Introduction
The Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System was appointed by resolution of the Senate on 18 September 2019 to inquire and report on matters relating to the family law system. This inquiry follows 67 other inquiries and reports into family law since the Family Law Act 1975 (Family Law Act) commenced on 5 January 1976.
Prior to this inquiry chaired by the Honourable Kevin Andrews commencing, Labor members had genuine concerns about yet another inquiry into family law being instigated while many recommendations from previous inquiries had not been acted upon and, in some cases, not even responded to by the government. Just the two most recent reports—the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence report tabled in December 2017 (Henderson Report), and the Australian Law Reform Commission Family Law for the Future – An Inquiry into the Family Law System (ALRC Report) tabled in March 2019, have a combined 93 recommendations to the Government to improve the family law system. Most of these recommendations have not been acted on.
Labor members were also concerned that some stakeholders would not participate in the inquiry at all after comments were made publicly by the Deputy Chair.
Despite these concerns, the Labor members of this committee have taken their roles on this committee seriously, they have engaged with the inquiry process in good faith, and have diligently participated in the conduct of this inquiry so far.
The committee’s interim report documents the extensive work undertaken thus far by the committee. The committee has received more than 1500 individual submissions and 163 submissions by organisations. Although hearings have continued by teleconference and videoconference, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on the work of the inquiry. Labor members consider it was reasonable in the circumstances to extend the reporting date to the last sitting day in February 2021.
Interim Recommendations by Labor Members
Recommendation
The Government should urgently respond to the Australian Law Reform Commission Family Law for the Future—An Inquiry into the Family Law System: Final Report.
Recommendation
The Government should immediately respond to a longstanding concern of lawyers, academics and users of the family court system and implement the bipartisan recommendation of the Parliamentary Inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence to repeal section 61DA of the Family Law Act 1975.
Recommendation
The Government should also immediately implement the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission Family Law for the Future – An Inquiry into the Family Law System: Final Report to repeal section 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975.
Recommendation
The Government should immediately implement the bipartisan recommendation of the Parliamentary Inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence and the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its Family Law for the Future—An Inquiry into the Family Law System: Final Report and commence development of a mandatory national accreditation scheme for family report writers.
Recommendation
The Government should immediately bring on debate for the Family Law Amendment (Risk Screening Protections) Bill 2020 to allow the Lighthouse Project to commence in the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court.
Recommendation
The Government should immediately introduce legislation to give courts access to superannuation information held by the Australian Taxation Office as announced by the Government in November 2018 and accompanied by funding of $3.3 million.
Recommendation
The Government should immediately allocate additional resources, including judicial resources, to address the delays being experienced by families accessing the family law system.
Recommendation
The Government should not proceed with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019.
Previous inquiries and existing recommendations
This inquiry has tapped into some common issues that have been flagged as concerns in report after report. Some issues have persisted without being addressed for decades. Labor members consider that urgent reform is well overdue and some recommendations, common to many reports, do not need to await the final report of this inquiry before they can be acted upon.
Prior to the Morrison Government commencing this inquiry there had been 67 other inquiries and reports into the family law system. Many of these reports have raised the same concerns and the same or similar recommendations for reform:
The Henderson Report was tabled in December 2017. The report included 33 recommendations for reform.
The Government responded to that report in September 2018. Many of the responses by the Government to recommendations were ‘Noted (awaiting ALRC report)’.
The ALRC Report was handed down in March 2019. The report included 60 recommendations.
The Government is yet to release its response to the ALRC recommendations. Almost one year ago Senator Payne revealed in Senate Estimates that the government’s response to the recommendations of the ALRC’s inquiry into the family law system was with the Attorney-General.
Recommendation 1
The Government should urgently respond to the Australian Law Reform Commission Family Law for the Future—An Inquiry into the Family Law System: Final Report.
Issues raised in previous reports
Labor members consider that many of the reforms proposed by submitters and witnesses are common to previous inquiries and reports. These are outlined below.
Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility
The committee has heard from many witnesses and submitters about the consistent confusion and misapprehension around the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.
The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 amended the Family Law Act to create a rebuttable presumption that parents equally share parental responsibility for their children.
