australia who have been caught up when family relationships break down. There are many areas where, in the interaction between various areas of law, particularly the conduct of courts and the conduct of people who are in the legal system, we see that the costs involved, both financial and emotional, mean that anything we can do to make that system simpler and more transparent is a good thing. I note that one of Senator Brandis's decisions late in his term as Attorney-General was, in fact, to launch a review of the actual family law itself. It's been some time since the foundational documents have been considered, so the government will be looking in a holistic way to see how we can make that system better.

The amendments to the Domicile Act 1982 amend the act so it applies to territories currently specified. The Evidence Act will have updated presumptions about when post articles sent by prepaid post are received, and that accords with changes with Australia Post's delivery time.

Changes to the Family Law Act 1975 would strengthen Australia's response to international parental child abduction, clarify the range of persons who may discharge the powers of registry managers in the Family Court of Australia and improve the consistency of the application of provisions for de facto and married couples. It would update the arrest, entry and search powers under the act and add additional safeguards to the exercise of those powers. We have seen even in recent years international examples where children have been abducted and the kinds of lengths that parents will go to, on one hand, to seek to regain access to their children, particularly to try and bring them back here to Australia, and, unfortunately, on the other hand, to make sure that the other party doesn't get access to the children. That whole area where it intersects with international law and different legal systems is something that is complex, and any improvement is definitely welcome.

The amendments to the International Arbitration Act 1974 specify expressly the meaning of 'competent court' for the purpose of model law, clarify procedural requirements for the enforcement of an arbitral award, modernise provisions governing arbitrators' powers to award costs in international commercial arbitrations, and clarify the application of confidentiality provisions to arbitration subject to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

The final two areas are amendments to the Marriage Act 1961, which remove some outdated concepts and ensure consistency with the Family Law Act in relation to parental consent for the marriage of minors. Technical amendments of minor policy significance will also be made to improve the operation of the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program. Some of these will obviously need to be interfaced with the changes to the celebrants categories that were passed last year.

For those who don't recall, the Senate select committee that looked at marriage celebrants found over a year ago now—in fact we reported about this time a year ago—that people had assumed there were just civil celebrants. In actual fact there are a number of different categories of celebrants. That Senate select committee made the recommendation to create the new category of 'religious marriage celebrants' for those people who were the ministers of small congregationally governed churches who weren't recognised as a denomination by the Attorney-General's Department. A new category was created to allow those people to have the same religious freedom protections that were provided to ministers of religion, given that, in practice, those people only fell within the civil celebrant category because they weren't recognised by the Attorney-General's Department even though, for all intents and purposes, they were operating within the guidelines and strictures of their particular faith group. So these changes would need to be cognisant of the amendments that were made last year.

Finally, there are the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which Senator Bernardi referred to, which remove the ability for women to be discriminated against in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in Australian Defence Force positions involving combat duties. That's an interesting discussion, and it is controversial. But I would note, for those who have missed this point, that around half of Australia's population is made of men and around half is made of women, and if you limit the ability of one-half of your population to do a certain role then you potentially limit the efficacy of your force.

What we have seen during my 20-odd years in the full-time military and another three years in the active Reserve as a pilot—I was involved with the Army Aviation Corps—is that we have gone from being what was essentially called a service corps to an arms corps. I note that Senator Molan is also a badged Army pilot, so I'm very pleased to have in this chamber two of us who have worn the blue beret and the Army aviator's badge. Senator Molan, welcome.

An arms corps has, along with armour, infantry and artillery, the sorts of roles that people traditionally associate with combat or fighting. Army Aviation Corps also became an arms corps, but we have a number of women—and that number of women has increased—who are pilots, loadmasters, engineers and other professions within the world of aviation. They have operated both in Australia and overseas on operational deployments, and the reports that I have received indicate that they, to the same or greater or lesser extent as men, have operated effectively in those roles. Whether that equates to somebody with a rifle and a bayonet, I will leave others to argue.

