Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the most upsetting issues in our country is the break-up of families and the heartbreak that happens for the children, the grandparents and the extended family members. People get married and have relationships because they're in love with each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, but that is not always what happens, and we have break-ups. I am one of those people who have had marriage break-ups—in fact, of two marriages. I thought I was going to be married for a long time. From both marriages I had two children. So I speak on this matter from personal experience.

When my first marriage broke down, I had parents who never saw the children—didn't want to see the children. In my second marriage, the stepfather was not very kind to the two children from my first marriage, so hence my marriage broke down. It was also from domestic violence, although it wasn't physical domestic violence; it was because of alcohol abuse.

So I know what it's like to go through it as a wife, as a mother and also now as a grandmother—watching my children go through the same issues. I've not been able to see their children, who they're fighting for—a parent denied the right to see their children, for no reason other than that a nasty custodial parent is denying them that right. These are the children that they brought into the world, laughed with, bathed, saw the birth of. You can never take that away from a parent.

That's what I say to a lot of parents out there for whom at one time it was love, happiness and a life together and now it is hurt and pain. I say to these people: get on with your lives; move on, because it must wreck you, tear you apart. The only people who make gains out of this are the lawyers and solicitors or family who are egging you on to keep going with the whole problem. My main issue—and I'm very grateful to be a member of parliament in this place—is to be a voice for the many parents out there who feel they're not being listened to and not being heard.

Family law was brought in in the 1970s to deal with divorce issues. But now I see it as a failed system that is not working in many cases, or even most cases. We have children in our society who are denied the right of seeing their parents, are going through psychological problems and have issues—drug addiction, suicide, self-hate—and we've got to put it all down to something. What I hope to do in moving this bill today is draw attention to it—that we can actually look at ways of improving our system to help those parents and children out there to come to a unified, equitable decision that will help them get on with their lives.

Family law in Australia needs a major review from a practical, non-legal perspective to overcome lengthy delays and costly court actions in an antagonistic, confrontational system. Australians have been forced to ensure the pitfalls of this hugely dysfunctional system for decades. Delays inside the court system are up to six years in some instances in relation to hearings and decisions. Delays outside the court system average 23 months. Whilst it is my opinion that the entire family law system and laws require a holistic view, I am introducing this Family Law (Self-Assessment) Bill 2019 as a measure to overcome those various areas of confrontation and costs which I just mentioned.

The bill seeks to help speed up the resolution of relationship, property and parenting disputes both for couples who cannot afford to go to court and for those who can. Part 2 of this bill creates a new obligation on divorcees to disclose their financial affairs in a simpler and more convenient way, and to divide assets accumulated during the relationship by paying minimum, incontestable sums promptly. It is my belief that those assets that either party brought into the relationship should remain theirs when the relationship separates. I will say here that I'm speaking from what I put into practice. When I left my second husband I walked away from the family home, because that was his home that he had prior to marrying me. He worked for that very hard, as an apprentice plumber. He saved for that block of land and he built the house. Therefore, I didn't feel that I had a right to that house. This will stop those gold-diggers who only come into a relationship for what they can get out of it. To those people who have not contributed to it: I believe in prenup agreements. If both parties agree that they should split their assets that they've accumulated over the years, so be it. But if you bring into a marriage an asset—your land or a house—that was yours prior to that marriage, that should be yours.

Compliance under this bill applies to Australians regardless of wealth or a trip to the Family Court. A statutory timetable of nine months and a series of minimum payment obligations are created. The bill deploys the same broad method of financial self-assessment that former Treasurer Paul Keating invented in relation to income tax and that former Treasurer Peter Costello perfected in relation to GST. The bill requires that each spouse self-assesses a just and equitable division of the couple's relationship wealth and pays up-front to the extent they are not in conflict rather than when all matters are finally resolved.

The majority of court decisions never order less than 35 per cent of a joint property to any individual party. Therefore, separating couples will have obligations to shrink their dispute to balance 30 per cent of their relationship wealth and put the residual money in a joint bank account while they negotiate or mediate. The disclosures will occur at no cost to government. Mediation on financial matters would thus become compulsory in much the same manner as mediation on parenting matters is compulsory under current law, as a result of the reforms enacted by all parliamentarians in 2006.

