This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
PM announces inquiry into family law system – politics live
PM announces inquiry into family law system – politics live
(37 minutes later)
Sarah McNamara from the Australian Energy Council is telling Patricia Karvelas on Afternoon briefing that the big stick legislation will damage investment in the sector:
Our real concern is this bill will do nothing to lower energy costs for Australian homes and businesses and in fact, it will have the opposite effect.
The reason is, it gives the government and its regulator the power to enter into businesses and determine their contracting and the terms on which their generators contract.
It enables the government to direct retail pricing as well through its regulator if it has concerns about retail pricing and ultimately, it gives the government the power in some circumstances to apply to the court to divest forcibly energy market participants from their assets.
That does not send a positive signal to would-be investors in this market and our real concern is this is a market that badly needs new investment in order to stabilise prices.
Pauline Hanson is speaking on this right now. Sarah Martin will bring you that. But here are the terms of reference for the family court review (it’s due to report back in October 2020):
a. ongoing issues and further improvements relating to the interaction and informationsharing between the family law system and state and territory child protection systemsand family and domestic violence jurisdictions; including:
i. the process, and evidential and legal standards and onuses of proof, in relation tothe granting of domestic violence orders and apprehended violence orders; andii. the visibility of, and consideration given to, domestic violence orders andapprehended violence orders in family law proceedings;
b. the appropriateness of family court powers to ensure parties in family law proceedings provide truthful and complete evidence, and the ability of the court to make orders for non-compliance and the efficacy of the enforcement of such orders;
c. beyond the proposed merger of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court any other reform that may be needed to the family law and the current structure of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court;
d. the financial costs to families of family law proceedings, and options to reduce thefinancial impact, with particular focus on those instances where legal fees incurred byparties are disproportionate to the total property pool in dispute or are disproportionateto the objective level of complexity of parenting issues, and with consideration beinggiven amongst other things to banning “disappointment fees”, and:
i. capping total fees by reference to the total pool of assets in dispute, or any otherregulatory option to prevent disproportionate legal fees being charged in familylaw matters; and
ii. any mechanisms to improve the timely, efficient, and effective resolution ofproperty disputes in family law proceedings;
e. the effectiveness of the delivery of family law support services and family disputeresolution processes;
f. the impacts of family law proceedings on the health, safety and wellbeing of children and families involved in those proceedings;g. any issues arising for grandparent carers in family law matters and family law courtproceedings;
h. any further avenues to improve the performance and monitoring of professionalsinvolved in family law proceedings and the resolution of disputes, including agencies,family law practitioners, family law experts and report writers, the staff and judicialofficers of the courts, and family dispute resolution practitioners;
i. any improvements to the interaction between the family law system and the childsupport system; and
j. the potential usage of pre-nuptial agreement and their enforceability to minimise future property disputes; and
k. any related matters.
The Senate has also passed a Greens motion “calling for the government to provide data on Jobactive compliance to the Senate by tomorrow”.
The government let it through on the voices – they opposed it last week, but it looks like Labor had the numbers this time around (which must have meant that Centre Alliance came around).
Which means that tomorrow morning Mathias Cormann will have to front the Senate to give:
(i) an explanation of the Government’s response to the allegations raised against the Member for Chisholm, and
(ii) an assurance to the Senate that the Member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to remain a member of the Australian Parliament; and
(b) a senator may, at the conclusion of the Minister’s explanation, move without notice, that the Senate take note of the explanation.
And it passed.
Labor is moving this motion now:
Mr President
I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move that the Senate—
(1) notes widespread reports in the media about the Member for Chisholm over the last week, which raise questions concerning her fitness to be a member of the Australian Parliament; and
(2) at 9.30 am on 18 September 2019, before government business is called on:
(a) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Cormann) to provide, for no more than 20 minutes:
(i) an explanation of the Government’s response to the allegations raised against the Member for Chisholm, and
(ii) an assurance to the Senate that the Member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to remain a member of the Australian Parliament; and
(b) a senator may, at the conclusion of the Minister’s explanation, move without notice, that the Senate take note of the explanation.
The LNP motion for an inquiry into the effect of farming and water quality on the Great Barrier Reef – inspired by Peter Ridd but neutral on its face – has been voted up by the Senate 33 votes to 30, with Centre Alliance’s Rex Patrick and One Nation voting with the Coalition.
Labor attempted to amend the motion at the last minute to inquire into the Coalition’s $444m reef grant, but that failed to throw a spanner in the works.
Patrick told Guardian Australia that Centre Alliance “generally votes for all inquiries unless they’re politically charged” and “the outcome of the inquiry will fall according to the evidence”.
Malcolm Roberts just stood up and said the Greens have not met his challenge to prove to him how people are impacting climate change and Elon isn’t answering his messages and he’s stuck on this planet and it’s not fair.