I come back to the basic premise, which I apply to politics and any sphere of life: if somebody is willing and capable, without lowering the standards, and able to meet the competence requirements then I don't have a problem. But I do have a problem with quotas or programs that are specifically aimed at trying to raise one particular part of our population, if it means that the standards that have been recognised for some time as being required to do the job are lowered. In that regard, I agree with Senator Bernardi that if political correctness drives us to bring in standards that are different just to achieve a quota, that is wrong ethically and it's wrong in terms of the management of a defence force. However, if somebody is capable, willing and able to do the task to the required standard with the same amount of training and support that any other person has, then I don't think their gender necessarily should disqualify them.

My experience in the aviation world—after flying specifically for the Army for a number of years and still as an Army pilot—is that I went to work for the Royal Australian Air Force at the Aircraft Research and Development Unit. We had flight test engineers as well as experimental test pilots who were women. It would be fair to say that they did the job as well as any of the men. In fact, in a couple of cases, I could say they were even more diligent, because they recognised that they had some things to prove. They were competent in their role and were fantastic contributors to the unit and its outcomes. I do note also that in 2006, when I was in the north Arabian Gulf on board one of the American command ships, a legal officer, who was giving direction and guidance to the admirals who were running the war effort, was a young woman from the Royal Australian Navy. Women are going to sea with increasing regulatory in a range of roles from seamen officers to legal or medical specialists and providing services in that environment which could be considered a combat environment, and doing it very well.

I will conclude that section with the comment, again, that if they are willing to do it, if they can do it without any special conditions in terms of lowering of the standards and the same degree of support, I think that is something that we should be open to, whilst agreeing with Senator Bernardi that politically-correct-driven programs are not necessarily beneficial for the organisation.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee did consider this piece of legislation. I was a member of that committee with my colleague Senator Macdonald, who was the chair. We considered this and reported in May of 2017, and we came up with five recommendations on the basis of the inquiry and the half-a- dozen or so submissions that we had received. The first recommendation was that the bill be amended to reflect the recommendation of the Law Council in relation to proposed bankruptcy amendments. The second was that the committee recommends that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act of 1975 to include a defence of fleeing from family violence, to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances of family violence.

Having made that recommendation, I recognise the fact that this is a very vexed issue, with claims being made around violence, some of which are substantiated. People who perpetrate that should be ashamed of their actions and the impact they have, the trauma they cause, particularly to children, if they're involved in that situation. But we also see evidence where there are vexatious claims made in order to gain standing in legal proceedings. Senator Brandis was doing a review of family law, and this is an area where I trust that the experts from the legal community and others who have input into that review will help us find a model of legal intervention in these dreadful cases whereby we can bring justice to those who need it quickly but we can also protect those who have suffered from vexatious claims in this area of domestic violence.

The third recommendation was that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act of 1975 to include a defence of consent to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not imply in circumstances where written consent has not been given but where there is oral consent or another form of consent. Obviously, there was significant discussion around what kind of evidence and record is required of that.

The fourth recommendation was that the committee recommends that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to limit arrest powers and use of force so that they apply only to employees of the Australian Border Force that have received appropriate training. I think that's fairly straightforward and obvious. The fifth recommendation was that, subject to the previous recommendations, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.

I commend the bill to the Senate. The intent is to simplify and to streamline, and to make processes more accessible and just for people and, as Senator Bernardi talked about, removing an obstacle in terms of the Sex Discrimination Act. Again, I welcome the fact that we remove an obstacle on the condition that somebody is willing, competent and meets the standards. If it is purely to enable a politically correct agenda, where standards are lowered just to meet a quota, then that's an outcome I don't support. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which is an omnibus bill intended to make a number of minor, technical and uncontroversial amendments to improve the operation and clarity of a number of pieces of civil justice legislation. Coincidentally, the bill amends the Marriage Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.