However, that mediation does not work in most cases as a result of the court system as some parents do not see the children at all. Research shows that compulsory mediation already works to resolve eight out of nine relationship disputes. Introduction of this reform is the economic equivalent of (1) appointing 26 new federal court judges, (2) giving back to separating couples, on average, 450 days of their lives that are currently taken up with payment delays, and (3) quadrupling the effectiveness of Relationships Australia for middle-class Australians. Reducing financial tension in this manner would have more real-world impact on the number of instances of reported family violence disputes than all of the laws passed and all of the funding approved by this parliament in this parliamentary term.

This bill will help restore the original intent of family law legislation—that is, to ensure that calmness, rationality, low cost and speed prevail. This bill does not change the Family Law Act. It just makes the law applicable to all by flipping the compliance burden from the state onto the shoulders of the financially stronger spouse.

Part 3 of this bill will require spouses to each abide by the existing laws on shared parenting. It will require parents who do not wish to comply with shared parenting to explain the reasons why and to mediate regardless of going to court. The existing exemptions for domestic violence remain in place and are bolstered by a number of other more robust exclusions to assist legal aid organisations to be more effective. Custody should be a strict fifty-fifty, except for some alleviating factors: if one of the ex-partners has a criminal record, if one of the ex-partners has a drug offence record or if there is a domestic violence order already in place prior to separation. These three factors are the only circumstances why they may not receive 50 per cent of the custody, but, apart from that, the fifty-fifty custody should be immediate upon separation, with the details worked out via mediation.

Why I talk about fifty-fifty custody is that it is in the legislation, but it's up to the discretion of the judge. I think that it is wrong that parents can be joint parents prior to separation but the next day a parent is denied access to see their children because the person who ends up with the children denies them that right. Then they have to go through the court process to actually see their children, and it goes on for months and months—and sometimes the parent with the children will even go where the other parent can't see them. This should not be allowed to happen. Upon separation, there should be fifty-fifty custody automatically, unless they have a criminal offence—not a drink-driving charge, but a criminal offence that carries with it at least a six month sentence—or they have a drug or alcohol problem or there is a domestic violence order already in place prior to separation.

We have people in Australia who are suiciding. It's estimated that three men a day and one woman a week are suiciding. This is not good enough. If we are the legislators of this nation, we should start looking at how to solve this problem. For too long it's been disregarded and ignored by this parliament and previous governments. It is my aim to push for change. This is a way of looking at it through mediation—that you make these people sit down; they have to mediate. Too many lawyers and solicitors are making a good living out of this. They are dragging these cases on at the expense of people having to sell their homes and walk away with virtually nothing. At the end of the day, the ones that actually go through the court system and get no justice cannot appeal, because they can't afford to take it back to court.

Reducing financial tensions in this manner would have more real-world impact. Ex-couples need to sit together, work out when they will each have their turn to look after the children and get on with it. Parents with reasons to deny standard shared parenting contact hours must state these reasons in a parenting self-assessment notice. Parents—and that most often means the mother—who have no reason and simply use courts to delay the inevitable will be subject to fines, as applies in some other jurisdictions. It is my opinion that, if there is no justifiable reason for the delay, they should lose legal aid or pay the other party's costs. Lawyers who encourage their clients to make false allegations and claims and drag out proceedings should be heavily fined or lose their licence.

I'm going to be tough on this, because someone has to be. What is happening with family law is devastating our community and our society and, unless people are held responsible for their actions, nothing will change. The economic consequences will be a marked reduction in parenting disputes. This bill will thus enable cases with actual domestic violence, as opposed to alleged domestic violence issues, to get priority in the courts. The time for talk about good intentions is over and the time to act is now. There should be fines for those who make false claims of violence.

Where there are no real issues of conflict, the bill requires attendance at an anger management program. These programs are widely used in New Zealand and do a much more effective job than does standing around aimlessly in court foyers. More education and less litigation is in the best interests of everyone impacted by separation—in particular, the children. This bill will also greatly reduce legal fees, which often absorb all the assets of separating couples. This bill will minimise the necessity for legal advice as was recommended by the Productivity Commission report commissioned some years ago. Family law has long been one of my priorities, and I will keep fighting until I see equitable and balanced outcomes for all mums, dads, children, grandparents and other family members.

