Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to take note of the government response to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 [Provisions], noting that the government response was received by this place on 7 March 2024. I have three points to make in relation to this government response. The first is in relation to process. If this Senate is to do its work properly in terms of reviewing bills that come before this place, then it needs time to do its work. It needs time to do its work. In relation to one of the most substantial changes to the family law provisions this nation has ever seen, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee had one day of hearings. It was absolutely disgraceful. It had one day of hearings to consider some of the most major reforms ever made to the Family Law Act, which is a piece of legislation affecting all Australians, some in their most difficult times.

We had one day to hear from the witnesses. The witnesses then had three business days to respond to questions on notice. The Law Council of Australia, professors and various non-government organisations representing different stakeholders across this country had three business days to respond to questions on notice, which I and other members of that committee provided. When did we receive the government response to the recommendations that were made by the majority of the committee and also in my additional comments? When did we receive the response? Four months after the bill had been passed. Four months after the bill had been passed, we received the government response. It's now March 2024. We're now receiving the government response to a bill that was passed in the first week of November last year in relation to recommendations that were made by a committee of this place in August last year.

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

That's typical of them.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is absolutely typical of them. I'll take that interjection, absolutely. It's not good enough.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's disrespectful.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's disrespectful, as Senator Hughes says. It shows a contempt for the processes of this place. Every one of us here has an obligation, in my view, when a bill comes before this place, to consider how it impacts on Australians, each and every Australian, and to try and improve that legislation to the extent we can. That is such an important part of our role as being a house of review. But that function is being treated with contempt by the Albanese Labor government and the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General of this country, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, should lead the way in terms of processes. We had one day of hearings and three business days for the witnesses to answer questions on notice. After that, members of the committee were left to burn the midnight oil—and I don't mind doing it—in order to come up with recommendations. Then we got the government response six months after the report and four months after the bill was passed. That's what we're seeing in terms of process and we're seeing it again and again and again. An absolute contempt is being shown by the Attorney-General, in my view, to the processes in this place. It's not good enough. The deeds of the Albanese government do not match the rhetoric.

There are two substantive points I want to make in relation to the government's response to the committee's report. At the outset, I would like to pay my deep respects to the members of the Attorney-General's Department who had to work within the time frames imposed upon them by the Attorney-General. I note that it wasn't their fault and they did their best, in the abbreviated time frame, to respond to the questions that I and other committee members asked. There were two recommendations I made which were not agreed to by the government and which are not reflected in the bill that was passed and became law in November last year. I think these need to be the subject of careful monitoring, consideration and perhaps amendment.

The first recommendation related to the interests of the child to be considered by the court with respect to custody arrangements. I made a strong recommendation that the word 'meaningful' be kept in relation to the clause that said that the court is to consider 'the benefit to the child of being able to have a meaningful relationship with the child's parents'. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government insisted on taking out the word 'meaningful'. It was against the strong recommendations of the Law Council of Australia, which made a number of points including that there was case law regarding what 'meaningful relationship' meant in that context, and they said, 'It would be undesirable for the bill to abandon the concept.'

But that's what the government did. They took out the adjective 'meaningful' in qualifying the relationship with the child's parents. I strongly disagree with the approach the government took in that regard. I don't believe the government's response provides an adequate explanation as to why the word 'meaningful' should be dropped. I think it sends entirely the wrong message to the community.

The second recommendation I made that was not agreed to by the government related to the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. In some cases where the Australian Law Reform Commission made recommendations which the government agreed to and which found their way into the bill, the government included those in the response and says, 'We can't do this because the Australian Law Reform Commission said something different.' However, this was a case where the Australian Law Reform Commission noted that there was confusion about the meaning of 'equal, shared parental responsibility' but said there should instead be a presumption of joint decision-making about major long-term issues. I recommended that the ALRC recommendation be adopted and reflected in the drafting of the bill to recognise that there should be a presumption in terms of custody in relation to joint decision-making on behalf of parents about major long-term issues, and that should be adopted and reflected in the bill.

Again, the government rejected the recommendation. In this case, the Australian Law Reform Commission had recommended it, but it wasn't adopted by the government. In the additional comments that were contained in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report, which I drafted, I quoted the Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association, which strongly recommended that amendment should be made to the bill. The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland also did.

These are the people dealing on a day-to-day basis with families going through these issues, and they recommend that that change should be made to the bill. Others also recommend that that change be made to the bill, including the Family Law Practitioners' Association of Western Australia. Professor Bruce Smyth, who is also an expert in this case, recommended that that change be made to the bill. Again, the government is not responding to the legitimate concerns of stakeholders and to considered and measured submissions that would improve bills and laws being made in this place. They are just being ignored by this Attorney-General. In my view, the process being adopted by the Attorney, the timetables he is adopting and the deadlines he is proposing show contempt for the role of this place as a place of review and contempt for the views of very substantial stakeholders.

Debate adjourned.