Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning funding for the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia. As minister representing the Attorney-General, I wish to advise the Senate of the government's position in relation to Senate motion No. 733. This is an order for the production of documents requesting the tabling of the KPMG report into the funding of the federal courts and the Ernst & Young costings in response to the KPMG report. You'd be aware that I have now tabled a response in relation to this motion whereby the Attorney-General has claimed public interest immunity over these documents. That is set out in detail in the response provided by the Attorney-General.

I can advise the Senate in summary, however, that public interest immunity has been claimed on the following basis by the Attorney-General. The reports have been and will continue to be relied on in future government decision-making processes on court structure, administration and financial arrangements, and their continued utility relies on them being treated with a degree of confidentiality. Input and advice to these reports from stakeholders, especially the federal courts, was provided on the basis of assurances that information provided, including sensitive and specific staffing information, would be treated confidentially. Disclosure of the reports would be expected to limit the extent to which stakeholders, in particular the federal courts, would engage fully future reports of this kind even if given assurances of confidentiality over information provided. This would result in future reports not being fully informed by full and frank advice and the government would not receive the most comprehensive advice from its portfolio departments and agencies. For these reasons, the Attorney-General has claimed public interest immunity over the documents requested and I refer honourable senators to the Attorney-General's correspondence to the Senate President as tabled.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's response.

I must say I have never, in the time I've been here, seen a government rely on public interest immunity as much as this government and this minister, who is just leaving the chamber.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I remind you not to reflect on when senators leave the chamber.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That must be a new one! In relation to this position, we have a government that is, I think, clearly making a mockery of democracy and making a mockery of this chamber. They are refusing to be held accountable, and Minister Cash is a minister who has used public interest immunity more than any other minister I have seen in the decade that I've been in this place. This is a minister who, in a previous portfolio, has presided over an absolute disgrace of an administration—a minister who comes in here and is always prepared to use question time to attack union officials without any evidence, attack the trade union movement without any evidence and smear and use innuendo about ordinary Australians looking after working people day after day, doing the hard yards against the Business Council of Australia, who are trying to get tax cuts at the expense of working people. That's where this minister owes her allegiance. That's where this minister goes. This is a minister who turned a blind eye to the illegality of her former commissioner for the Australian Building and Construction Commission, Nigel Hadgkiss—a commissioner who ended up in disgrace, a commissioner who used $400,000 of public money, authorised by Minister Cash, to defend an illegality.

Senator Cash has got no credibility in this place. She has got no credibility as a minister. She has got absolutely no credibility in doing the right thing as a minister in this government. She misled the Prime Minister when she appointed Nigel Hadgkiss because she should have told the Prime Minister that Nigel Hadgkiss had breached the legislation that he was supposed to uphold. This is a minister with no credibility—absolutely none. If she were to do the right thing, she would resign from the frontbench and deal with the issues that she is facing. But all she is prepared to do, and all this government is prepared to do, is spend more and more public money to defend the indefensible. She is an absolute disgrace as a minister, and all the posturing, all the nonsense—

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President, can I seek your guidance as to whether there is any requirement for the senator to be relevant to the matter before the chair?

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In all debates there is that question of relevance. I believe that Senator Cameron is setting a wide example, and I'm sure he will come to the substance of the matter in his speech. I have been listening—he's five minutes in at this point.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for that, Madam Deputy President. I don't think anything could be more relevant. What could be more relevant than a minister coming in here, once again, claiming public interest immunity on behalf of another minister? I think it's appropriate for me to point out that the minister who is in here representing the other minister is one of the greatest abusers of public interest immunity in this place. This is a minister who misled the Prime Minister, as I said, and re-appointed Nigel Hadgkiss when she knew that Nigel Hadgkiss had breached the law. All she had to do was look at what this public servant was doing and she would have understood that he had no case to defend the indefensible that he had participated in.

This is a minister who uses her political power to interfere in other government instrumentalities—the ABCC, the Registered Organisations Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. This is a minister who has got a web of advisers—former advisers, former mates, former Liberal cronies—in these so-called independent organisations to attack the trade union movement, to attack working people. This minister has misused her power as a minister. I've said it before: I watched a BBC Panorama program about the interference by Putin against his political opponents in Russia. I tell you, he could learn a lot from Minister Cash. He could learn a lot from this minister. To use your political power to misrepresent positions in this place, to use your political power to ensconce your mates in individual instrumentalities and then to use them to attack the trade union movement and working people in this country is an absolute disgrace.