In summary, this bill does not seek to change the policy of the Family Law Act 1975 but, rather, to ensure that it works in the way that was envisaged—that is, quickly, rationally and cost-effectively. Nothing in the bill precludes a person from then exercising a legal right and going to court but, in most cases, there will simply be no need to do so. This bill proposes the adoption of methods which have been shown to work in other countries. I say to people: please have a look at this parliament, have a look at the bill and have a look at what my proposals are and come up with a really good reason to tell me why they won't work. Otherwise, let's implement this. Let's try and make change to help those people out there move on and get their issues settled so they can get on with their lives, and to give the children out there the opportunity to spend time with both their loving parents.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, could I please place on the record my congratulations to Senator Hanson on her candour; in particular, with respect to her own personal circumstances in sharing with the Senate—and, through the Senate, with the Australian people—what her children have been going through.

In my experience prior to coming to this place, acting as general counsel within a mining company, on many occasions I had people come into my office seeking advice with respect to how to deal with family law issues. Even though, obviously, I could not act for them in relation to their own personal family law issues, I always tried to give helpful suggestions and personal advice on how to navigate through those issues. I think Senator Hanson was absolutely correct when she said that our system should strive to try and achieve calmness, rationality, speed and lower costs in the system, because when the system goes wrong it can certainly have devastating consequences upon families, children and the wider community.

In speaking to the Family Law (Self-Assessment) Bill 2019, I'd like to state at the outset that the Morrison government is committed to keeping all Australians safe and secure, and that is why the government has taken action to improve Australia's family law system. It is good that, today, Senator Hanson, through introducing this bill, is increasing the debate in relation to this matter. The government is also committed to ongoing improvements to family law to ensure that it helps families separate in a safe, supportive and timely way. It should be noted at the outset, again, that the government appreciates that Senator Hanson's intent is to improve the operation of the family law system, which is an intention shared by the Morrison government. I was impressed with the exhaustive nature of the explanatory statement, which I did read, in relation to the bill. It's a substantial piece of work. While the government may not necessarily agree with the way many of the crossbench bills achieve their aims, they should be commended, as this one should be, for actually engaging in the process of drafting legislation to put forward their ideas with the limited resources at their disposal.

Turning to the bill in question, the government appreciates its aims to assist separating couples to self-solve their property and parenting disputes. However, it is the government's view that the dispute resolution models proposed are unlikely to achieve this outcome in some respects. While the bill intends to establish dispute resolution regimes that keep matters out of court, the prescriptive nature of some of the provisions contained in the bill are, in the government's view, unlikely to reflect and balance the vast complexities and differences between different families, or suit their needs or the needs of their children. When couples separate, the Family Law Act 1975 provides that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration when resolving parenting matters. In determining what is in a child's best interests, of primary importance is the need to protect children from harm and, in the absence of factors such as violence or abuse, for the children to enjoy a meaningful relationship with each of their parents. I should note that that theme came through Senator Hanson's comments as well as being a major part of her motivation.

The Family Law Act is gender neutral and focusses on the rights of children and the responsibilities that each parent has towards their children, rather than on parental rights. It is not clear that all prescribed rules in the bill would be in the best interests of the child—from the government's perspective—for all families experiencing separation. Under the Family Law Act the court exercises a broad discretion in making an order, having regard to all relevant circumstances to make orders that are just and equitable, which is unlikely to be possible for all cases under the provisions in this bill. Given the level of prescription in the bill, however well-intentioned it may be, there is a risk more families may turn to the courts if they consider that the conditions set out in the bill are not suitable for them.

While intending to be compatible with the Family Law Act, there are some unresolved technical issues and gaps in the bill from the government's perspective. For example, the bill includes some terms that are undefined and makes presumptions that are not consistent with the current Family Law Act. This includes prescribing conditions for male spouses and female spouses, but there are also exceptions and carve-outs from the proposed self-assessment regime in a very wide range of circumstances. The bill would also make it an offence not to comply with high-level principles and, as such, would be difficult for police to enforce.

In terms of the government's commitments, whilst there are some issues with the drafting of the bill, we note the intent of Senator Hanson. The Morrison government is also committed to improving the family law system for Australian families. The Morrison government has already committed to structural reform of the federal family law courts to help end the unnecessary costs and delays for thousands of Australian families that arise from a split federal family court system. This will allow families to have their matters dealt with as efficiently as possible and under a single set of rules and procedures. These reforms will significantly improve the family law system. They will reduce the backlog of matters before the family law courts—which contribute to the delays Senator Hanson referred to—and, consistent with some of the intentions presented in the bill today, would drive timely, cheaper and more consistent resolution of disputes for Australian families. It is estimated that these structural reforms have the potential, in time, to allow thousands of additional cases to be resolved each and every year. They're not just cases; they're thousands of individual families looking to have their matters processed as quickly and efficiently as possible.

