I rise with many of my colleagues to speak on the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019. I think what this government is proposing through this legislation is the most significant change to the Family Court system since it was first established in 1975. For this reason, this legislation needs to be very carefully considered and carefully thought out. I think this move by the Attorney-General is ideological. I think it's been poorly thought out. I think it's an act of bastardry, and I'm totally opposed to it. I have always believed in science and evidence, and listening to the experts, and I think this Attorney-General has done exactly the opposite.

These bills, which are almost 500 pages in length and make amendments to countless other bills, will not, as far as I can see, improve the family law system, and in fact will very likely make things worse. I say that with some experience. I consider myself a stakeholder in this argument. In my 40 years as a paediatrician, I have had a lot of involvement with families and indeed with the Family Court system. What I have learnt is that families are incredibly complex. In dealing with families, particularly within the legal system, one needs to listen to the experts, and that is exactly what this government has not done.

In the last parliament and in this parliament I have been a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. I had the opportunity in the last parliament to take part in a very extensive inquiry into the Family Court system in Australia that considered many aspects of the family law system as well as the Family Court system. As part of this inquiry, the standing committee held a number of hearings all over Australia. We spoke to countless stakeholders. I must say, some of the evidence that we were given was incredibly harrowing. We visited different courts across the land. Our committee, through its investigations, uncovered some truly disturbing aspects of our judicial system, and found that our legal system in terms of the Family Court system is definitely in need of reform and is definitely in need of proper funding.

You will understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Kevin Andrews, that Labor wants to ensure that this legislation is carefully considered and looked over with a fine toothcomb because of the implications. These bills put forth by the government seek to combine the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court into one court, establishing the new Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. This effort to streamline and further compact our justice system brings the two courts into a single entity, having both covered under one umbrella. This means the two currently separate entities will be given a single chief justice and deputy chief justice, a single set of rules and a single point of entry.

What we did learn in our inquiry is that the Family Court system, the family law system and dealing with families require experts in the field. Unfortunately, this legislation ignores that. The two amalgamated entities will undertake the same roles and functions as they currently do, but the Attorney-General has expressed an intention not to appoint new judges to the FCFC division as they retire. This is the division that, under this legislation, will replace the existing Family Court. What this means, in not so many words, is that this legislation will amount to a gradual abolition of the Family Court over time and a gradual abolition of any concept of expertise in dealing with Family Court matters. These bills will result in the work of the Family Court being absorbed into the Federal Circuit Court.

The Morrison government should come clean and own up to what it is doing here. Through these bills, the government is trying to abolish the Family Court—one of the great legacies of the Whitlam government. When this legislation was first brought before the House some years ago, it appeared as though the government was trying to do this under a cloak of secrecy. Disgracefully, it appears as though those opposite haven't even bothered to consult with the families currently in the system or the experts dealing with family law. They are seeking to get rid of the Family Court and haven't bothered to consider the families who have used it in the past and are using it now.

My role on the previously mentioned standing committee, my role as a local MP working with local constituents and my experience as a paediatrician have collectively shown me that our legal system is definitely in need of reform. It is undeniable that the Family Court presently is in need of increased funding and significant changes. We've heard repeatedly that issues such as backlogs and unacceptable delays in the court system increase the risk of family violence to children and predominantly to mothers caught up in the system. The reality is that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government is at least partly to blame for this by underfunding and not understanding the role of the Family Court. You won't hear those opposite admitting to this truth but all the experts say this.

The supreme peak body of the legal system in Australia, the Law Council, is totally opposed to this amalgamation. The government has not funded the court appropriately and the backlogs have increased, and their failure to adequately fund legal assistance services and their failure to adequately supervise and understand the role, for example, of court appointed children's solicitors had led to multiple problems and some disastrous outcomes.

The government has botched all due process in this legislation. They've failed to consult the broader community. They've failed to give time to groups of experts presenting to the government and explaining their recommendations. They have led to, I feel, a really retrograde step in the family law system. It's worth noting that the inquiry of which I was a part in the last parliament made 33 recommendations for the government to improve our family law system. It's worth noting that not one of those 33 recommendations has been accepted by the government. Not one of those recommendations talked about amalgamating the Family Court into the Federal Circuit Court. The government has not adequately explained their reasons for ignoring those recommendations. The government has failed to act on a vast number of recommendations that would improve the system and make better outcomes for families.

It's not simple. We admit that. We understand that. This legislation is somehow being presented as a way of simplifying a system that is, of course, complex because of the very nature of families. As I've mentioned, I've been dealing with families all my working life, and families are complex. They're not easy to deal with sometimes. There's often conflict when families break down, and that conflict can lead to some poor outcomes. What we need to do is listen to the experts as much as we have done in the pandemic—Australia's had a good response to the pandemic because we've listened to the experts. The family law system is the same. We should listen to the experts and do what they suggest is best for the family law system in Australia.

