Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I know that in this place it's all about politics and sometimes—or often—about ideology when bills are put forward and when policies are pushed forward by the government. That plays a big part in it. This is a political place. We are political representatives. But sometimes it becomes a little bit bewildering why a government would insist on certain changes when it's quite clear, based on what's before them, the damage that it would cause. It's actually bewildering to me. What is the reason behind what they are trying to do with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill?

They should own up to what they're seeking to do, which is basically abolish the Family Court as a specialist and standalone superior court. Why? Is it ideological? Is it because the Family Court of Australia is a proud legacy of the Whitlam Government? Is that what it is? Is it simply the same old, tired ideological fight that the Liberal Party often plays and has played for decades? Whether it's any of the great social reforms that have been put in place by Labor governments in the past; whether it's Medicare, which they never agreed with and always try to tear down; whether it's superannuation, which they're trying to tear down now right before us; whether it's free legal aid and assistance; or, in this case, the Family Court of Australia, an institution that since being put in place and being established has actually served our nation admirably—what is the reason? Can it be something else beyond ideology or pure political game playing? I can't see it if it's there. That's why I'm bewildered.

We know that the Family Law Act 1975 instituted two major changes: it instituted no-fault divorce and it established the Family Court of Australia, that specialist multidisciplinary court for the resolution of family disputes. The Family Law Bill 1974, back then, was debated in this House over 45 years ago and nearly half the House—a total of 59 members—made speeches. The House spent 28 sitting hours debating that bill. It was a clear and open debate with reasoning put forward and arguments put forward in the best traditions of our parliamentary democracy. Of course there was disagreement within that debate, as there would be, as there should be—we represent different views in this place. But, right across the political spectrum, members of this House took those reforms seriously, whether they were in government or in opposition, obviously. Exactly what Australian families deserved and still deserve today were the reforms that the members in this place debated all those years ago, yet today, this week—what have we got?—we've got a handful of speakers from the government benches on this bill. Sorry, how many?

See this speech in context