The abuse of power by Minister Cash is, I think, just outrageous. This is a minister who, in my view, instigated the leak of the AFP raid. That's why she is so determined to use public interest immunity in this place. Is it feasible? It beggars belief that a senior person in Minister Cash's office tips off the media about the raid by the AFP that was instigated by Minister Cash using the Registered Organisations Commission, her creation, to attack the AWU. We know what it was all about. It was about attacking the Leader of the Opposition. It's a complete misuse of political power in this place. This minister misled parliament on five occasions. Then she had to come in and throw her staff under the bus, sacrifice her own staff, to save her own political skin. That's what this minister did. Everyone knows that that could not have happened without this minister knowing what was going on.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This will be good.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order. This has no relevance to what is before the house. This is about KPMG. I draw it back to the relevance of what's before the house.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hanson. I do remind Senator Cameron that this is about a report to be tabled today. I note that the minister has claimed public immunity, and I would just remind Senator Cameron of the need to remain with the topic.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe I am right on topic. This is about an order for the production of documents that Minister Cash has been asked to produce in this place. She hasn't produced them. She has hidden behind public interest immunity. Isn't it great that the so-called defender of the working class in this country, Senator Hanson, is in there defending this minister? You may as well just join the Liberal Party. This is where Senator Hanson came from. She came from the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party knew that they had some credibility and kicked her out because of her outrageous, racist views. They kicked her out, and now we've got the Liberal Party cuddling up to her. And we'll get Senator Hanson cuddling up to the Liberal Party. It's absolutely outrageous! What an obnoxious position this member takes every day in this place.

I am right on issue in relation to this. This is about the misuse of public interest immunity. This is about not providing documents so that this parliament and this Senate can do what they are designed to do: to scrutinise the actions of ministers and the actions of government and to hold government to account. That's our job. All they do is hide behind public interest immunity and get their puppets to stand up and try to deflect when they're under pressure. Well, Senator Hanson, it's no use being a puppet in here; you actually should stand up for something other than racism and attacking people in this country. It's just absolutely outrageous.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, resume your seat. Senator Hanson.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want Senator Cameron to withdraw that comment about my racism, because that is not the point in any way whatsoever, and I find that offensive.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, would you withdraw that remark, please.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, if it assists the Senate, I'll withdraw.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But everyone knows what Senator Hanson is about. Everyone knows her form. Anyone that could stoop to doing what she's done in this place really can't hide behind parliamentary procedures. That's the bottom line. We all know what she's like. You know, Senator Hanson and Senator Cash are a good pair, a really good pair. We see them—Senator Hanson standing up here to defend a minister.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call on Senator Cameron to bring it back to relevance to the issue, which is a KPMG report. That is what this is about. There's no discussion about this. I haven't heard him refer to the KPMG report. He just keeps referring to another matter to do with Senator Cash. Bring it back to what this is about.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hanson. I believe that Senator Cameron is being relevant. One of the points the minister made was public interest immunity, and that is where Senator Cameron has directed most of his remarks. Please resume, Senator Cameron.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Madam Deputy President. Again I repeat: I am absolutely on point about a government using public interest immunity to hide the misbehaviour of ministers. That's exactly what we're seeing here this morning. Nothing could be clearer, and nothing could be clearer about how much of a puppet Senator Hanson is to this government than her behaviour this morning—absolutely terrible.

This government has got a terrible record on funding for courts and essential services. Not only did it ignore the call in the KPMG report for an emergency injection of $5 million in funding, but the Abbott government cut $30 million in funding from the Family Court in the first year. This is a government that cut funding for the Family Court and increased funding for the ABCC. It increased funding for Nigel Hadgkiss and his cronies in the ABCC to attack working people in this country.

As I've said, Minister Cash, who is in here defending the government's position this morning, is the worst of them all in the coalition: misleading this parliament on five occasions, a ministerial office in chaos and revolving doors in her office. People are moving out of her office as soon as they come under any scrutiny. As soon as they come under any scrutiny, off they go to get a job working for the Hotels Association, assisted by the minister or by the government in Western Australia. All the links are there. We know how this mob works: if you're in trouble, throw your adviser under the bus. Off he goes to get a job with the Hotels Association, and then you try to hide from the misbehaviour that you've carried out. The web of influence that this minister has created in so-called independent organisations is a disgrace. It's a disgrace for democracy and it's a disgrace for the coalition—an absolute disgrace. Minister Cash comes in here and she attacks refugees, attacks working people and uses question time to simply make assertions that are not true. Then, when she is in trouble, she wants to hide behind public interest immunity to avoid scrutiny, failing to comply with orders to produce answers to the estimates questions. She just treats the Senate with absolute disdain.

