ALP delaying tactics look set to sink family court overhaul

Labor appears to have stymied the government’s efforts to restructure the family law courts in this term of parliament.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus. Picture: AAP

Labor appears to have stymied the government’s efforts to restructure the family law courts in this term of parliament — unless the Coalition can convince the Senate to bring forward an inquiry into the reforms.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus wrote to Attorney-General Christian Porter today to inform him he had received advice that the government’s bill to scrap the Family Court and merge it with the lower-level Federal Circuit Court could not be considered by the Senate before April 15.

This is because Labor, the Greens and crossbench senators voted to refer the bill to an inquiry by the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee with a reporting date of April 15.

The Coalition used its numbers on the committee to bring the reporting date forward to November 26, to allow the bill to be considered in the last two sitting weeks of the year.

Mr Porter wants the reforms — which are strongly opposed by sections of the legal profession and some domestic violence advocates — to be implemented by January 1.

However, in advice to Labor senator Louise Pratt, Deputy Clerk of the Senate Maureen Weeks said the senate standing orders did not allow for consideration of the bill until the April 15 reporting date set by the Senate.

“The earlier presentation of the committee’s report does not negate these provisions … and therefore the bills would continue to be unavailable for the Senate’s consideration until the reporting date set by the Senate,” she wrote.

“However, the Senate could to agree to a resolution to consider the bills.”

Mr Dreyfus said an April 15 reporting date would allow the committee to take account of an Australian Law Reform Commission report into the family law system (due on March 31) and would also allow stakeholders adequate time to analyse the bill.

“To cut off this consultation by November this year, and then not have the bill debated in the Senate for another five months, would be farcical,” Mr Dreyfus wrote.

“The government should accept the decision of the Senate.”

The reforms, aimed at streamlining the family law system, come amid crippling court delays. Median waiting times have blown out to 17 months in the Family Court and 15.2 months in the Federal Circuit Court, while many families are waiting as long as three years for a result.

An April 15 reporting date would mean the government would be unable to ensure passage of the bill before the election.

The latest possible date for a House of Representatives and half-Senate election is May 18, and parliament would have to be dissolved at least 33 days before — by April 15.

Committee chair, Liberal senator Ian Macdonald, told The Australian the committee had agreed to conduct hearings at Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Townsville, and would still be able to report by November 26.

“We will do a thorough, intensive inquiry, as we always do,” he said.

“But we will report early because … we don’t need eight months. If every committee took eight months the Senate would grind to a halt. This is purely a political game by the Labor Party.”

The committee has already agreed to extend the deadline for submissions from September 14 to 28.

Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick has warned when the senate returns he will move a motion to shift the closing date for submissions to late November because there was “over 600 pages of complex legislation” to consider and the September deadline was not suffient.

Today, he told The Australian he would be “absolutely open” to shortening the April reporting deadline, but as a crossbencher with responsibility for 10 different portfolios he needed time to consider the reforms properly. He would also discuss with the government whether there was a possibility of the ALRC releasing an interim report before March.

Senator Patrick said Mr Porter had promised he would provide senators with information about the bills prior to them being introduced, to allow more time for consideration, but he had failed to do so.

Mr Porter has argued a three-month inquiry is sufficient because the bill mostly replicates existing legislation and there have been numerous reviews over the past decade.