When this bill was introduced to the chamber last year, my former colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore saw it as an opportunity to annexe Senator Dean Smith's marriage equality bill. Her amendment to this bill would have spared the LGBTIQ community the indignity of a very divisive postal survey campaign. Unfortunately, the Senate did not support her courage and conviction to bring on the bill last August and debate those amendments. Instead, this parliament was intent on playing Pontius Pilate politics and throwing the lives and love of the LGBTIQ community on the mercy of the Australian people. Thankfully, Australia rose to the occasion and the result was an overwhelming yes for marriage equality.

Whilst this bill is essentially non-controversial, schedule 6 makes numerous changes to the Family Law Act. This required referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report. I thank the committee for the diligence in which they undertook examination of schedule 6. The Nick Xenophon Team is broadly supportive of the measures contained within the schedule, which are intended to strengthen Australia's response to international parental child abduction; to clarify a range of persons who may perform the powers of the registry managers in the Family Court of Australia or any other court exercising family law jurisdiction; to improve the consistency of financial and other provisions for de facto and married couples; to assist the operation of the family law courts; and to make minor and technical amendments to the various provisions of the Family Law Act.

The measures relating to international child abduction include the introduction of new offences for the wrongful retention of a child overseas, in addition to the existing offences for the wrongful removal of a child from Australia where parenting orders have been made or proceedings for such orders are pending; the application of extended geographical jurisdictions to the new offences and existing offences in the Family Law Act for the wrongful removal of a child; rules for the making of arrests under the Family Law Act; and extending the category of eligible people who can apply to the Family Court for location orders. The Nick Xenophon Team is broadly supportive of the proposed measures.

The new offences proposed in the bill appear to implement in part previous recommendations or advice of the Family Law Council of the then government in 2011 and 2012 about measures to strengthen Australia's legal response to international parental child abductions. The new proposed offences are also broadly consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in its 2011 inquiry into international child abduction to and from Australia.

Each year, approximately 125 children are unlawfully removed from Australia. In many cases, children are removed to non-Hague Convention countries where there is next to no legal recourse for the parent who has lost their child or children.

We all remember the infamous case of the four sisters born and raised in Italy to an Italian father and their Australian mother who, in 2010, brought the sisters to Queensland under the guise of a four-week holiday. When seeking assistance from the Australian embassy, the mother reportedly told staff she was fleeing an abusive husband. Then in 2012, in defiance of orders to return to Italy to resume a shared custody arrangement with their father, the mother hid the children with the assistance of family. Ultimately, the children were returned to Italy to live with their father where they remain to this day. The mother never faced charges for unlawfully keeping the children in Australia. Indeed, Justice Forrest insisted on an undertaking from the girls' father that he would not pursue the mother in Italy for child abduction, despite warnings that an undertaking against prosecution may not be legally binding across borders. The custody battle and media storm surrounding the family is a salient reminder to parents to pursue a relocation case through the courts instead of risking the damaging and unlawful actions of child abduction.

Children have a right to a meaningful relationship with both parents. This is in the best interests of the child. This is enshrined in the Family Law Act but, unfortunately, too many parents are so caught up in parental conflict that they lose sight of what matters most—the health and wellbeing of their children. Some here may also remember Sally Faulkner's desperate attempt to retrieve her children from Lebanon during the ill-fated snatch-and-grab with 60 Minutes in 2016 after her husband unlawfully retained their children also on the proviso of a holiday. Lebanon is also not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and, despite Ms Faulkner obtaining court orders in Australia pertaining to the children, her ex-husband will never face justice for unlawfully retaining the children, aged just six and three at the time.