It's not just Senator Cash that treats the Senate with disdain; the coalition treats the Senate with disdain. I'd have thought any Independent worth their salt, who wants to make sure a government is held to account, wouldn't be in here defending the government, wouldn't be in here defending Senator Cash, as Senator Hanson has done on every occasion she got the opportunity to this morning. What an absolute disgrace for One Nation to be in here trying to defend Senator Cash, trying to defend this rabble of a government. Pauline Hanson's One Nation should just actually sign up to the coalition—because you're just part of the coalition. You're just part of the coalition.

Senator Cash is a minister who has failed to deal with the fundamental part of her job, and that was to make sure that working people in this country were not ripped off. She just didn't ever go there. It was always an attack on the unions, using independent bodies to attack the union movement: put her mates, put her allies, put her plants into independent organisations and then use them to attack the trade union movement and use them to attack the Leader of the Opposition. That's what this was all about.

As I've said, Putin would be proud of what Minister Cash has done. I know Putin is one of Senator Hanson's heroes. She thinks he's great. Well, nobody else in the world seems to think he's great. When you're out here defending Senator Cash, I know why you're doing it—because you like what Putin is doing in Russia, and you think that this is worth defending here. What a disgrace Pauline Hanson's One Nation is. What a disgrace Pauline Hanson is.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I remind you to refer to senators by their correct title.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I did. I said 'Pauline Hanson's One Nation'. Isn't that the name of the party?

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is, and then you referenced the senator.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, following Senator Cameron's comment: he actually referred to the senator as 'a disgrace'. I think he probably should withdraw.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly think the defence is truth—surely?

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would draw the chair's attention to the last comment by Senator Cameron. I asked if you would ask Senator Cameron to withdraw—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ruston.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and he has just continued to be rude.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, it's not appropriate to reflect personally on a senator. I'd just ask you to withdraw.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it assists the chair, I withdraw.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a minister, in Minister Cash, who failed to act on employers ripping off workers. We have Senator Hanson in here defending a minister who fails to defend workers getting ripped off. What is this about? We know what it's about. Senator Hanson is nothing more than a right-wing Liberal. That's what she is. She's a right-wing Liberal. I don't often say this, but at least John Howard had the courage and conviction to throw her out of the party for her disgraceful conduct. Now we've got other former prime ministers like Tony Abbott cuddling up to her. What a disgrace this party is. The coalition have just lost the plot—absolutely lost the plot.

Minister Cash comes in here and defends wage theft, does nothing about workers getting their superannuation ripped off and does nothing about apprentices getting ripped off. There have been two reports from the Fair Work Ombudsman about apprentices getting ripped off—not a word said.

Yet what we get from Senator Hanson is a dirty deal with the coalition to give massive wage cuts to the Business Council of Australia in return for a thousand apprentices. I've never heard Senator Hanson mention apprentices in this place since she's been here. I've never heard Senator Hanson or any One Nation member come to an estimates committee and ask about the welfare of apprentices. They've never cared about apprentices, yet, when it suits them, they'll do a dirty deal with the government to try and cover up their capitulation to the government, to hand over $65 billion to big business.

Coming back to Senator Cash: Senator Cash should have a good look at herself. She is a minister who has misled this place on five occasions, thrown her staff under the bus to protect her own position and refused to deal with the issues for working people in this country when she was the minister for industrial relations. She has refused to act honourably in her position in this place. She is an absolute disgrace. She should resign. She should talk to the Federal Police, tell the Federal Police exactly what happened and save the Federal Police the investigation that they are undertaking, save the public money and do the right thing. Senator Cash should resign. She can hide behind public interest immunity all she likes, but she will be found out, because her position is untenable. She is a disgrace of a minister. She has misled this place at least five times. She should just fess up. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of Senator Cash's statement to this chamber this morning. We had, yet again, an occurrence of Senator Cash using either the chamber of the Senate or its committees to refuse to answer legitimate questions about her behaviour and the behaviour of her ministerial colleagues. This time around, it's in relation to an order to produce documents that was passed by the Senate last week.

I acknowledge that it was on the motion of crossbench senators, Senators Griff, Hanson and Hinch. It's actually the first time that I have noticed that Senator Hanson was one of the co-signatories to this motion, so I'm a little surprised that she is one of the people running interference to protect her Liberal mate Senator Cash this morning. I would have thought that, if Senator Hanson were so interested to get these documents—which I'll go into in a moment—she would actually want to see it through and would want to put some pressure on the government to produce the documents that she sought. But of course that would involve going against her Liberal mates, and in particular her best mate, Senator Cash, so she has backed down on her own request to produce documents.