Just three years after the presumption was inserted into the Family Law Act by the Howard Government the Family Law Council’s Family Violence Committee in their 2009 report, An advice on the intersection of family violence and family law issues recommended that the Attorney-General give consideration to clarifying section 61DA as:
… there remains a perception in the community that equal shared parental responsibility equates to equal time (50/50) and that the onus rests on the parent seeking different orders to convince the court that equal time is not appropriate.
In 2010, a joint report by Monash University, University of South Australia and James Cook University commissioned by the Attorney-General’s Department again discussed section 61DA and the other reports that had already considered the problems with that provision, saying:
A number of recent reports have commented that the presumption that the 2006 reforms created in favour of shared equal parental responsibility has created widespread misunderstanding of the operation of the law. Separating parents have believed that equal shared parental responsibility meant that they were entitled to equal time, that is, 50–50 shared care arrangements for their children (Family Law Council 2009; Kaspiew, Gray et al. 2009; Chisholm 2009a). Richard Chisholm encapsulated the general confusion regarding the law: ‘[M]any people continue to misunderstand the 2006 provisions as creating a right to equal time, or a presumption favouring equal time’ (2009a: 125).
That report also warned of the dangers of the presumption:
Furthermore, and most importantly, has been the shadow cast over the potential protection of victims afforded by the legislation by the principles in the legislation of ‘equal parental responsibility’ and ‘shared time’ for the care of children. The tension set up by the legislation between protecting the child and parental equality of responsibility may not be resolved so as to protect victims, if the person claiming equality of responsibility or equal shared time is the perpetrator of violence and the more powerful member in the partnership. Decisions in the Family Court of Australia illustrate the difficulties courts are having in managing the interaction between these principles and family violence (see Murphy v Murphy 2007; Fam CA 79; Delaney v Delaney 2008; FMCA FAM 674).
The Henderson Report recommended that the ALRC as part of its current review of the family law system develop proposed amendments to Part VII of the Family Law Act and ‘specifically, that it consider removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility’.
The Coalition Government response to that recommendation in the Henderson Report was 'Noted (Government supports consideration by ALRC)'.
The ALRC Report recommended that:
… [s]ection 61DA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to replace the presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ with a presumption of ‘joint decision making about major long-term issues.
Although the ALRC Report recommended amending rather than repealing the provision, the report concedes that 'the primary basis for confusion is the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, rather than the general concept of parental responsibility'.
The Government is yet to provide a response to that recommendation despite the nexus between the existing provisions and family violence, particularly violence perpetrated against children, and the Government having received the ALRC Report over 18 months ago.
Witnesses and submitters to this committee more commonly supported the recommendation of the 2017 Henderson Report, that the presumption be removed altogether.
Save the Children Australia encapsulated the more common view about the ALRC recommendation when they told the committee, 'while this would be an improvement on the current position, the presumption should instead be removed altogether'.
Many witnesses told the committee of the widespread misconception of the presumption including Ms Bronwen Lloyd, Lawyer, Women's Legal Services Queensland who said:
There's this presumption that you're supposed to do shared care because there's a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. It sounds a bit like shared care or shared custody or fifty-fifty, but it's different.
Ms Gabrielle Craig, Assistant Principal Solicitor, Women's Legal Service New South Wales also told the committee about the danger for children when parents agree to unsafe living arrangements because of the misunderstanding of the presumption:
There is such a widespread misunderstanding within the community about the meaning of equal shared parental responsibility. Many think it means equal time, and so, many parents enter into these arrangements based on this misbelief—even though they may think these arrangements are unsafe for their children and themselves—and often without seeking legal advice before doing so. We need provisions which, instead of being presumptive, focus on decisions that are made on a case-by-case basis and solely in the best interests of the child.
