Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 42:23 to 56:57
Senators inquire about custody outcomes, the potential for AI in data collection, and contravention applications in family law.
Topics: Family and domestic violence, Artificial intelligence
Speakers: David Pringle, Speaker 7, Senator Jana Stewart, Unknown Speaker
Um, just for some context before I start asking questions, uh, since I've been elected, by far the biggest cohort of people that have contacted my office, um, have been men, fathers, um, wanting to see their children. So, my my question my questions today are advocating for those men. Um, but I'm I'm only advocating for the good man. Good men. any man that would hurt his wife or partner or his children uh doesn't fall into that category and I'm not here to represent them. So my questions are for any of the good men Um since the repeal of 61 DA and 25 DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 which removed the presumption of equal care to parents. Has the court or other agencies um tracked the change in share of custody between mothers and fathers?
Thank you for your question, Senator. Um the the orders made by judges um final orders in relation to how uh children should be cared for are embedded within um orders that um whilst we know the order has happened, we would have to manually go into each one to see what the actual outcome was. U so the short answer to your question is it's not been possible to track that specifically. um it is possible to do some sampling and we are um very hopeful that in the not too distant future with AI we'll be able to drag that information out much more efficiently and effectively um on a broader scale um but it would be a pretty significant manual exercise to track that right now and we don't have the systems or resources at the moment to do that at
>> so without the data
>> sorry I I should mention also um Senator please correct me if I'm wrong I believe you're from Western Australia Is that right? >> So um the Federal Circuit Family Court of Australia manages um or presides over proceedings across all of Australia in family law but for Western Australia which has its own family court system other than appeals that come to our court. So for your purposes it might be helpful for that to um be answered by by both systems if I can call it that.
>> Yeah, I I get contacted from men all around the country. Um so I understand there's the two systems. Um I can only ask you questions unfortunately. So >> um so on the last question where you don't have the data, do you have any directional data? Do you think it's heading one way the other or there's no no data at all?
>> I I think it's very hard to say. Um I I'm happy to take on notice because there has been occasions um and I'm just thinking off the top of my head now um where some sampling data has been done in a number of areas. Whether this is one of them and we have some data that we could clarify for you, I'm not so sure. But in any event, that will be a bit more historical. Whe whether since those legislative changes, the outcomes um for children have changed or or fathers or or parents more broadly um is a matter we probably wouldn't have captured, but if you're happy for me to do so, I'm happy to take that on notice and come back to you.
Um in 2011 117AB of the Family Law Amendment um shared parental responsibility act 2006 was repealed by the Gillard government. That section required the courts to award costs if a party knowingly made false or misleading allegations. Has the court maintained statistics relating to the rate of false allegations since this section was
>> Um I believe the answer to that is also no. Um, Senator again the to to get that information would not even be embedded in an order most likely would actually be in the evidence and possibly the judgments of the court. Uh, so that would be again a manual exercise of going through uh either a sample um of cases um or hopefully with technology a broader range of cases.
>> So you're thinking AI might be able to
confident about a million documents hit our files every year. Um so um it it will take something like AI to be able to get to that level of understanding of what happens in each proceeding >> um without um a heavy investment in re human resources to do a strong sampling exercise. But again I'm happy to take on notice whether we do have some data on that for you and if we do happy to share that data.
>> Thank you. Um, previously I asked about situations where one parent might breach a court order by making an excuse for why the other parent can't see a child. Uh, in your response you mentioned that um there is a very fast process to remediate these breaches often within a couple of weeks. I have a few questions in relation to that. Um, what is the average time to get a resolution to these matters through the courts?
So um in essence we call those the contravention applications when somebody's saying the other party has failed to comply with a court order and in the past it used to be uh before the uh reforms implemented by the chief justice in 2021. Um it used to be about 8 to nine months before those matters could be listed which then obviously you could imagine um made it very difficult for one parent or the other um and dissuaded a lot of people in bringing those matters to the court. We now have uh a system where those matters are listed within a number of weeks um usually around four to six weeks in front of a registar sometimes a senior judicial registar um and that means the matter can be triaged and and quickly assessed by that registar uh where possible it's resolved um by discussions with the parties there or it could be referred to a judge particularly if it's more serious matter of contravention.
Does it cost money to have those proceedings or do you need representation?