I cannot fathom how a father like Ali Elamine can look into the innocent eyes of his children and deny them their loving mother. To break the bond between parent and child is unspeakable and will cause his children lasting psychological harm, and evidence shows will affect their ability to form and maintain ongoing relationships. In our modern age, those children will no doubt reconnect with their mother through social media. But you can't hug a computer. The damage done through forced separation is reckless and irresponsible. Whilst we support the proposed measures, we remain sceptical that parents who seek to alienate children from the other parent will ever face justice. Nevertheless, we agree it is important to tighten the current provisions so that we can have stronger, more robust enforcement in relation to international child abductions.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to make a contribution on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. This bill, as some other senators have mentioned, is an omnibus bill which will amend a number of acts, including the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Archives Act 1983, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Domicile Act 1982, the Evidence Act 1995, the Family Law Act 1975, the International Arbitration Act 1974, the Legislation Act 2003, the Marriage Act 1961 and the Sexual Discrimination Act 1984. The bill largely makes minor and technical amendments to these acts in order to modernise, simplify and clarify these pieces of legislation and also to repeal some redundant provisions within these bills. The combined effect of these amendments would be to improve the efficiency and operation of the civil justice system. I regard, in aggregate, these amendments to be largely uncontroversial, although we have seen some commentary by other senators on particular small aspects of the omnibus bill already this evening.

One of the objectives of this bill is to make all Commonwealth legislation coherent, readable and accessible to the widest possible audience. To this end, the bill will amend the Acts Interpretation Act and the Legislation Act to clarify the validity of ministerial acts and the management of compilations of legislation on the Federal Register of Legislation.

This is a very important part of this omnibus bill. In this place, we pass an awful lot of laws, and some of them, by design, are quite complex. When we're dealing with complex matters, that is unavoidable. But it's our duty as parliamentarians to make sure that the laws that we pass are as accessible and understandable as possible for as many Australians as possible. The reason we have an obligation to do so is that, for any citizen of this country, ignorance of the law is no defence. It is no excuse in any proceedings that might be brought against them. Because there are so many laws and because many of those laws are so complicated, it's quite a task for an average citizen to know what is lawful and what is unlawful. As far as possible, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that these laws are understandable and accessible. I'm sure the government would concede that this amendment in this omnibus bill doesn't complete that task. It only begins that task, and it's a task of quite some magnitude, but I'm very pleased to see that it is a feature of this omnibus bill. It is a principle that I think we should strive to uphold more often in this place if we can.

Amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003 would clarify the validity of ministerial actions and the operation of provisions about the management of compilations prepared for the Federal Register of Legislation.

Amendments to the Archives Act 1983 would provide the National Archives of Australia with an enhanced ability to appropriately manage high-volume applications requesting access to records and make other minor technical amendments, including repealing outdated provisions that do not reflect the Archives' current services or technological advances. Australia has an almost peerless National Archives system. It is vital not just to the proper functioning of government but also to the work of future historians in cataloguing why decisions were made and how they were made and, of course, to a public understanding of the law and activities of government. An updated, technologically literate version of the Archives Act is a worthy task.

Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 would clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act.

An amendment to the Domicile Act 1982 would amend the act so that it applies to territories currently specified in the Domicile Regulations 1982.

An amendment to the Evidence Act 1995 would update the presumption about when postal articles sent by prepaid post are received, to accord with changes to Australia Post delivery times.

Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 would strengthen Australia's response to international parental child abduction; clarify the range of persons who may discharge the powers of registry managers in the Family Court of Australia; improve the consistency in the application of provisions for de facto and married couples; and update the arrest, entry and search powers under the act and add additional safeguards for the exercise of these powers. The bill would also make minor and technical amendments to the Family Law Act to clarify definitions and remove redundant provisions. I recognise Senator Griff's thoughtful contribution on this aspect of the debate earlier. The details that he was sharing of forced family separation and, particularly, the separation of children from their parents in an unnecessary way were particularly moving and should be on the minds of all of us as we contemplate these amendments.

Amendments to the International Arbitration Act 1974 would specify expressly the meaning of a 'competent court' for the purpose of the model law; clarify procedural requirements for enforcement of an arbitral award; modernise conditions governing arbitrators' powers to award costs in international commercial arbitrations; and clarify the application of confidentiality provisions to arbitration subject to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration.

Amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 would remove outdated concepts and ensure consistency with the Family Law Act in relation to parental consent for the marriage of minors. Technical amendments of minor policy significance would also be made to improve the operation of the Commonwealth marriage celebrants program. The register of overseas marriages would also be reinstated, remedying a defect in the existing legislation.

Finally, an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 would repeal section 43 of that act to remove the ability for women to be discriminated against in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in Australian Defence Force positions involving combat duties. I wasn't in the chamber earlier when Senator Bernardi made comments on this issue. I did hear briefly Senator Fawcett's contribution here and I won't make extensive comments myself, because I have a sneaking suspicion that my friend and colleague Senator Reynolds may do so herself, and she's in a much more qualified position to comment than I am, given her very honourable service to this nation in uniform, like many thousands of women in our Defence Force who've given very honourable service.

But it seems to me that a very important Liberal principle is at stake here, and that is that no-one should be discriminated against on the basis of totally irrelevant considerations. No-one would argue that anyone, male or female, should be appointed to a position in the Defence Force or anywhere else where they are not suitably qualified for that position. But surely we would all agree that anyone who is qualified shouldn't be prevented from doing so on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic such as their gender or, in fact, any other irrelevant characteristic. In my very brief engagements in my time here in this place with the Australian Defence Force through the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, I have been consistently impressed by the very high quality and calibre of men and women that I've dealt with, and I don't see any reason why anyone who meets the physical, mental and other tests required to fulfil a position should be prevented from doing so. So I look forward very much to Senator Reynolds's contribution to this debate.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to join my colleagues in making a brief contribution to this debate on this particular piece of legislation, the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. As many of my colleagues have already outlined, it does cover a great breadth of policy and legislative areas. It being an omnibus bill, that's its very nature, so a broad range of topics is covered: everything from the Acts Interpretation Act and mechanical legislation like that to the Archives Act, which I'll touch on a bit later on; the Bankruptcy Act; the Domicile Act; the Evidence Act; the Family Law Act, which I think is probably the most significant component of this legislation, at least on my reading of matters in this bill so far; the International Arbitration Act 1974; the Marriage Act; and the Sex Discrimination Act, about which I too caught part of Senator Griff's contribution to the debate. As Senator Paterson said, he made some very thoughtful contributions to the debate on that issue.

Yes, the key underpinning principle of what's to be achieved here is to streamline legislation to ensure that the laws that are passed in this place and the regulations that bind the Australian community are as streamlined and as easy to navigate as possible. Omnibus bills like this one are designed to clean up a whole range of technical and specific elements of varied and very different pieces of legislation.

As I said, the one that I took a great deal of interest in was the set of amendments relating to the Family Law Act 1975, which, as has already been explained, would strengthen our nation's response to international parental child abduction, clarify the range of persons who may discharge powers of registry managers in the Family Court et cetera. It would improve the consistency in the application of provisions for de facto and married couples, as others have already described.

Family law matters are a very sensitive area of the law. It is something that impacts on a great many Australian families, unfortunately. And parental child abduction is probably one of the worst things, up there with child sexual abuse. Other contributors to this debate have highlighted recent and prominent examples of parental abduction of children, and reading the stories of those particular cases is nothing short of distressing, I have to say.

In doing a bit of research on the issue of parental abduction of children, I did come across one report which has been referred to in the media and is by an individual by the name of Professor Marilyn Freeman. It examined the impacts on families: the parents, both the abducting parent and the parent known as the 'left-behind' parent; and, of course, the child or children who were the subject of the abduction. It goes through the causes and the paths that lead to these instances of abduction and the impacts that these sets of events have on each of those individuals.