Ms Liz Snell, Law Reform and Policy Co-ordinator, Women's Legal Service New South Wales also spoke about the misunderstanding of the presumption:
… the vast majority of matters are negotiated out of court, often without legal advice, in the shadow of deeply entrenched misconceptions. This is particularly evident in a common misunderstanding that equal shared parental responsibility means equal time. Women negotiating agreements without specialist legal advice often agree to unsafe parenting arrangements for their children and themselves because they believe that the presumption of equal-share parental responsibility requires them to do so, even when there is family violence. This is a key reason we oppose presumptions. Each family is unique, so decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Many witnesses provided evidence of the very real difficulties that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility present for victims of violence including Dr Merrindahl Andrew, Program Manager, Australian Women Against Violence Alliance, who said:
The way the presumption's meant to operate is that it's meant to exclude cases where there's family violence, but it's really problematic, particularly in situations where that violence might not be properly identified and particularly where a victim-survivor of violence doesn't have legal representation through the court system. Although the presumption is not meant to apply in cases of domestic and family violence, women and children are still negatively impacted by that presumption, because it's often hard to identify the violence through the court system.
Dr Heather Nancarrow, Chief Executive Officer, Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety said in her evidence to the committee:-
… since presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was introduced in 1996, there has been increased pressure on women not to disclose domestic and family violence lest they be seen as an alienating parent. There's also been confusion, particularly by self-represented litigants, about what equal shared parental responsibility means.
Ms Angela Lynch, Chief Executive Officer, Women's Legal Services Queensland said in her evidence to the committee:
… the Australia Institute of Family Studies has done research on this that talks about when shared parental responsibility arrangements are made. In cases where there's both family violence and child abuse, it's made in nearly 70 per cent of cases. Where there's either family violence or child abuse, it's made in 83.7 per cent of matters. That's the Australian Institute of Family Studies research. So the presumption, despite family violence and child abuse being there, is not displaced, and that's our practice knowledge as well.
Ms Lynch also gave evidence to the committee of the real consequences of the misconception of the presumption:
In the case of Hannah Clarke we know from media reports she entered into shared care arrangements through mediation giving Baxter 165 nights. We are told he was not happy with these arrangements as this did not equate to equal time and he would not sign consent orders and wanted to pursue his rights in the family courts.
Ms Zoe Rathus AM appearing in her private capacity, also acknowledged the difficulty of the presumption for victims of violence:
I think the presumption that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of children has actually proved extremely dangerous. I do understand why such an idea is an ideal, but, unfortunately, actually having a presumption at law is an extremely powerful legal tool that really tilts the direction of decision-making. It is intended to do that. To have decided to go with a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility has, I say, in the end made it very difficult for victims of violence to raise it because then they are always seen as flying in the face of a presumption that sits in the legislation.
Ms Deborah Awyzio, Chair, Family and Domestic Violence Committee of the Queensland Law Society confirmed the view of the Law Society in her evidence to the committee that:
… presumptions in relation to parental responsibility unreasonably fetter the discretion of the court. Parental responsibility should be a matter for the court to determine in the circumstances of each case, guided by the paramount consideration principle.
Ms Hayley Foster, Chief Executive Officer, Women's Safety New South Wales highlighted the pervasive nature of the presumption to the culture of the entire family law system:
By having that presumption there, how we actually handle those matters filters through the whole system from the very get-go. It's all the way through to that very first mediation that we have when I'm sitting there with a client in a mediation. Having that presumption there is changing the culture of the whole system.
The overwhelming evidence to the committee was in favour of repealing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. There was very limited support for retaining the presumption.
Ms Lynch concluded her opening statement to the committee by asking them to make an interim recommendation to remove the presumption:
We urge you, as we have urged the government, to make an interim decision to recommend to government the removal of the presumption and emphasis on shared care, at a very minimum, and to replace this with a common law position that recognises both parents can make decisions about children unless a court orders otherwise and that these decisions are made subject to the best interests of children.
Reports to government since 2009 have been raising concerns about the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and recommending it be amended or repealed. Labor members of the committee consider there is no need to wait for a recommendation in another report to know that this needs to be fixed urgently.
Recommendation 2
The Government should immediately respond to a longstanding concern of lawyers, academics and users of the family court system and implement the bipartisan recommendation of the Parliamentary Inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence to repeal section 61DA of the Family Law Act 1975.
