Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I have not been speaking on the Australian Greens amendments—not because I did not like them but because I did not think that I had much to add to the debate. However, on these amendments, what has prompted me is the Democrats’ support. I am curious about the proposed amendments for two reasons. If you look at the idea expressed in amendment (6)—and perhaps the government could reflect upon this as well—it looks like that has been picked up in the bill at page 14. At (aa) it says:

a certificate to the effect that the person did not attend family dispute resolution ...

It seems to pick up the same issue that Senator Siewert and the Australian Greens are trying to encapsulate. It may not do exactly the same thing, but I think the spirit is being caught there and it would certainly meet our concerns. On that basis, we would not support the Greens amendment (6). It seems to have been dealt with sufficiently.

Amendment (7) is a bit more curious to me. It says:

A family dispute resolution practitioner must accept a sworn statement by a parent that violence or abuse has occurred as evidence of that violence or abuse.

There are a couple of wording problems. I assume when we talk about a ‘sworn statement’ it has to be signed and witnessed. This is not the court process we are talking about. You would expect evidence to be given in a court process, where that evidence would be heard viva voce or would be given under oath and then dealt with. In a family dispute resolution, it is more akin to mediation where the parties turn up and provide their statements or evidence.

But the reverse is the thing that really worries. By implication, if a person does not turn up with a sworn statement by a parent that violence or abuse has occurred, is that then not evidence of that violence or abuse? That is what really worries me. Is it the case that it should not be accepted if a person has failed to provide the sworn statement—where one is not really necessary in this environment at this juncture? What would it mean if a person did not come with a sworn statement or they came with a statement but it was not sworn? Does that mean that the matter should not be evidence of that violence or abuse? I think it is narrowly cast in that instance and may lead to an outcome that is not fair to the parties, given that it is supposed to be a quick and reasonably less formal approach to get out of the court system. In this way, you are driving it back into a very court structured process. I will not take up any more time. I would be happy for you to explain it but, for the reasons outlined, we are not prepared to accept amendment (7).