Logie Jan: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 19 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13567. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): The Green Party also categorically opposes the legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. The proposed package of reforms will be a significant change to the family justice system the largest since the establishment of the Family Court in 1981. The reforms are stated to be driven by three concerns: one that they will enable the Family Court to focus on the most serious cases; two that the Family Court does not have clear processes so it is difficult to understand and navigate apparently; and three that the Family Court has seen its costs greatly increase in recent years despite no movement in the total number of cases accessing its services.We believe that this legislation is an erosion rather than an improvement of our court system. We believe that although the most vulnerable women and children are likely to bear the brunt of these changes we will all pay. And on Suffrage Day it is particularly galling to see some cornerstone legislation for the protection of women undermined in this House. This legislation is what happens when the Government turnsits eye to how it can reduce costs rather than deliver to its citizens. This legislation is what happens when the Government forgets that it has an important role to play in preventing social disintegration. This is what happens when the Government considers short-term financial lines over long-term savings.The Family Court was established in 1980 following the report of the Royal Commission on the Courts in 1978. The commission through a very thorough investigation recognised that families play a vitally important role in our society and that a specialised forum was required to respond adequately to their needs. From this arose the Family Court as we have it now.Yet over time so much has been added to the court. I think that when we consider some of the administrative difficulties and the complexity of the court considering what has been added to its role over time may help us understand that. It stands in stark contrast to the changes that are being proposed. Since its establishment the Family Court has had added to its jurisdiction the care and protection of children under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989; powers ofwardship which were previously the preserve of the High Court; international child abduction law duties; the enactment of the Care of Children Act 2004; exclusive jurisdiction under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 which was previously shared with the High Court; estates under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 and the Family Protection Act 1955; jurisdiction under health and disability legislation such as the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 and the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 and of course the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 gave the Family Court power to grant protection orders under this statute which represents a considerable body of work for the Family Court.So it is no wonder that we need to update our legislation and the structure of the court. That is not in question here. The Government held a review. I guess considering all of that it made sense to have a review and to consult and the Government did consult widely. It had 209 submissions and 121 full responses were received. The Minister of Justice in 2012 released a set of proposals for change. These proposed changes are raised in the discussion paper but they did not reflect and this legislation does not reflect the feedback of the community of those with the most experience of the Family Court.What that review asked for was a Family Court review that provided better information on how to resolve disputes; a non-adversarial child-focused family justice system; greater transparency around court processes and accountability of court professionals particularly lawyers; consequences for those who mislead the court or create delay; and an increase in the skills and competency of family lawyers.We know what is in this legislation. What it does is set up a family dispute resolution process that is mediation and facilitation based without representation. It will be mandatory private and non-judicial and will be a cost to those wanting to access that mandatory service. That is an undermining of our basic court process that is not what was asked for by the review and that is not what families in breakdown need.As was pointed out earlier in respect of the philosophy that families should be able to work these things out themselves those that can do. By far the majority of families do and they do not come near the Family Court. The families who come to the Family Court in these situations are the families in conflict who have not been able to work it out themselves. It is absolutely essential for us as a State to be able to help those families out unless we are to all pay for the cost of increased conflict and family breakdown. That is what this is potentially setting up.Alongside this although it is purportedly about increasing the rights of the child in this process it actually limits the role of the counsel for the child. Counsel for the child will now be appointed when there are “concerns for the safety and well-being of the child;” and the judge considers an appointment of the counsel necessary. This is an erosion of that service. It is a displacement of children from their centrality in this legislation. We know that children are the most vulnerable when families are in breakdown. This will have long-lasting consequences.It sets up that when lawyers for the child are appointed or in other situations part of the costs may now be passed on to one or both parties involved in the case. So here we are saving money in the short term considering the Government’s Budget this year next year with no mind to the future cost no mind to the harm and the pain of the families going through this process and no mind to the potential for victims of domestic violence to get caught up in this system if they are not in a place in their life to be able to disclose that they are victims of abuse. They are going to be put in situations of facilitated discussion where we have no guarantee that the facilitator has skills or knowledge around domestic violence. The outcome of that is potentially very dangerous.This legislation is a travesty. It is particularly so I say again to have this in front of the House on Women’s Suffrage Day—120 years of women having the right to vote in this country. To see a piece of legislation that is so important to women’s and children’s safety in front of this House being undermined is embarrassing and it is a sad day. Thank you.