At the present time, we know, the majority of cases are being heard in the Federal Circuit Court. All the evidence that we've obtained indicated it's far better if the court has expert judges, expert family assessors, expert solicitors and expert court attendants that have learnt to deal with family law on an ongoing basis. What the current Attorney-General is agreeing to do with this legislation is hand over all legal matters pertaining to family law to the generalist Federal Circuit Court. All the available evidence suggests this will lead to worse outcomes, not better outcomes.

Many matters that are presently handled in the Federal Circuit Court are those cases which are very complex and are therefore typically dealt with in the Family Court. This court is appropriately presided over by personnel who are equipped to deal with complex Family Court matters—they are specialist judges with the appropriate level of expertise required to hear such cases. It's because of the complex nature of these select cases that matters that are referred to the Family Court can take long time to resolve. The specialist skill and detailed consideration that is required to hear such cases, often involving children, is no reason to simply get rid of the Family Court altogether. Here the government appears unwilling to acknowledge and accept the fact that specialist judges should be required to consider complex family law cases in detail. I would say, as a paediatrician, it's also very important that specialist children's court appointed solicitors are properly trained in family law and are properly trained in their responsibilities to deal with the wishes, wants and needs of the children involved in family law. I'm very worried about what will happen to the children's interests in these situations if the matters are all heard by a generalist Federal Circuit Court. It appears to be mere semantics to the government, however. With a swipe of a pen, they can approve the abolition of a crucial, established and well-regarded court system with its institutional knowledge and capabilities.

I will just go back very briefly to the government's failure to undertake the appropriate level of consultation. This legislation, as I've mentioned, is very significant and a major change. The Liberal-National government should have at least attempted to get some input from the wider community and relevant stakeholders. They have handled this whole debate and the development of their legislation very poorly. I can only feel that this is ideological. They have not bothered to pretend to engage with the people and groups that are in the family law system every day. They've neglected the family groups, the registrars, the legal assistance services, the lawyers and the judges. They didn't want any oversight, they didn't want to have to consult and they certainly didn't want any scrutiny. This is evident through their ill-conceived attempts to place restrictions on the time available to make submissions on these matters, which they initially wanted to be over and done with in just three weeks.

We are firmly in favour of adequate consultation, especially on such significant matters, and I think anyone involved in the Family Court would understand this and agree with it. The issues that are presently plaguing our judicial system should be addressed, but the government cannot hope to do this without reaching out to stakeholders. Instead they are merely abolishing the Family Court. This is a tragedy that is evolving. It is a shame. It is ideological. It is something that we should all be ashamed of. I'm firmly of the opinion that all stakeholders, whether they're in favour of the changes or not, should get the opportunity to have their say on these vitally important matters. To me, the government's failure here demonstrates their laziness and their ideology. Rather than actively engaging with the broader community, hearing people's experiences in the family courts and having appropriate discussions with the experts, they originally sought to rush this legislation through. Rather than actually trying to solve the underlying problems, the government appeared to be attempting to brush the issues under the carpet and hoping they would go away.

The Attorney-General and his out-of-touch government can pretend all they like that adequate consultation has been undertaken, but the evidence certainly says otherwise, as do the expert groups. This is complex legislation that takes around 500 pages to outline, with amendments to 120 other acts, and is effectively axing an essential institution, yet it seems as though this government thinks it's okay to consult with just two people. That's right: it appears as though the government's original consultations were limited merely to the Chief Justice of the Family Court and the Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit Court. This style of government is like a toddler having a temper tantrum. As a paediatrician, I have witnessed many of those, but this one takes the cake. Make no mistake about it: that is what the government is doing here. Rather than dealing with the issues facing the Family Court, they've just suggested wiping it. In an ideological, haphazard manner, they choose simply to close the whole institution down.

I've already mentioned that as a member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs I was part of an inquiry that looked into the family law courts. This inquiry was eye-opening and reinforced what I believed, and it's an absolute tragedy that the government ignored it. I've had a great deal of exposure to the legal system—the Family Court system in particular—and I would not deny that the issues are very complex. The inquiry undertaken by the standing committee uncovered a number of problems associated with the legal system and, indeed, with the Family Court, but our recommendations would have improved it markedly. The inquiry proved that the difficulties facing many Australian families are due to underresourcing. This government has got this bill wrong from the start to the finish. They should do the right thing now and listen to those with everyday experiences in the family law system before they inevitably make matters worse through such a poor approach to addressing this crisis.