No-one can deny that navigating the family law system in our country is a difficult thing for a number of reasons, not only because it is a difficult administrative system but because the very nature of family law matters are that they are emotionally distressing. So, you're battling with emotional issues at a time when you're trying to navigate the law courts and deal with lawyers and opposing counsel et cetera. It is a very difficult thing to do. Add in, as Senator Griff said a little earlier on, trying to navigate the systems and the laws that apply in foreign nations which aren't signatories to the conventions that relate to our rights of the child, parental abductions and how our law system here in Australia deals with it, and that makes it almost impossible. Taking into account the emotional distress and the already incredibly high level of difficulty around navigating the administrative side of our legal system when it comes to family law, not having cooperating partner nations where children have been abducted to makes it very, very difficult.

I'm sure many of us have had individuals in our communities who've shared experiences when it comes to family law matters. Thankfully, I'm pleased I've not had the misfortune of hearing the distressing stories of locals who've experienced this particular crime, but I'm sure it has happened in Tasmania. If we can go some way to addressing the difficulties that these people face by amending laws, making it slightly easier for the system to operate and for these people to get the outcome they need and for justice to be done, I think that is a good thing.

As I said, the whole process does cause emotional distress for the children, who have their whole lives ahead of them. Who knows what the impact will be? This study by Professor Freeman does go into a little about that: talking about the confusion, the self-hate and other consequences of having been the victims of this crime and how that plays out in their adult lives; the impact on the left-behind parent; and also the ramifications for the abducting parent as well. There is a huge amount of distress there and, as I said, I'm pleased to see that this bill will go—probably in a very small way—some way to alleviating some of the difficulty people encounter when dealing with the family law system.

On the Archives Act, changing topic and pace for a little bit: I am a bit of a history buff myself. I am particularly passionate about local history, and anything that we can do to preserve our historical records right across this country of ours is something that should be commended. We have one of the best collections of historical records in this country, managed so ably by the National Archives, who are doing an amazing job of digitising those collections. I think it is commendable to assist organisations like that, and other smaller organisations as well, to deal with the management of these valuable documents and associated items.

History, of course, is critical to us as a nation. It tells us our story and there are things we can learn from it, things we may have forgotten as a nation. In fact, I recall the occasion in Tasmania in recent years when a retired law librarian, the Supreme Court librarian in Hobart, Dorothy Shea, stumbled upon a 200-year-old document from pre-Federation, outlining many of the acts and laws that applied at the time when Tasmania was known as Van Diemen's Land.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were the days!

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were the days! I long for those days! No, actually I'm happy with Federation. I think Senator McKim would agree with me that 12 senators from Tasmania are a wonderful thing to have.

Senator McKim interjecting—

I've deviated now.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amongst other things!

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amongst other things. As I said, here we have an example from the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Some documents were sitting around in a dingy storeroom on Salamanca Place—a beautiful part of town, but probably no place for incredibly important documents. They were on velum, animal skin, so probably very sensitive to the elements, and they were just sitting around. I'm pleased we have legislation which deals with the management of these incredibly important documents, pieces of our history. Once pieces of history are lost, they're gone forever. You can't get them back. They didn't make carbon copies and they didn't have photocopiers in 1839. So I'm pleased to see that this legislation does contain elements that relate to archives management and that's why I'm so pleased to support this legislation in every element that it touches on. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to talk about the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. As a Liberal, I know that all of us on this side of the chamber share and value the freedoms of thought, worship, speech and association. They are absolutely fundamental to our own democracy and absolutely foundation principles of our party. But so, too, is equality of opportunity. On this side of the chamber we do believe—all of us, as a core value—in the equality of opportunity for all Australians. Listening to Senator Bernardi tonight I was, unfortunately, in the chair and it would have been highly inappropriate for me to make any comment. Now that I can, I want to say to Senator Bernardi: shame on you! Shame on you for your comments this evening. To come into this place in this day and age, when we have over 400 women serving overseas, and say what you did shames us all, and it is certainly not in line with our fundamental principle of equality of opportunity. For a senator and somebody who was a member of the Liberal Party to come in here and argue for keeping entrenched discrimination in the Sex Discrimination Act, simply for the fact of someone's gender, is a complete and utter disgrace.