I just realised something.
Scott Morrison leaves for the US trip on Thursday. He won’t be in question time. That means Michael McCormack will be acting prime minister on a sitting day. And in question time.
Whatever I did to be punished in this way, I apologise. But there is no way the punishment can fit the crime, no matter what it is.
Question time as seen by Mike Bowers:
John Setka will be interviewed by Hamish McDonald on RN tomorrow morning at 7.30.
John Setka will be interviewed by Hamish McDonald on RN tomorrow morning at 7.30.
He has so far resisted all calls to resign or step down. Jacqui Lambie says she will vote for the government’s ensuring integrity bill if Setka does not stand down.
He has so far resisted all calls to resign or step down. Jacqui Lambie says she will vote for the government’s ensuring integrity bill if Setka does not stand down.
The Tveeder transcript of that press conference from Stuart Robert, Australian citizen, includes a lot of exclamation marks, because he seemed a little worked up.
The Tveeder transcript of that press conference from Stuart Robert, Australian citizen, includes a lot of exclamation marks, because he seemed a little worked up.
Even though robodebt technically started in 2016, under the Turnbull government, Robert is trying to claim that Labor’s announcement it was moving to automation in 2011 means it is to blame:
Even though robodebt technically started in 2016, under the Turnbull government, Robert is trying to claim that Labor’s announcement it was moving to automation in 2011 means it is to blame:
It started in 2011, if you read the press release, a new data matching exercise from Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek. They could not have been clearer! Labor, when they started this process in 2011. The ombudsman then reported it and made the point, in fact I think it is section 3.4, say it is entirely appropriate for the commonwealth government to collect debts.
It started in 2011, if you read the press release, a new data matching exercise from Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek. They could not have been clearer! Labor, when they started this process in 2011. The ombudsman then reported it and made the point, in fact I think it is section 3.4, say it is entirely appropriate for the commonwealth government to collect debts.
Q: Mr Shorten may not have filed papers but it seems he has got himself a lawyer, Gordon lawyers, are you saying you do not expect this to go ahead?
Q: Mr Shorten may not have filed papers but it seems he has got himself a lawyer, Gordon lawyers, are you saying you do not expect this to go ahead?
Robert: If you are going to launch a class action before question time and you are serious about it, would you ask a single question of the government minister during question time?
Robert: If you are going to launch a class action before question time and you are serious about it, would you ask a single question of the government minister during question time?
You think on May 9 and a journalist asks you ‘Is robodebt lawful?’ Would you say no, we want to make sure any Australian receiving welfare is not getting more than they are entitled to and no one received a leave pass?
You think on May 9 and a journalist asks you ‘Is robodebt lawful?’ Would you say no, we want to make sure any Australian receiving welfare is not getting more than they are entitled to and no one received a leave pass?
It’s the exact words that Mr Shorten made and miraculously four months later now Bill wants to give 900,000 Australians a leave pass but cannot explain where the $5m in revenue will come from.
It’s the exact words that Mr Shorten made and miraculously four months later now Bill wants to give 900,000 Australians a leave pass but cannot explain where the $5m in revenue will come from.
... I am sure we will let the court process stand for itself.
... I am sure we will let the court process stand for itself.
... There is no case, there is no papers. Bill Shorten stood there and appealed for people to come forward to help in his political stunt and that is where we are right now! Thanks very much.
... There is no case, there is no papers. Bill Shorten stood there and appealed for people to come forward to help in his political stunt and that is where we are right now! Thanks very much.
Stuart Robert keeps referring to people as “Australian citizens” and, while accurate, it also just sounds a little ... distant?
Stuart Robert says the class action against robodebt is a “political stunt”:
I will let the cases speak for themselves but remember citizens at any point have the opportunity to bring forward documents to show that the income they reported to Centrelink matches or explains the discrepancy between what is reported in their tax return and Australians who have been asked to explain that and present those documents at any point in the process.
... The way income compliance has always worked, since Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek introduced data matching in 2011, in June, in fact, in and the press release is instructive to read, the report is matched against what they report in the tax return to the ATO and if there is a discrepancy, Australians are asked to explain the discrepancy.
There is always a person in the chain so that they can speak to the Australian and the Australian citizen has the opportunity to explain the discrepancy.
Stuart Robert’s office has just released this list of previous comments from Labor MPs on the recovery of debts.
‘If people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the Government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover that money.’
Tanya Plibersek, Media Release, 29 June 2011
‘The automation of this process will free up resources and result in more people being referred to the tax garnishee process, retrieving more outstanding debt on behalf of taxpayers.’
Bill Shorten, Media Release, 29 June 2011
‘It is important that the Government explores different means of debt recovery to ensure that those who have received more money than they are entitled to repay their debt.’
