Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. The coalition welcomes this bill. It is the culmination of work started under the former coalition government to ensure that family courts have the information they need when making orders in parenting matters.

The coalition has a strong record when it comes to improving interaction between the child protection and family law systems. In the 2019-20 budget, funding was provided to co-locate state and territory family safety officials in family law courts to improve information sharing between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. After the Australian Law Reform Commission handed down its report Family law for the future, the coalition agreed with the recommendation that there should be a national information-sharing framework implemented. The framework that came out of the Australian Law Reform Commission report was intended to guide the sharing of information about the safety, welfare and wellbeing of families and children between the family law, family violence and child protection systems.

That work progressed in partnership with all jurisdictions through the Council of Attorneys-General and its successor bodies. In November 2021, it resulted in the endorsement by Commonwealth, state and territory governments of the National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems. The objective of the national framework was very clear:

The objective of the National Framework is to promote the safety and wellbeing of adults and children affected by family violence, child abuse and neglect, and support informed and appropriate decision-making in circumstances where there is, or may be, a risk of family violence, child abuse or neglect.

One of the features of the national framework was a shift away from subpoenas issued by the parties to a family law dispute. Instead, the framework moved towards targeted requests for information and court initiated orders. Rather than relying on parties to issue subpoenas, the framework was intended to empower courts to access family safety information. To facilitate early and streamlined information sharing, it proposed a new form of order, referred to as a short-form order, to ascertain whether a state or territory agency holds information that would inform decision-making and to give an indication of the nature and extent of the risk or records held as well as the involvement of the respondent agency.

Importantly, the national framework, which was endorsed in November 2021, envisaged a broad range of state and territory agencies would be information-sharing agencies. It expressly included state and territory child protection or child welfare departments and state and territory policing agencies and firearms registries, but it also envisaged flexibility to include other bodies in the future. This could see the inclusion of state and territory corrections or youth justice bodies and even non-government organisations, such as specialist family violence services, participating in the scheme. This was intended to give effect to the principle that if an individual's safety is a concern in a matter before a court all relevant information should be before that court to ensure decision-making is fully informed. The coalition is pleased to see that those factors are reflected in this bill.

This bill achieves four main things. First, it introduces two different types of information-sharing orders: both a short-form order, which is called an order for particulars, and an order to produce those documents or information. These provisions replace the existing, more limited information-sharing provision in the Family Law Act.

Second, the bill allows the family law courts to obtain a broader range of information than is possible under existing information-sharing arrangements. This recognises that family violence and child abuse and neglect are complex, can take a number of different forms and can impact children even if not directed at them. Family courts should not be unduly limited in the information they take into account when making parenting orders.

Third, it expressly outlines legal exclusions to information sharing, such as documents that are privileged or information that would endanger a person if disclosed. Fourth, it restricts the issue of subpoenas without leave of the court. In circumstances where an information-sharing order requiring the production of documents has already been made, the bill says that a party can only issue a subpoena with leave. This is intended to reduce duplication of information requests and avoid the cost and time associated with subpoena processes.

The bill will rely heavily on regulations firstly to prescribe state and territory bodies as information-sharing agencies that can be directed to produce information and secondly to create rules around the production, storage, disclosure and disposal of information. This is in line with the approach envisaged by the national framework. The bill also establishes a requirement to conduct a statutory review within 12 months after the commencement of the scheme.

We know that far too many family law disputes involve family violence, and this, of course, can have a devastating and long-term impact. We also know that situations can change quickly while a family law matter is progressing through the courts. The information that was put before the court six months ago might not be the information the court needs to make the best possible orders today. A joined-up approach between the family law, family violence and child protection systems is one way to combat this situation, and this bill is a welcome development. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.