Mandated pathway to equal time or substantial or significant time
The inquiry heard of the general confusion around shared care and equal time provisions in the Family Law Act. This issue has been raised in previous reports.
The ALRC Report recommended that section 65DAA be removed from the Family Law Act.
Section 65DAA requires the court to consider, in certain circumstances, the possibility of the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time with each parent.
The ALRC considered that:
... it is difficult to justify retention of a provision that leads to misunderstandings about care-time arrangements, increases the complexity of judgments, and likely increases legal costs. The presumption also leads to a focus on the quantity of contact with a child rather than on the extent to which that contact improves the child’s wellbeing. To the extent that shared time would improve the outcome for a specific child, it can be considered to feed into the best interests of the child and does not require a separate presumption.
Ms Rathus told this committee about the difficulty with the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility being tied to the time a child spends with each parent:
To make it clear: the presumption can be not applied, because there's been family violence or some other reason, but that doesn't stop a court from making an order for equal shared parental responsibility. So a judge can say, 'I can't make the presumption here because of this, but I'm going to make an order anyway, not via the presumption; that's just going to be my order.' Once that order has been made, then, on the way that section 65DAA is worded, they have to consider equal time and substantial and significant time.
Recommendation 3
The Government should also immediately implement the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission Family Law for the Future – An Inquiry into the Family Law System: Final Report to repeal section 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975.
Accreditation Scheme for Family Consultants and Expert Witnesses
The committee has heard much evidence supporting the establishment of an accreditation scheme for family consultants and expert witnesses who produce family reports for family law proceedings.
Again, this is not a new concern. The 2017 Henderson Report recommended that the Australian Government develop a national accreditation system with minimum standards and ongoing professional development for family consultants modelled on the existing accreditation system for family dispute resolution practitioners.
The Government response to the 2017 Henderson recommendation was 'Noted (awaiting ALRC report)'.
The ALRC Report also recommended that the Attorney-General's Department should develop a mandatory national accreditation scheme for private family report writers.
Ms Megan Mitchell, National Children's Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission told the committee:
A number of children have said to me that they believe that the information that's going into that report doesn't reflect their own feelings, experiences and perspectives. So for me it's really important that those professionals have a strong background in child development and child trauma.
Ms Rathus told the committee she agreed with the ALRC recommendation:
We gave evidence to that committee and we made submissions to the ALRC which were agreed with by many others as well. That was a very strong theme. Yes, we believe in accreditation and ongoing accreditation. You would do the same thing as for lawyers—there'd be a continuing professional development expectation. At the moment, it depends on which profession the report writers come from and their professional body.
Ms Awyzio agreed that accreditation was important:-
Yes, we definitely support that, particularly around the issue of family violence. It's very important that someone has the appropriate training to deal with that very complex issue.
Recommendation 4
The Government should immediately implement the bipartisan recommendation of the Parliamentary Inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence and the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its Family Law for the Future—An Inquiry into the Family Law System: Final Report and commence development of a mandatory national accreditation scheme for family report writers.
Risk screening and triaging
The Attorney-General’s Department gave evidence of a pilot project to screen and triage applications for parenting orders. The funding of $13.5 million was announced by the Government on 17 December 2019 as part of the 2019–20 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
Legislation, which is necessary to support the implementation of this pilot, was introduced by the Government on 26 August 2020. However, this uncontroversial legislation is yet to be brought on for debate.
For the Brisbane, Parramatta and Adelaide registries of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court pilots to be operational, the Coalition Government must pass the relevant amending legislation.
The committee has heard support from witnesses about the expected commencement of these pilots and for triaging matters where family violence is present.
Dr April O’Mara, Manager, Practice Governance and Research, Centacare Family and Relationship Services told the committee:
… any type of triaging process that helps to identify those clients that are most at risk, those children that are most at risk, we would definitely support.
Ms Kylie, Beckhouse, Director, Family Law, Legal Aid New South Wales, National Legal Aid told the committee:
Risk assessment processes with clients who are victims of DV need to take place at the different stages of the proceedings, as do our decision-making and recommendations about whether a matter should now be referred back to mediation.