>> Uh a lot of a lot of uh parties don't have legal representation not just for those matters for other parts of the court proceeding. Um but of course if they are legally represented that will be incurring some some costs. Yes.
>> But does it cost money to lodge a um request?
>> I have to check on that. Um Senator I'm not sure of the court fee that might be applicable. Um it might be depending on how long we go. I can give you the No, there's no court fee to lodge um
>> Do you keep statistics on how often uh this process has been has to be used particularly before and after the changes to the presumptions of shared custody being overturned?
>> You mean how many uh contrevention applications there have been? >> Yes. Um we do store that data. I don't have it to hand at the moment but what I can indicate is since the reforms and the speedier process of bringing these matters about and uh ventilating the issues in them there has been a reduction in the number of contravention applications and that's not withstanding an overall increase in our family law filings. Uh so my recollection although I can confirm and take it on notice that it's in the order of around 20% in reduction in um these applications since 2021. Um, but I'll I'll um do that more accurately on notice for you if that's
And where it's uh found that there's been a contravention of an order, is the lost time recovered in the ruling or is there a direction that the lost time with the child must be recovered?
>> That would depend on each individual case, Senator. Um uh again um uh it depends on the original order as to what was to occur for the care of the child. um and then what um finding there has been about contravention and whether or not there's been any variation in any way to the order. So I don't think I could answer that in a in a broad way. That would be be an analysis case by
>> Is there a typical penalty where a parent has been found to be in contravention of an order?
>> Uh the penalties can really be quite broad. It can be uh from anything from a a costs uh finding um right through to in very very serious matters potentially imprisonment uh and um uh other similar sorts of orders. So um it really depends on the seriousness of what's been going on and and to what extent a party has been flouting the court's orders if that's what's been found.
>> I'm assuming once again we're waiting on AI to be able to do analysis of
>> Yes. So obviously the very serious outcomes are going to be less in number. Um but um but if if you needed data on how many costs order has been made against a party or or how many other serious orders have been made uh again that's probably a manual exercise
and we consistently hear that family breakups breakups are a leading risk factor in suicides particularly for men. Should the court be keeping track of these statistics [clears throat] to better understand the impact of their rulings on parents?
>> Yeah, it's a very serious issue that you raised, Senator. Um, we recently met with um uh a House committee um about this very issue uh suicide uh and uh and the family law system um and gave them our understanding and um about those matters. regrettably and I know because they hit my inbox um uh parties suiciding um uh who are also in our family court proceedings. Now obviously they can suicide for of you know uh matters that may or may not be related to a court process uh but uh it happens regrettably way more often than one would uh ever hope to see. And um uh the data on that um I believe is stored um uh I'll have to take that on notice and clarify. Um but the causes of those are really complex matters. Um and usually the individuals um have a history of um perhaps mental health issues and other uh stressors um that affect them. Obviously going through breakups and family crisis um can only exacerbate those situations. So, uh, both men and women, uh, suffer from this and, uh, and it's terribly sad each time that it happens. Um, I would have to take on notice the data on that, though,
>> Thank you. Um, and one last question. In your opening remarks, um, you said 84% of parenting matters involve allegations of family violence. What percentage of those allegations turned
>> Yes. Well, um that's another good question that I think would be answered either through a sampling manual exercise or through AI in the future. But an indicator that that data is um the allegations are not far off the mark is for example in our lighthouse program when confidential risks risk screens um are undertaken uh and if a party raises um that they have safety issues. There is a triage process through a counselor u a very highly qualified counselor um who then grades it as high, medium or low risk and then um a highly trained registar will look at it as well. Um in the lighthouse program um no less than about 61% of matters are screening as high risk. Um so we know that the figure is very very high. Um and that's after careful analysis by highly qualified people. Um and then of course there are further processes in the evidence in a proceeding um that would give better indic further indications but that would be embedded in the case information
>> Thank you. Thank you chair.
>> Thank you Senator Whitten. Uh that concludes the questions that we have for you this evening. Uh thank you for uh coming on a little bit later than you were scheduled on the program. patience uh with us. Uh you are now released and go with our thanks.
>> Thank you, chair. Thank you, Senator.
>> We will now suspend for a brief moment while we welcome our next witnesses to very much. We will now resume and I call