The government will also seek, again, to progress its clear and measured plan to bring together the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, to be known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the FCFC. The FCFC will become, in effect, a single point of entry into the family law jurisdiction of the Federal Court system and will create a consistent pathway for Australian families having their family law disputes dealt with in the Federal Courts.

This government also commissioned the first comprehensive review of the family law system in 40 years. Forty years is just too long. Forty years is simply too long, and it's a good thing the government has commissioned that review. That review, released in April this year, contained 60 recommendations for the family law system. The government is carefully considering the Australian Law Reform Commission's wide-ranging view of the system and is intent on ensuring the system works for Australian families, keeping them safe and allowing for efficient and timely separations, as is the intent of this bill.

In relation to some other recent family law measures, the government's intention to commit to improving the family law system is clear from a range of significant measures this government has taken to assist and protect separating families. These include the establishment and now extension of specialist domestic violence units and health justice partnerships, costing $31.8 million over four years, which provide legal and social support and assistance to vulnerable women experiencing family violence.

Establishing and extending the Family Advocacy and Support Service to the tune of $22.6 million over three years provides duty lawyers at family law courts to provide services to families affected by family violence. In the 2019-20 budget, an additional $7.8 million was committed over three years for dedicated men's support workers to be engaged in all Family Advocacy and Support Service locations. The dedicated men's support workers will provide access to support services for both alleged perpetrators and male victims of family violence. Eleven million dollars has been allocated to improve information-sharing between the family law, family violence and child protection, including the co-location of state and territory family safety officials in family law courts. In addition, there've been introduced prohibitions against perpetrators of family violence from cross-examining their victims in family law proceedings, and the provision of $7 million to Legal Aid commissions to represent affected parties. Lastly, $10.7 million has been allocated over four years for the family law court system to employ up to 17 additional qualified social workers and psychologists as family consultants.

With respect to government measures aimed at helping to keep families out of court altogether, many of the government's family law supports are directed at helping those Australian families in this time of difficulty to resolve their disputes without needing to go to court and without needing to incur those legal expenses, which can be quite prohibitive. We note that, again, that is consistent with the purpose underlying this bill.

As part of the Women's Economic Security Package, the government provided $50 million over four years for family law property mediation. The government also provides mediation services that support families to reach agreement about their property splits between themselves, with a view to helping keep those families out of our court system. The measure is expected to provide an additional 31,200 couples across Australia with access to affordable property mediation each year.

The government will also provide $10.3 million for Legal Aid commissions to run a two-year trial of lawyer-assisted mediation in each state and territory. The trial will support families with asset pools up to $500,000, excluding debt, to resolve their property disputes with the help of experienced legal aid lawyers. We need to do better through the system, with respect to those families with assets of $500,000 or less. It's ridiculous that so much of a mistake can be chewed up in terms of legal expenses.

These recent measures are on top of the $160 million per year for family law services to support people with family law disputes outside of court. These services include counselling and education programs and were accessed by 70,000 men and 86,000 women last year. So those services, which are being provided, are being used.

In closing, the government remains committed to working with the crossbench, including Senator Hanson, to improve the operation of the family law system in Australia. The government thanks the senator for the contribution and advancement of the debate.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Reconciliation) | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Family Law (Self-Assessment) Bill brought by the Pauline Hanson One Nation. Labor agrees that reforms to the family law system are needed. However, the reforms proposed in this bill are confusing, inconsistent with existing family law policy objectives—including acting in the best interests of children—and generally unworkable. Accordingly, Labor will be opposing this bill.

The bill proposes a range of measures to reform the family law system in relation to the resolution of financial disputes and parenting disputes, primarily through the use of an online self-assessment portal for the resolution of disputes. Our key concerns with the bill include the fact that the bill has been drafted without consideration of the extensive review of the family law system and recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission. I note that the final report of that comprehensive inquiry was tabled on 9 April this year yet the explanatory memorandum of this bill refers to the Australian Law Reform Commission being 'due to report on 31 March 2019', indicating that the bill and its explanatory memorandum were completed without any reference to that report and the many recommendations it has made.