Recommendation 5
The Government should immediately bring on debate for the Family Law Amendment (Risk Screening Protections) Bill 2020 to allow the Lighthouse Project to commence in the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court.
Disclosure of assets in financial matters
The 2017 Henderson Report recommended that the Attorney-General develop an administrative mechanism to enable swift identification of superannuation assets by parties to family law proceedings, leveraging information held by the Australian Taxation Office.
On 20 November 2018, in a joint media release by the then Minister for Women, the Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP, the Attorney-General, the Hon Christian Porter MP and the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Stuart Robert MP, the Coalition Government announced a scheme to improve visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. It was announced as part of the Coalition Government’s Women’s Economic Security Package and $3.3 million was allocated to fund the scheme which would give courts access to superannuation information held by the Australian Taxation Office. Nearly two years later and legislation to implement this measure has still not been introduced to parliament.
Disclosure of assets in financial matters was raised as a concern by some witnesses, in particular with non-disclosure of superannuation assets.
Ms Zita Ngor, Chief Executive Officer, Women's Legal Service SA told the committee:
… this is another aspect of coercive and controlling behaviours, and it's not uncommon for a lot of the women we work with—or have limited or no idea about their finances then just being able to identify potential super accounts can be extremely difficult.
Mrs Susan Price, Men's Rights Agency described to the committee the difficulty with delay in disclosure of assets:
There's a fair amount of procrastination that takes place and an unwillingness to get valuations or to disclose various bank accounts, shares and all the rest of it, and it can be a difficult process to get everything together into the one bucket to say, 'Well, this is the family pool.' This needs to be speeded up.
Ms Jody Knighton, Principal Solicitor, Women's Legal Service SA told the committee the problem with obtaining a ‘flagging order’ to preserve superannuation funds while proceedings are on foot:
A flagging order must be directed to a particular super fund, say, Australian Super, for example. If the wife doesn't know who the husband's superannuation is with then an order is useless.
Ms Ngor went on to explain the added difficulties in the wake of the Government’s COVID-19 response which has allowed people to access their superannuation:
… certainly we have seen that happen during this period, where people have recently separated and by the time she gets legal advice about the property settlement he's already removed some funds. There's been at least one. I haven't seen too many yet that have done it post 1 July, but certainly the opportunity to do so is there.
Recommendation 6
The Government should immediately introduce legislation to give courts access to superannuation information held by the Australian Taxation Office as announced by the Government in November 2018 and accompanied by funding of $3.3 million.
Resourcing of courts
The 2017 Henderson Report recommended that the Australian Government considers the current backlog in the federal family courts and allocates additional resources to address this situation as a matter of priority.
The committee has heard from many witnesses and submitters about the delays experiences by families accessing the family law system.
Ms Awyzio told the committee:
The statistic we are aware of is that there are judges in the Federal Circuit Court who have up to 600 matters in their docket. So, if you had double the capacity of judges, that reduces it to 300 matters in each judge's particular docket. I would suggest that would have a significant impact on delays.
Ms Ngor told the committee:
… there are significant delays occurring with family law matters. It's not unusual to have adjournments of matters for up to three to six months.
Ms Elizabeth Evatt, former Chief Justice, Family Court of Australia, appearing in her private capacity told the committee in relation to delays:
At the present time there are insufficient specialised court counsellors, and that leads to endless delays for parties in getting their matters dealt with by the court … Overall the court should have sufficient judges and counselling staff to avoid delays.
When asked what her priority for the courts would be, Ms Evatt said:
If I had to say one thing, it would be resources, because that would help to overcome some of the delays and costs involved for parties, which are very detrimental… That would be my first priority, yes.
The Law Council of Australia (Law Council) in their submission to the committee said:
To the extent that there are delays in the system, the Law Council submits that this is a result of increasingly complex cases, and under-resourcing of the family law courts, via adequate funding for the Courts, Court supports (such as legal aid commissions and community legal centres) or past delays in judicial appointments.
