TheLaw Council of Australia today told a Parliamentaryhearing that the proposed Parenting Management Hearings should be scrappedand the funds re-invested to reduce the unacceptable waiting times in theFamily and Federal Courts.
The$12.7 million family law measure was announced by former Attorney-GeneralGeorge Brandis in the 2017 Budget without consultation with the legalprofession. Under the measure, a pilot program will be initially rolled-out inParramatta to allow self-represented litigates to resolve their disputes. ABill to enable the measure is currently before the Senate.
President of the LawCouncil of Australia, Morry Bailes, said the proposed panel represents a ‘radical departure’ from the establishedposition under Australian law as well as adding another layer of complexity inwhat is already a complex system.
"The making of decisions about matters such as where a child lives, withwhom a child spends time, and how a child communicates with a parent, let alonequestions of parental responsibility, are matters that are, and should remain,within the remit of judicial decision-making power of judges," Mr Bailes said.
"The panel also creates yetanother layer of complexity to the navigation of the family law legal system,and increases, rather than reduces, the risk to children and adults involved infamily law disputes.
"The changesproposed by the Bill, and the radical steps they seek to implement, must beviewed with even greater concern, in the context of the ongoing Australian LawReform Commission Review of the Family Law System," Mr Bailes said.
Mr Bailes saidthat the $12.7 million to establish and operate the panel could achieve a farbetter outcome for children and parents involved in family law disputes byinstead allocating the funding to improve resourcing of the existing courtsystem, as well as counselling and support services, such as contact centres.
"Funding ofthis magnitude could make a significant improvement to the capacity of theFamily Court and the Federal Circuit Court to triage and hear cases morequickly," Mr Bailes said.
"If the aim ofthe proposal is to respond more quickly to the needs of unrepresented litigantswith less complex disputes, then both Courts would be in a position to respondappropriately to those needs by, for instance, funding for the recruitment ofregistrars."
Opening statement to the Parliamentarycommittee can be accessedhere. The Law Council’s submission can be accessed here.
P 02 6246 3715 P 0437 078 850
E [email protected] E [email protected] ---