I'd like to share with this place why I think it is so appalling. The senator may have been somewhat flippant in his comments but he could not have chosen a topic more insulting or demeaning not only to all of our women who now serve in uniform but to all those young women who want to put their hand up. They have a look at the women who've now graduated as fighter pilots. They look at the women who are putting themselves forward to serve in combat roles. Senator Bernardi, I'd say this to you: yes, men and women are different, but hallelujah for that! Throughout all of my career I've had to fight to show—as, I'm sure, has every woman in this place—that difference is not less; to demonstrate the fact that as women we can do things just as well as any man. We do things just as well because we're women, Senator Bernardi, not in spite of the fact that we are women.

Again, you seem to think that service in our military is all about brute force. I can tell you that the men and women that I have had the pleasure and the honour to serve with and friends of mine who are still serving, as well as some of the young women I've had the pleasure of meeting in this job, do not deserve your comments this evening. They are some of our brightest and most capable. Service for men and women is not just about brute strength, as you said. It is about courage. It is about loyalty. It is about team work. It is about leadership. And all of those qualities are equally held by women as they are by men. As Senator Bernardi said, it is not about breaking men or women. For him to come in here and say that and trot out some claptrap from unnamed sources degrades us all. I want to share some statistics with Senator Bernardi in particular and anybody else who might want to trot out his—I was going to say 'unconscious bias' but I think it was very deliberate—bias. Fifty-one per cent of our population are women; 51 per cent of our talent are women. For the future of our Defence Force and the security of our nation, we need more women to bring the depth and breadth of their talents into the Defence Force. Yes, we might do it a bit differently than men sometimes but, again, that is a good thing, Senator Bernardi; it is not something to be ridiculed in this chamber.

So let's have a look at some of the facts. Last year, 17 per cent of the ADF was comprised of women. There is a lot more talent out there to be had, and I think the defence forces are increasing that percentage in a very considered and a very sensible way. Entry standards have not been reduced. It is still about the quality of a person's intellect and their character, their merit and their ability to serve. Last year, 95 per cent of applicants for combat roles were men but five per cent were women and this year, I understand, it's eight per cent who are women. So far from what Senator Bernardi said—that women can't do combat roles or they don't want to do combat roles—of course women can do and are doing combat roles. Women will keep putting their hands up for combat roles, maybe never in exactly the same numbers as men, and we should be applauding and congratulating those who give it a go and those who get there, and not ridicule them. The Defence Force and, I know, the minister have a very sound policy of not highlighting women in these roles for very good reasons. I think Senator Bernardi tonight has shown us exactly why their privacy is protected from those people in the community, and sadly here in the Senate today, who would say to them, 'You are not good enough because you are a woman.' So I congratulate all of those women whose names, faces and identities we will probably never know. It is for all of those women that this has to be repealed, and the words of Senator Bernardi cannot go unanswered.

Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, the Chief of Army, was quoted as saying he wanted to see more women, more culturally and linguistically diverse people and more Indigenous Australians serving in our Army. It was not for any quota or politically correct reason that Senator Bernardi seemed to suggest but because he wants the best and most talented Australians to serve their nation in the Army. I couldn't agree more with the Chief of Army. I also agree with the previous Chief of Army, David Morrison, who said, 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.' Today in the Senate I heard words and a standard that I could not possibly walk past or ignore in this place. Too many women for too long in the military and in the Army have had to put up with people expressing opinions like that not just in the workplace, maybe in their families, but also from politicians. As I said, it may have been somewhat flippant but it should not have been said, and I just hope that his comments tonight do not go much further than this because it is just wrong.

I hope, Senator Bernardi, you have heard my comments here tonight and I will be happy to have a talk to you about them afterwards. But as I said, we on this side of the chamber, like those opposite, do believe in a just and humane society. We all share those values in this place. The importance of family and respect for the rule of law are paramount and must always be maintained, and this omnibus bill that is before the Senate today does just that. As we've heard from many of our colleagues expanding on the brilliance of archives, the way we do our archival activities and the many other things that this bill changes are all very important.