The Law Council identified five areas needing urgent attention for the effective operation of the family law system:
(a) funding of federal courts exercising family law jurisdiction, including proper funding of appropriate Court buildings and infrastructure to meet the needs of family law litigants in both capital cities and regional areas, and sufficient funding for the appointment of Judges, family consultants and support staff to ensure that cases can be dealt with a timely and expert way, commensurate with the workload and complexities of that workload;
(b) funding of the legal aid, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and Family Violence Prevention Legal Services to ensure access to family law legal advice, representation and alternative dispute resolution options for disadvantaged members of the community;
(c) resourcing for the preparation of Family Reports, which provide valuable expert evidence about the family dynamic and the child's relationships with the important figures in their life – however, the cost of which varies but seems to generally fall within the range of $5,000-$10,000 and in some metropolitan areas such as Sydney can regularly be approximately $15,000 plus GST (or more);
(d) a commitment to the prompt appointment of skilled Judges upon the retirement of serving Judges; and
(e) a commitment to pursuing, in a timely way, legislative amendments identified as being necessary to improve the operation of family law.
Recommendation 7
The Government should immediately allocate additional resources, including judicial resources, to address the delays being experienced by families accessing the family law system.
Merger Bills
The Coalition Government introduced the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 (FCFC Bill) on 5 December 2019. The Bill proposes to unify the administrative structure of the Federal Circuit Court to create the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, comprised of Division 1 (which will be a continuation of the Family Court) and Division 2 (which will be a continuation of the Federal Circuit Court). The FCFC Bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 November 2020.
The proposal that the FCFC Bill seeks to implement has not been recommended by any of the parliamentary inquiries or reports by experts in family law over the 45 years since the Family Court of Australia was established, including the most recent ALRC Report. The only report that recommends a re-structure in similar terms is the April 2018 PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia (PwC) Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts: Final report. That report was commissioned by the Attorney‑General’s Department and prepared in just six weeks with no consultation with court users or the legal profession.
It is noteworthy that the PwC advises in its report:
Where there is likely a divergence in operational changes proposed by this Review and subsequently by the ALRC, advice should be sought from court stakeholders to understand where and how opportunities could be implemented in practice and which would bring about the greatest positive outcomes. Assessment of those opportunities, informed by detailed analysis, should underpin decision-making.
Many witnesses to the committee have expressed their criticism of the proposed merger, including Ms Evatt who said in her submission:
… the proposed merger of the Family Court and the Federal Court is likely to undermine the integrity of the Family Court and lead to undesirable outcomes for the parties.
The Law Council in their submission to the committee said:
The merger proposal that was not passed by the 45th Parliament does not meet that aim and should be abandoned in favour of careful consideration of other proposals, including the ALRC’s Recommendation 1 and the model proposed by the Semple Report.
In evidence to the committee Ms Pauline Wright, President, Law Council said:
… in the Law Council of Australia's view, the current merger proposal of the Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court is not the answer. It would result in the effective abolition of the Family Court of Australia, a respected, specialised and focused court dealing with family law issues. The 2019 merger bills, if passed, would also mean that Australian families and children will have to compete for the resourcing and hearing time with all federal matters—that is, other matters like migration bankruptcy and those sorts of things that the Federal Circuit Courts and the Federal Courts deal with. There must be an increase not a decrease in specialisation in family law and violence issues. This is critical for the safety of children and victims of family violence.
Ms Snell told the committee:
Yes, we are very concerned about the proposed court merger. We do support a single entry point. We do support harmonisation of rules. But our concern about the current proposed merger is that it would move the specialist Family Court out of its current place and into the… a system where it would be part of a generalised system.
Recommendation 8
The Government should not proceed with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019.
Conclusion
Labor members of the committee consider that many submitters to the inquiry have raised practical ideas for reform of the family law system and those ideas are worthy of the committee’s continued consideration.
However, there are reforms, common to many previous inquiries and reports, that have established and continued support, including from witnesses and
submitters to this inquiry, that should not need to wait for this inquiry to be finalised before being implemented.
The safety and well-being of families and children should be a primary government priority.
Mr Graham Perrett MP
Labor Member for Moreton
Senator Helen Polley
Labor Senator for Tasmania
Dr Anne Aly MP
Labor Member for Cowan