The explanatory memorandum makes numerous statements which suggest that this bill is being based on foundations at odds with the best interests of children in family law disputes. For example, the explanatory memorandum includes an assertion that its provisions will force a separating couple to 'act rationally', and a statement that this bill 'will serve utilitarian justice'—something the former Soviet Union justice system emphasised. An early draft of this bill was apparently provided to the Law Council of Australia. The Law Council raised a number of concerns, including constitutional concerns about the draft. These concerns are dismissed in the explanatory memorandum as being the result of arguments 'about the vibe of the Constitution', allegedly based on the Law Council's self-interest as a body representing Australian lawyers. The bill proposes differential treatment based on gender stereotypes, while the explanatory memorandum asserts that 'the Orwellian slogans about the best interests of children remain vacuous and provide no legal guidance, just more vitriol'.

The provisions in this bill in relation to the resolution of financial disputes contain a range of unworkable and draconian provisions, including, for example, a penalty of up to 100 penalty units—that's $21,000—for failing to provide an email address within 30 days under section 7. Under subsection 12A(1)—a provision titled 'Those who don't bother to try'—those who don't comply with obligations under the portal system established by this bill 'must pay a sum not less than the net equal equity value of the couple's family home to their spouse by the 90th day, together with a sum of $50,000.'

The provisions in relation to the resolution of parenting disputes also contain a range of unworkable or retrograde provisions. For example, the stated policy objective of these provisions in subsection 16(1) do not mention the best interests of the child. Another example is in subsection 17(2)(a) which provides that a residential parent must comply with 'their overarching obligation which is to enable shared parenting time in a prompt manner'.

However, I say again that Labor acknowledges that there are significant problems with the current family law system which have led to unacceptable delays for vulnerable families and children. One matter raised in the explanatory memorandum to this bill that we in Labor agree with is that one of the reasons the family law system is not serving the interests of Australians is that the courts and legal aid are drastically underfunded. This underfunding is the result of ongoing neglect of Family Court and of legal assistance services over six years of the Liberal government. In fact, the family law courts around Australia are in crisis. Approximately 90 per cent of Federal Circuit Court work relates to family law. In all registries of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court families are experiencing longer and longer delays before their disputes are determined. At present, delays from court filing to the commencement of a trial can be as high as 36 months in both the Family Court and the Family Circuit Court of Australia. To some extent these delays have been further exacerbated by the mismanagement of court resources, with retired judges not always being replaced in a timely manner by this Liberal government.

In contrast to the Morrison government, Labor believes that for Australia to remain a fair and democratic nation justice must be accessible to all, rather than only those who can afford to hire lawyers. Ensuring that all Australians are able to have their legal rights upheld is especially important to families and children under threat of violence, to the victims of financial fraud and other crimes perpetrated against them by banks and other large companies, to Indigenous Australians, to communities, to the sick, the elderly and rural Australians, who don't have easy access to lawyers and to the courts, and to our new arrivals and those accused of serious crime. Providing access to justice for all Australians has been a Labor Party priority for over a generation, since the Whitlam government established legal aid.

Since that time Labor has championed and strengthened the legal aid sector, which now includes three additional services in addition to the legal aid commissions. Firstly, over 120 community legal centres receive funding from the Commonwealth and provide vital legal services to Australians in need across areas including domestic violence, family advice, workplace abuse and minor criminal offences. Secondly, a network of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, ATSILS, provides legal advice, representation, community legal education and advocacy to Aboriginal Australians and communities. Thirdly, there are 14 family violence prevention legal services, which provide a range of services to Indigenous women and families, in particular to those suffering from domestic violence.

When last in government, Labor actively supported the four legal services that make up the legal assistance sector. This included further vital funding boosts to community legal centres, the environmental defenders offices, the legal aid commissions and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service. In opposition, Labor has successfully fought against the vicious cuts to community legal centres that the Liberal government sought to impose in their last term, forcing the Liberals into a humiliating backdown and reversal of position. Labor will continue to champion improved legal assistance funding and continue to press for increased funding to our Family Court system, so that both can function as was intended when they were first established by the Whitlam government.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that things have to change in the Family Court system, both in terms of resourcing and the law itself. Labor's priority is making sure that changes to the family law system are done right. This bill does not do that. Reform of the family law system should be based on evidence and should be developed in consultation with input from the many stakeholder groups in the family law system. The proposed reforms in this confusing and poorly drafted bill clearly fail both of these tests. Labor will be opposing this bill.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Family Law (Self-Assessment) Bill 2019. In rising to speak to this private senator's bill, I note that it is not my first speech. I acknowledge that Senator Hanson has been a longstanding advocate for reforming our family law system, and I congratulate her and One Nation for their diligent work in developing this bill.