I suppose that we're not really that surprised to see Senator Hanson backing down when it comes to taking on the Liberals. It's always a lot easier for her to just vote with them, as she does—it's got to be more than 85 per cent of the time. Are you keeping a running total, Senator Hanson? It's got to be getting towards 90 per cent now.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, address your comments to the Chair.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry to see you go, Senator Hanson. It's always a pleasure to have—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, again, don't reflect on a senator leaving the chamber.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. The subject matter of this particular notice to produce concerns something that Senator Hanson has been very vocal about, along with a number of other senators, and that is the funding crisis that we see in the family courts in Australia and the backlog in family law cases that that funding crisis is producing.

While Labor did not move this motion seeking the production of documents—so no accusation can be made that this is some sort of partisan exercise from the opposition; it was moved by a number of crossbench senators—we share the concerns of a number of crossbench senators about the funding crisis that is enveloping the family courts and the backlogs that that funding crisis is causing for many Australians who want to see their family law disputes resolved. This order to produce simply sought the production of documents that the government has in its possession.

Not long after they were elected, under the then Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, the government commissioned a review into the funding of the federal courts and the family courts. They are sitting on a March 2014 report from KPMG, a report into the funding of federal courts, and they're also sitting on some costings that were prepared by Ernst & Young in response to that report from KPMG.

The motion that was moved last week and passed by the Senate was an entirely reasonable motion that sought to get access to these documents so that the Senate can better understand the rationale behind this government's continued refusal to properly fund the family courts. I think we can understand why the government is so keen to keep these reports secret, because, under this government, the Federal Circuit Court, which handles many family law matters, and also the Family Court have been driven to crisis. This government has now been sitting on this report for four years. You would really think that it would want to get that report out there in the public domain to help explain its own decisions about funding the family courts, but instead, four years later, we are still trying to obtain access to this report.

Why is the government sitting on this report four years on? It's pretty obvious that it's because it must reveal that there is a $75 million shortfall in court funding which this government has refused to fix. Fortunately, we are now rid of the former Attorney-General, the man who I think we're now to refer to as Mr Brandis. Fortunately, we're now rid of him.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or His Excellency.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that Senator Payne and a number of other government senators want us to refer to him as His Excellency. I know you weren't there, but during estimates we had some interchange with bureaucrats from the Attorney-General's Department and we settled on 'Mr Brandis'—at least, that that's what I would say.

Senator Payne interjecting—

It probably is my most courteous description of former senator, His Excellency, His Worship, His Grace, Mr Brandis. And I say hello to Mr Brandis out there if he's watching us on TV, as I'm sure that he is. Fortunately, we are rid of Mr Brandis from this chamber, the man who deprived the family courts of fair funding, the funding that was required by Australians to have their family disputes settled. I would have thought that now is an opportune time for the government to finally come forward and table these reports that they continue to sit on. But, no, the secrecy goes on.

Under this government, employees of the Family Court—it's not just about providing funding to employ more judges and to employ more registrars to keep up with the delays and get through the backlog of cases—continue to be deprived of a fair pay rise. Employees in the Family Court have not had a pay rise for four years. How is that fair? But I suppose we can't be surprised that this government is depriving its own workforce of pay rises when we know that the policies that it has for all workers in Australia are to keep wages low while it provides big company tax cuts to its mates at the big end of town. Judicial positions have been left vacant for a number of months, and this, as I say, has been contributing to case backlogs. Families who are going through extremely difficult circumstances through relationship breakdowns are kept waiting years to get a hearing.

There is no question that this government should properly fund the family courts. It should put the resources that are required into the courts to make sure that families going through relationship breakdowns are able to resolve their disputes, whether they be about property, contact with children or any other matters. But this government refuses to provide that funding, and now it refuses to provide a report that it received four years ago that presumably recommends an increase to funding to fix these problems.

I recently participated in a Senate inquiry which clearly was only required as a result of this government's funding shortfalls. Because of the fact that everyone knows the Family Court is overloaded and people are having to wait far too long to have their matters heard, the government has commissioned a review of the family law system, something that Labor supports, but, in the meantime, before the review has been handed down, the government has come up with the notion of parenting management hearings as a way of trying to cut through this backlog. These parenting management hearings are the subject of some legislation that is currently before the Senate and that a Senate committee has recently, just this week, handed down a report on.

I'm very pleased that Labor senators lodged a dissenting report in that inquiry, because we don't believe that the parenting management hearings are the way that family disputes should be dealt with, especially while a much broader review of the family law system is being undertaken. The only reason the government have put forward the parenting management hearings as an alternative to the Family Court is that they're not prepared to put the money into the Family Court to properly resolve disputes.