This bill is designed, across a number of bills, to protect the rule of law and ensure that justice is always maintained. Through this bill, I commend the government and also those opposite for their comments and their contributions to this bill this evening because I think it does make the right decisions and take the right steps to ensure that our Commonwealth legislation is coherent, readable and accessible to the widest possible audience so that it can be consistently applied and easily understood. As all of us in this chamber know, it can quite often be very challenging to actually read and see consistency across legislation, and certainly it is not always easily understood.

This omnibus bill will improve the operation and clarity of our civil justice legislation by modifying, simplifying and clarifying existing provisions and, wonderfully, repealing redundant provisions to strengthen and ensure our democracy has all the necessary and appropriate safeguards and legislative instruments to ensure that our country remains equitable and just for all—nothing more so than the move out of the Sex Discrimination Act to remove positive discrimination against women simply for the fact that they are women. I do applaud the government and those opposite for supporting this.

The bill consists of 10 schedules with amendments to 10 separate pieces of Commonwealth legislation that will ensure we have a strong, just and equitable justice system and a legal framework in this country. I note Senator Macdonald's comments earlier this evening about the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee inquiry into this omnibus bill and its report that it tabled last year. It was pleasing to see that there was support for the bill and that the government has taken up the amendments as recommended by the committee.

Some of the impacts, in addition to the ones where I've been so critical of Senator Bernardi tonight, include amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003. This bill will amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003 to clarify the validity of ministerial actions and the operation of provisions about the compilations prepared for the Federal Register of Legislation. Probably most people listening to this at this time of night might not exactly find it very exciting. But again, in this place it is important.

I won't go through the Archives Act amendments because Senator Moore has gone through those very well and explained them with her passion for archival activities of this chamber. But I do support the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1996 to clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act—again, something not significant to all Australians. But for those going through that court and being impacted by this decision, it is a good thing for them.

This bill will update the Evidence Act such that the presumption in relation to when postal articles sent by prepaid post are received is in accordance with changes to Australia Post delivery times. Again, it is not necessarily something that those listening will get too excited about. But for those who still do use and rely on Australia Post, you will know that this is actually an important amendment. And others in this chamber tonight, including Senator Griff, have so eloquently talked about the Family Law Act amendments.

I think we all support the fact that this bill strengthens Australia's response to international parental child abduction. Many of us have family members—and I've certainly got a family member—who have been devastated by having a child abducted. Any powers, including this one, that can actually assist the process for those parents of an abducted child are to be applauded. What this one does is clarify the range of persons who may discharge the powers of registry managers in the Family Court and improve the consistency in the application of provisions for de facto married couples.

In addition, this bill will update the arrest, entry and search powers under the act and add additional safeguards for the exercise of those powers. Again, many people listening at this time of night will not get too excited about that, but, as Senator Griff captured so well, for those who are going through this nightmare, having increased powers, protections and processes is of comfort. I note that this bill will also make some minor technical amendments to the Family Law Act to clarify definitions and remove redundant provisions.

I want to conclude where I started. I could not speak any more strongly in my support for the repeal of section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act. It is not only an anachronism. It is a complete disgrace that it is still there in this day and age. Any young Australian woman can follow whatever profession or pursuit they want to in life, and it is not up to us or anybody else in society to tell them what they cannot do simply because they were born a girl. As I said at the start, women do things just as well as men.

We might do things differently, but quite often—and I see it, time after time, on all sides of the chamber—women in this place do an amazing job. It is not in spite of the fact that we're women; women in this place do an amazing job because we are women. We have a different voice. We have a different perspective on life. Certainly diversity in this chamber is to be celebrated, as it is in the military.

As I said, shame on you, Senator Bernardi! You might not have meant what you said, but the words you used and what you said tonight have a serious impact. I hope you will come in and address those comments.

Debate adjourned.