It should be noted from the outset that, while I agree with the intention of this bill to improve the operation of the family law system, which is an intention shared by the government, there are some technicalities with this bill which mean that we cannot support it as it is currently written. The Nationals in government, alongside the Liberal Party, are committed to keeping all Australians safe and secure, and that's why the coalition government have taken action to improve Australia's family law system and we continue to do so.

The government recognises that ongoing improvements to our family law system are required to ensure families can separate in a safe, supportive and, most importantly, timely way. This is reflected in our decision to commission the first comprehensive review of Australia's family law system in 40 years to ensure that the family law system is contemporary, accessible and, importantly, fit for purpose.

Turning to the bill in question, the government appreciates that it aims to assist separating couples to self-solve their property and parenting disputes. However, the dispute resolution models in this bill are unlikely to achieve this outcome. While the bill intends to establish dispute resolution regimes that keep matters out of court, the prescriptive nature of the provisions contained in the bill are unlikely to reflect the vast differences and complexities between families or suit the needs of their children.

When couples separate, the Family Law Act of 1975 provides that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration when resolving parenting matters. The Family Law Act, as it currently stands, is gender-neutral and focuses on the rights of children and the responsibilities that each parent has towards their children rather than parental rights. It's not clear that all the prescribed rules in this bill would be in the best interests of the child for all families experiencing separation. Under the Family Law Act, the court exercises a broad discretion, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, to make orders that are just and equitable, which is unlikely to be possible for all cases under the provisions of this bill. And, given the level of prescription in the bill, there is actually a risk that more families may end up in court if they consider that the conditions set out in this bill are not suitable for them.

While there are some issues with the drafting and wording of this bill, the coalition government are committed to improving the family law system and working with the crossbench to do so. I would like to take this opportunity to speak to some of those. We've already committed to structural reform of the federal family law courts to help with the unnecessary costs and delays for thousands of Australian families that arise from a split federal and family court system. This will allow families to have their matters dealt with as efficiently as possible under one single set of rules and procedures. These reforms will significantly improve the family law system to reduce the backlog of matters before the Family Court and to drive, timely, cheaper and more consistent resolution of disputes for Australian families. It is estimated that these reforms have the potential, in time, to allow thousands of additional cases to be resolved each and every year.

The government will again seek to progress its clear and measured plan to bring together the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, to be known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, or the FCFC. The FCFC will become, in effect, a single point of entry into the family law jurisdiction of the Federal Court system and create a consistent pathway for Australian families in having their law disputes dealt with in the Federal Court.

As noted previously, the government have also commissioned the first comprehensive review of the family law system in 40 years, and we are carefully considering the 60 recommendations released by the Australian Law Reform Commission in April this year. We are intent on ensuring the system works for Australian families to keep them safe and allow for sufficient and timely separation. Our family law reforms are aimed squarely at helping Australian families resolve their disputes without needing to go to court, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of this bill.

Providing mediation services that support families to reach agreements about property splits between themselves will keep families out of court. As part of this, in the women's economic security package the government is providing $50 million over four years for the purposes of family law property mediation. This measure is expected to provide an additional 31,200 couples across Australia with access to affordable property mediation each year. We are also providing $10.3 million for Legal Aid commissions to run a two-year trial of lawyer-assisted mediation in each state and territory. The trial will support families with asset pools of up to $500,000, excluding debt, to resolve their property disputes with the help of experienced Legal Aid lawyers. These measures are on top of $160 million per year for family law services to support people with family law disputes outside the courts. These services include counselling and education programs, and have been accessed by 70,000 men and 86,000 women in the last year alone.

The intent of this bill is to improve the operation of our family law system, and that intent is commendable. Our government is committed to keeping Australians safe in all areas of their lives, regardless of their circumstances, and that includes those separating through the family law system and those who have recently gone through family separation. Our family law reform agenda demonstrates our commitment to ensuring Australia's family law system remains accessible and works well for Australian families. We remain committed to working with the crossbench and all sides of parliament to improve the operation of our family law system, and we appreciate One Nation's efforts to achieve this goal.

Debate adjourned.