One of the key problems with parenting management hearings, in the view of Labor senators, is that litigants and family members going through breakdowns are not able to be represented by legal representatives and there is a very clear problem if you have a relationship where there's a power imbalance. Typically, it would be a woman in a less powerful situation than her former partner or spouse. Very often, matters that go before the Family Court involve, unfortunately, circumstances of domestic violence. Labor believes that it is important that people in those situations have access to legal representation to ensure that their position can be fairly and adequately put. Unfortunately, these parenting management hearings do not provide for legal representation. They're basically a way of trying to resolve family disputes on the cheap. The better way to go would be for the government to provide the funding that is required to make sure that the Family Court can get through its backlog of cases rather than having to create a new structure, while it's in the middle of a review, to try to overcome the backlog it has created.

I was interested that, during Senator Cameron's speech in this debate, we saw Senator Hanson repeatedly jump to the defence of Senator Cash. It was notable that—with the exception of Senator Payne, who, I think, once jumped up during Senator Cameron's contribution—no other government senator jumped to Senator Cash's defence, but the person she could rely on over and over again in that speech was Senator Hanson. As we know, Senator Hanson has now got a very long-term deal underway with the government, the Liberals, her own former party. But I was very surprised, as I say, that it was Senator Hanson who kept jumping up, because not only was she one of the signatories to this motion requiring Senator Cash to produce these documents—and, as I say, you would have thought she would have had an interest in actually receiving them—but one of the issues Senator Hanson has been quite vocal on since she was elected is problems with the Family Court that stem from underfunding. So I would have thought that, quite apart from the fact that Senator Hanson was one of the co-signatories to this motion, if she were actually serious about wanting to fix the problems of underfunding in the Family Court, as she says she is, she would actually want to get some answers from Senator Cash. But no.

We know—whether it be on this issue, on penalty rates, on cuts to pensions or on company tax cuts—that what Senator Hanson says when she's outside this chamber and out touring regional Queensland or anywhere else that she goes is very different to what she actually does when she comes to Canberra and votes in the chamber. On penalty rates, she has twice voted with the government to support penalty rate cuts going through and hurting poorer workers in our community. She has repeatedly voted with the government to cut pensions, she has repeatedly voted with the government to cut apprenticeships, and she has even voted with the government to make it easier for construction companies to bring in temporary overseas workers, something that she says that she's against. This is just another example today of something we repeatedly see from Senator Hanson, where she says that she's in favour of one thing when she's out there courting votes, particularly in regional Queensland, but every single time she comes into this chamber she not only votes with her former party, the Liberal Party, but stands up and tries to protect Senator Cash from facing legitimate questions about Senator Cash's own behaviour.

One of these days Senator Hanson is going to realise that she's been caught out. It's one of the reasons that she wasn't successful in the Queensland election and managed only one seat when she and James Ashby were out there claiming at one point that they were going to hold the balance of power, and then they were going to hold 12 seats and then they were going to hold 10 seats. It actually ended up being one, and that's because people in regional Queensland have worked out that Senator Hanson doesn't tell the truth and doesn't back up her words with her actions when she comes down to Canberra.

Having dealt with the Family Court matters that are the subject of this motion, I want to turn to what we are seeing in Senator Cash refusing to comply with this order. It is a continuation of a pattern of behaviour, in particular from Senator Cash but also from other ministers in this government. As Senator Cameron said this morning—Senator Cameron has been here a lot longer than me—he can't remember seeing a government that has so frequently used claims of public interest immunity in order to avoid answering questions and producing documents that are the legitimate subject of questions from this chamber.

Senator Cash is the prime culprit when it comes to this. We all know, and I think everyone in Australia knows, that Senator Cash is in a huge amount of trouble over her office's involvement, potentially her involvement and potentially other ministers' involvement in the scandal around the police raid on union offices that occurred late last year. We know that that is still the subject of an investigation by the Federal Police. What we saw—and what we continue to see—from Senator Cash about that police raid was her continued use of public interest immunity and other mechanisms to avoid answering any questions about her involvement, her office's involvement or the involvement of other ministerial offices in that scandal. It's not going to work. We know that the truth is going to come out, and already the truth is starting to leak out. I have no doubt that, at the end of that police investigation, we will have the full truth, so all that Senator Cash is doing in refusing to answer questions is delaying the inevitable and, frankly, pushing that scandal closer to an election, whenever that might be. I would've thought the government would have wanted to get this as far away from an election as possible, but, in fact, by delaying, all they're doing is making sure that it remains fresh in people's minds, whenever that election might be.