Chris Bowen, Media Release, 15 June 2010
‘I think most people would expect that we have a rigorous checking system, and covert surveillance is one of our, as I say, one of the weapons in our armoury. We have data matching, where we check our records against the Tax Office’s records to make sure that it all adds up and there’s not people who are paying tax on a job who are also claiming welfare.’
Chris Bowen, Interview with Stuart Bocking, 7 April 2010
‘We want to make sure that people aren’t receiving welfare to which they’re not entitled to. And no one gets a leave pass on that.’
Bill Shorten, doorstop interview, Redcliffe hospital, 9 May 2019
No one has said that overpaid monies should not be paid back, but there have been massive issues with the process. And while the automation process may have been hatched under Labor, it was implemented and carried out by the Coalition.
So, yes, these comments stand – but it is the process of robodebt, how it has been carried out, and the inadequacies of that process, which is under question here.
The Women’s Legal Service Queensland is in Canberra, and has responded to yet another review into the family court system:
Women’s Legal Services Queensland (WLSQ) is visiting federal politicians today with family violence survivor Michelle Dörendahl to outline problems with the family law system that put people in danger.
Michelle’s daughter Eeva was murdered by her father during a court-approved access period. The system had failed to acknowledge and respond to the evidence of family violence.
WLSQ is calling for a federal Family and Domestic Violence Court in order to acknowledge and response appropriately to the 50% and up to 85% of matters in the family courts that involve family violence in order to keep children safe.
Women’s Legal Services Queensland CEO Angela Lynch said: “Families are being traumatised and dangerous decisions are being made by a system that does not properly acknowledge domestic violence.
“Australia needs a federal family violence court in order to protect children from the dangerous decisions that are made when the system does not have the necessary specialisation.
“In the criminal system, we have specialist courts for drug issues because we know that with a specialist approach we can get better justice outcomes. In family law, we need a family violence court in order to keep children safe from violence.
“A family violence court is necessary because of a lack of domestic violence specialist expertise and resources throughout the whole system including a lack of access to legal assistance services by victims.
“We must also start implementing thorough reviews of all family violence deaths to determine the full extent to which institutional failings have contributed.
“Over 50% and up to 85% of the matters that reach a hearing in the family law court involve some form of family violence, therefore it is essential that the system is capable of identifying and dealing with complex family violence issues.
“The family law system needs to have a specialist Family and Domestic Violence Court so that cases have the necessary expertise and the safety of children and others at risk are always put first.
“The most important thing in any family law decision should be the safety of children. Until we have a system that is able to acknowledge and deal with family violence the safety of children will be put at risk.”
After no mention all Senate question time, Kimberley Kitching finishes with one on Gladys Liu.
Mathias Cormann replies:
Gladys Liu was elected for Chisholm because the majority of Australians in Chisholm elected her. The prime minister has full confidence in the member for Chisholm. If Labor has anything other than smear and innuendo – put it up, put it up.
Asked if Scott Morrison will “allow” Liu to make a statement to parliament, Cormann replies that Liu fulfils her responsibilities “as she sees fit” and it is “an offensive question”.
Kitching then asks if Liu is a “fit and proper person”, Cormann repeats aspects of his previous answers, leading Penny Wong to shout “say it now, say it now, say it now”. He does not say it now.
And that’s the end of Senate question time.
Stuart Robert will respond to Bill Shorten’s robodebt announcement at 3.40.
It’s worth making note of this:
Minister @stuartrobertmp says the robo-debt system started under Labor. In fact, the current system - where letters are automatically generated and sent out with DHS oversight - came into play in July 2016: https://t.co/edwO9TFxm4
Scott Morrison has put out the official release on the family court inquiry:
The Prime Minister has announced the Government will undertake a Joint Parliamentary Committee of both the House and the Senate to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the family law system.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the review would look at whether the current system, which is intended to support parents and children during the end of a relationship, is fit for purpose.
“We want to ensure families can resolve issues as quickly and fairly as possible, so everyone can move on with their lives,” the Prime Minister said.
“This inquiry will allow the Parliament to hear directly from families and listen to them as they give their accounts of how the family law system has been impacting them and how it interacts with the child support system.
“This is a serious issue that has been raised by Members and Senators across the Parliament and I look forward to the Parliament working together through this Committee to bring forward recommendations that look at how the system can be improved.”
The inquiry will have broad terms of reference and be led by the Hon Kevin Andrews MP, who has considerable experience as both an MP and Minister in dealing with these issues.
The Government has already proposed substantial reform in some relevant family law structures, such as the merger of the two courts that primarily deal with family law matters – the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court. This reform, which will be re-introduced before the end of 2019, is focused on helping parents resolve issues at the end of their relationship as simply, quickly and cheaply as possible.
The Government is also considering the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission report into family law which was released in April this year and will respond in full to all of those recommendations relating to the design of multiple important provisions in the Family Law Act 1974.
Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations the Hon Christian Porter MP said the Select Committee’s focus would be on specific areas where there may be scope for improvement in the family law system, the courts or other policy areas such as child support.
It will also look at how the family law system, state and territory child protection systems and family and domestic violence jurisdictions can communicate better.
“Amongst other issues, it will address important operational issues of enforcement of court orders and legal costs to families of family law proceedings, with a particular focus on instances where legal fees are disproportionate to the total asset pool or issues in dispute,” said the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations.
“Importantly for older Australians who find themselves taking on the parental role for grandchildren, the Committee will have a particular focus on issues affecting grandparent carers in family law matters and family court proceedings.”
A motion to establish the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee will today be considered by the Senate.
The proposed Terms of Reference, to be considered by the Senate this afternoon, are attached.
Question time ends with this:
David Littleproud:
... Today I had the honour, this morning, to visit Stanthorpe, in my own electorate, to see a community that has galvanised and put its arm around those who have lost.
And I have been able to partner with the Queensland government in increasing our category B payments for freight relief and also concessional loans for repairs of construction and also further freight.
This builds on what we have already announced in partnership with the state government, in terms of income of $900 per family instantly, as soon as these fires took base.
The Queensland government and the federal government worked hand-in-hand. We made sure that those people who were impacted were not out-of-pocket. We have also got grants available for household goods and for the rebuilding of their properties, and we stand ready, with the Queensland government, when they make further application for assistance.
But what was sobering, Mr Speaker, this morning was when I met the assistant commissioner, Megan Stiffler, who ran operations, and a stark reminder of her assessment the night those fires started.
They made an assessment that there would be fatalities. The catastrophic nature of the fire that took place around Stanthorpe and Applethorpe meant that there was very little that they thought that they could do, that there would be fatalities.
Proudly, because of the meticulous planning of those men and women, both professional and volunteers, had put in place, meant that not one life has been lost.
Homes have been lost, and I met a family today. And to the day that they lost their house, it marked 50 years since they emigrated from France to Australia. Yet despite the pain and anguish that they and their family felt, all they were concerned about, all that they were proud about, was that they had a small town community that put their arms around them, and they had firemen and women that stood there with them and tried to protect their homes and their properties.
Like Pedro. Pedro is a captain of the rural fire brigade at Stanthorpe, just a knockabout bloke. He and his battalion worked for over 24 hours trying to save their community. Ordinary Australians doing extraordinary things.
We should be proud of the fact that, in these darkest days, in these darkest days, average Australians become great Australians.
Anthony Albanese:
I do want to associate Labor with the remarks of the minister, congratulate him on the nature of those remarks, but more importantly, on behalf of our side, join with your side of the house in congratulating all those men and women, whether they be paid, but particularly those volunteers, who are going out there and helping their fellow Australians at this difficult time.
Bob Katter is next and I don’t know what to tell you. He talks about chain gangs and Queensland’s “worst ever leaders” (which is hilarious, given he was part of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen government) and something about infrastructure.
Josh Frydenberg says things are being built.
Let’s all just be pleased that Katter made it to the correct chair today.
Someone misses the time to jump for the question and Anthony Albanese gets in there first.
Tony Smith says he has repeatedly warned the chamber that this is the practice – miss the jump and who gets there first gets it.
Anthony Albanese to Scott Morrison:
Does the prime minister accept that a combination of deep cuts and the government’s deregulation obsession have left older Australians in care vulnerable to abuse and neglect? Why is the prime minister denying basic facts, failing to be upfront and failing to take responsibility in the seventh year of the third term of this government, even for the most vulnerable Australians?
Morrison:
I don’t accept the leader of the opposition’s characterisation of this matter at all. Mr Speaker, as I responded earlier in answer to a question, the reason we initiated, I initiated, the royal commission into aged care, Mr Speaker, is because I wanted to know, and I wanted to... I wanted to ensure that those making the most difficult decision, of putting others into care, whether it is a husband or wife... (there are interjections).
... Mr Speaker, I am endeavouring to answer the question, and those opposite seeking to just frankly not show the courtesy to which this issue deserves respect, Mr Speaker. I have been asked the question.
... And I am answering the question earnestly on a very serious issue, and I would ask them to calm themselves...
... Thank you, Mr Speaker, so no, I don’t accept the leader of the opposition’s characterisation of this matter.
It is why the government increases funding for aged care every single year. It is why, Mr Speaker, the government wants to ensure that the results of this royal commission are fully implemented, Mr Speaker, as we work through the issues that are raised, and will ensure that we get to the bottom of the care issues that are so central.
Now, Mr Speaker, I am going to respect and trust the work of the royal commission that I initiated, and I would ask those opposite to adopt a similar position.