What we saw from Senator Cash during Senate estimates in October last year, when this scandal first broke, was that she used public interest immunity in order to avoid answering questions of senators at Senate estimates. Very conveniently, as soon as the scandal broke, she organised for her friends at the Registered Organisations Commission who had launched this raid to write to the Federal Police and essentially ask whether it was going to be okay to answer questions now that a police investigation was underway, and, dutifully—I'm not impugning the Federal Police—as expected, the Federal Police wrote back and said that these matters would not be the subject of comment by the Federal Police. Of course, Senator Cash and the man now known as Mr Brandis got together and worked out that the best way to avoid these questions was for Senator Cash to say that a police investigation was underway and that she was now not able to comment on the police investigation or any matters connected to it.

Anyone who bothered to read the email that the Federal Police supplied in response to the Registered Organisations Commission and in response to the Senate estimates committee would have noted that what the Federal Police were saying was that they couldn't comment on the investigation. There was nothing in there that said that Senator Cash and other ministers couldn't comment on it. But, of course, we had the man now known as Mr Brandis doing his usual tricks of interpreting words in ways that suit his ends. I'm a lawyer; I've seen people do that, and Mr Brandis, to give him credit, is an expert at exaggerating words to suit his own legal arguments. What they came up with was that Senator Cash was now not able to answer questions about the matters that were under investigation by the Federal Police.

I was shocked to see Senator Cash turn to this as a way of avoiding questions, because what it basically said was that she thought it was better to be under investigation from the Federal Police than it was to answer questions in a Senate estimates committee. I would have thought that any minister would want to be transparent in answering questions, if they had nothing to hide. The last thing you want to do in politics is say that you're under investigation by the police, but Senator Cash chose to argue that she and her office were under investigation by the Federal Police and that that meant that they couldn't answer questions. What a way to look guilty! If you want to look guilty in the eyes of the public, say that you're under investigation by the Federal Police. That's the route Senator Cash chose and continues to take to this day.

We tried to ask questions about it again in estimates recently, at the end of February, and, again, the response was, 'We'd love to tell you what went on there, but the police are still investigating us.' If Senator Cash wants to keep going down the route of arguing to the Australian public that she can't talk about something because the police are investigating her, let her go ahead. Our case is basically proven.

One of the issues that we're still trying to get to the bottom of is other ministerial offices and their involvement in the scandal. We've had the very interesting and Brandisesque, if I might call them that, answers from the now Minister for Human Services, Mr Keenan. Mr Keenan was the Minister for Justice at the time of this raid. He was the minister overseeing the Federal Police. He has been very careful in the answers that he has given in the House of Representatives to questions about the involvement of his office in this. What he has said up until now is that no member of his office was involved in the leak of the information. What he means by that is that no current member of his office was involved in that. Everyone knows that, just like Senator Cash, Minister Keenan has had resignations from his office—people who no longer even work in the government—and he has been very careful to say that no former member of his office was involved in that leak. It won't take us long to work out—there has already been reporting on this—that it was not only Minister Cash's office who were involved in this leak but also Minister Keenan's office, and maybe other ministers' offices as well.

As long as Senator Cash and other ministers claim to use public interest immunity as a way of avoiding questions about their involvement in this scandal, these questions won't stop. We will keep asking them and we will get to the bottom of it. Minister Cash might decide to use the fact that she and her office are under police investigation as a way of avoiding answering these questions, but it won't work. There is going to come a time when that police investigation is concluded. I have no doubt that it is going to find that this scandal went a lot further than just one member of Senator Cash's office. It is going to find, without doubt, that other ministers' offices were involved and that questions about Senator Cash's own involvement will continue. Senator Cash should stop using public interest immunity to avoid answering questions about the Family Court or her office's involvement in this scandal.

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

How can it be that the entirety of these documents is damaging to the public interest? The Australian already has a copy of the KPMG report. Excerpts and summaries of the report have been published in the paper. Consequently, they are already in the public domain, and the government's ability to support the court does not appear to have been undermined by that publication. The minister representing the Attorney-General's response shows a complete disregard for families navigating their way through the family law system—a system that, in the words of the former Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, is 'letting the people down'. The former Chief Justice went on to say:

The whole system suffers from a lack of resources to get through the work in a satisfactory way.

Those statements were made in 2017, and now, in 2018, very little, if anything, has changed. Only last week, in a ceremonial listing for senior Family Court Judge, Justice Thackray, His Honour said:

… I've been burning to say these things for years.

His final address to the profession was a searing indictment of this government's continued failure to provide the court with the funding it needs to do its job properly. His Honour called out the government for taking years to replace retiring judges and added his voice to the deafening chorus of calls for an urgent injection of funds to deal with the growing case load and inordinate delays. So we have a senior judge and the former Chief Justice publicly voicing their long-held and very real concerns about the parlous state of the Family Court's funding. How is it then that this government can continue to ignore the repeated calls for funding? How is it that this government thinks that all will be fixed with piecemeal and tokenistic gestures?

Let's take the extra funding allocated to the court for registrars announced in the 2017 budget: three registrars across three courts and seven states and territory—only three registrars for all three courts. That hasn't even scratched the surface. In the words of former Chief Justice Diana Bryant, matters continue to:

… just sit in the list. That's appalling.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the former and highly respected Chief Justice of the Family Court, who, in October 2017, called the delays 'appalling'. Barely six months ago, the then Chief Justice of the Family Court was pleading for more funding for a system that is overworked and underresourced—but I don't want to reduce this debate to balance sheets and budgets.

Let's just pause here for a moment and actually think about what is at stake. Let's think about the children and the parents who spend years having their most intimate details laid bare for social scientists, lawyers and judges to dissect and determine. We're not talking about large multinationals crossing swords over abstract contractual principles. These are desperate families dealing with a breakdown in the family unit and all the emotional, financial and logistical complications that flow from that. Delays in the system due to the lack of sufficient resources can only serve to further inflame the conflict.

Family law disputes are necessarily the consequence of failed hopes, dreams and plans for a shared life. The legal profession and the judiciary, including the former Chief Justice, have all identified the government's failure to replace judges quickly—or, indeed, at all—as a significant factor in the current delays. Let's take Adelaide, my home capital city, as an example. Following the retirement of Justice Dawe, South Australian families have been waiting for over 12 months for a replacement judge. So there is now only one judge available to decide the state's most complex matters—one judge.

Last week, the Attorney-General confirmed that there was a full complement of judges in the court for the first time in years. How do you then explain to the people of South Australia what one judge will actually do when there used to be two? How do you explain to the people of South Australia that they will have to wait twice as long to get before a judge? Or does the government simply expect the one remaining judge in Adelaide to work twice as hard? Remember, these are complex cases often involving intractable parenting disputes, including allegations of serious physical, sexual and psychological harm or complex property settlements where mum is barely scraping by on welfare payments and child support while she waits for the property settlement to be determined by the next available judge.

The government needs to acknowledge the failure to replace judges quickly and that the continued failure to replace Justice Dawe has had a snowball effect on separating families. I know this because I've heard too many stories of South Australian families suffering financially and emotionally while they wait and wait and wait on the list. It is not uncommon for matters to spend two years on the Federal Circuit Court waiting for their trial only to be kicked upstairs to the Family Court where they must start once more at the bottom of a very long queue. This is occurring because of the limitations of the FCC and the complexity of certain matters. With only one judge now sitting in the Family Court in Adelaide, matters are taking well over three years to determine.

We know from the various state and territory law societies and the Law Council of Australia that these stories are not unique to Adelaide. For example, in the Sydney and Parramatta courts, families can wait over three years to get to the final hearing. And what is so frustrating is that we absolutely know that this is not a new problem because, unlike the Senate, TheAustralian actually managed to get a copy of the 2014 KPMG report. What was reported paints a sobering picture of the nation's three federal courts. In an article published on 29 August 2014, The Australian reported an expected $75 million budget as a consequence of the court's structures and complex and increasing caseload. The article said:

The 127-page report, which was handed to the government in March, reveals court costs are rising faster than the money set aside to pay for them, and not enough potential savings remain to cover the shortfall.

"The current challenge now lies in that the pool of potential 'efficiencies' has already been tapped and that it does not appear possible to continue to produce them at the same pace ... without a significant restructure or decline in service levels …

That report was completed four years ago, and there is no indication that the service levels have improved in the meantime. Remember, this is not a customer satisfaction survey for a retail chain. The court is providing a service to separating families. That service is to hear and determine their matter in a fair, efficient and cost-efficient manner.

Our attention then turns to the term 'restructure'. We know the government amalgamated the administrative functions of all three federal courts in order to claw back costs, but what other changes is the government planning? We know from Senate estimates that the Attorney-General has met with the courts to discuss reform. Are the proposed parenting management hearings just the first part of a broader reform that was proposed back in 2014, or is this a quick-fix idea, a last-ditch attempt by the government to salvage a broken system after years of repeatedly ignoring pleas for funding? Remember that these calls for funding are not the disgruntled murmurings of the few; sustained calls for more funding have come from the judiciary, the legal profession, legal aid centres, academics and social workers. And they are based on the limited information available to us from KPMG.

This is not the first attempt that has been made to seek a copy of the report. We heard during the recent Senate estimates that there was, at that time, an FOI request pending, and, during question time in November 2016, Senator Hanson requested a copy of the report. In response, the then Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, made two points that I'd like to highlight. The first was that the department had relied on these documents to achieve useful efficiencies, and the second was that he would consult with the secretary of his department to see what he could make available. So, here we are, 18 months later, and we must now all surely be questioning what impact, if any, the so-called useful efficiencies have had on the current logjam in the courts.

But that is the point: we simply do not know. We don't have the full picture, and the government does not want us to know. So, how can we be expected to consider the Family Law Amendment (Parenting Management Hearings) Bill in a vacuum, when the government has sold this bill to the Senate as a new justice model, promising swift and cost-effective dispute resolution for all? And it is for all, notwithstanding Senator Brandis's response to my question in December 2017: these parenting management hearings will in fact be used in cases of family violence.

The government's proposal is a significant departure from existing family court procedures. It is an untested social experiment being thrust upon unsuspecting participants that is binding on them and their children. These are people who will have to deal with the consequences for many years to come. It may be a pilot program for the government, but make no mistake: for the estimated 500 families and the 1,000 children affected, it will be permanent. It also comes at a significant cost of over $12 million—just for a pilot program.

I asked the former Attorney-General, George Brandis, about the timing of the reforms in December 2017, and yet again I find myself asking: why is the government choosing to legislate now, before the Australian Law Reform Commission has completed the long-awaited review into the family law system? If the government were serious about the review and about helping vulnerable Australians through one of the worst periods of their lives, it would wait for the recommendations of the ALRC before thrusting yet another layer of complexity on an already overburdened system, especially when we know that, as part of its terms of references, the ALRC will be looking at 'the appropriate, early and cost-effective resolution of all family law disputes' and 'the pressures, including, in particular, financial pressures, on courts exercising family law jurisdiction'. I would expect that, as part of that investigation into financial pressures facing the courts, the government will ensure that the KPMG and Ernst & Young reports are provided to the ALRC.

The government has available to it two presumably comprehensive reports which set out the financial pressures the Family Court is facing, and presumably the range of possible options that were available to the government at the time. The time has now come for the government to produce the reports: first, to the Senate, to enable a proper consideration of the merits of the parenting management hearings bill, and, second, to the ALRC, to better enable the commission to consider the financial pressures facing the family law system pursuant to its terms of reference.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've had a quick look at the minister's response to the OPD and I will express a preliminarily view. But, before I express that view, I want to make it clear that there is no constitutional impediment to this chamber making an inquiry into the administration of the courts. We must of course respect the need to steer clear of matters related to legal proceedings, but the issue of appropriate resourcing for the courts is fairly and squarely within the purview of this chamber. The letter tabled seems to make a claim that does not fit within the accepted public interest immunity claims—and I refer the Senate to pages 662 and 667 of Odgersbut it does fall within the grounds that are not accepted by the Senate, again on pages 667 and 669. I will look at this letter, consider it and come back to the chamber in due course, but I do want to state that it is for the Senate to accept or not accept a public interest immunity. If it does not accept it then it can use its powers to enforce the order. This may become a test for both the government and the Senate in this instance.

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

Governments should be of the people and for the people; that is a fundamental democratic principle. Part of that fundamental democratic principle is respecting the right of the people to have access to information that underpins government decision making. This government uses public interest immunity claims almost reflexively to deny not only this chamber and members of the Senate but the Australian people the capacity to hold them to account and to more fully understand information on which the government's decisions are made. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the immigration portfolio around what the government describes as 'on-water matters'. The government also regularly uses public interest immunity claims to draw a veil of secrecy over the horrors of what is happening to people on Manus Island and Nauru who remain in Australia's duty of care.

We've had a quick look at the letter provided to the Senate today by Minister Cash. The Greens, on face value, do not accept the claim of public interest immunity made in that letter. It is quite clearly outside the grounds laid out in Odgers, as Senator Patrick has stated, and in fact—again, as Senator Patrick has stated—falls clearly within the grounds that ought not, under precedents set by this chamber in the past and advice from the Clerk to this chamber in the past, be accepted by this chamber. We stand ready to work with this Senate to ensure that the information that the government is continually trying to keep secret is made public, and we do that on behalf of our democracy, on behalf of the people who put us into this place with their votes and on behalf of the supremacy of the parliament over the executive government. We will work across party lines to ensure that claims like this are tested and to ensure that, where the Senate does not accept claims of public interest immunity, further action is taken on behalf of the right of the Australian people to have the capacity to more fully understand decisions the government makes.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 10.33, the time for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cameron be agreed to.

Question agreed to.