I have checked the Hansard. It is politicians giving their thoughts on why the others should read the Act and have a thoughtful opinion.
This my research relating to inadmissibility. The formatting is odd. Not my fault.
Australian Government
Australian Law Reform Comission
22. Confidentiality and Admissibility
Admissibility of FDR and family counselling communications
22.85 Similar reasoning was
used by the majority of the Supreme Court of South Australia in R v Liddy
(No 2) to permit the admission of Family Law Act counselling records
in criminal proceedings. However, in a dissenting opinion, Wicks J
expressed the view that any court (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not) should be interpreted more broadly:
Where non-federal jurisdiction, ie State jurisdiction, is concerned,
the words (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not) clearly make the expression court applicable to courts generally, including this court, the Supreme Court of South Australia.
22.90 Consistency in the
application of admissibility rules for FDR and family counselling communications across jurisdictions is important for both fairness and certainty. The Commissions consider that ss 10E and 10J should be amended to make it clear that the application of these provisions extends to state and territory courts when they are not exercising family law jurisdiction.
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...ssibility-fdr-and-family-counselling-communic
The possibility that parties will be less open, or will conceal information about family violence in FDR and family counselling because disclosures may be used as evidence, is of particular concern. This would compromise the potential for safe and appropriate outcomes
to be secured through FDR and family counselling; consequently victims and
potential victims of family violence may be exposed to greater risk.
22.83 Sections 10E(1)
and 10J(1) provide that FDR and family counselling communications are not admissible:
in any court (whether or not exercising federal jurisdiction); or
in any proceedings before a person authorised to hear evidence
(whether authorised by a Commonwealth, state or territory law, or by consent of
the parties).
22.84 In Anglicare (WA) v
Department of Family and Childrens Services, the Supreme Court of Western
Australia held that the prohibition on admissibility in any court (whether or
not exercising federal jurisdiction) set out in s 19N of the Family
Law Actthe predecessor to the current s 10Ewas limited by the
definition of court in s 4 of the Family Law Act to the court
exercising jurisdiction in the Family Law Act proceedings. Accordingly,
the inadmissibility provisions did not extend to proceedings in the Childrens
Court of Western Australia.[95]
22.85 Similar reasoning was
used by the majority of the Supreme Court of South Australia in R v Liddy
(No 2) to permit the admission of Family Law Act counselling records
in criminal proceedings. However, in a dissenting opinion, Wicks J
expressed the view that any court (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or
not) should be interpreted more broadly:
Where non-federal jurisdiction, ie State jurisdiction, is concerned,
the words (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not) clearly make the
expression court applicable to courts generally, including this court, the Supreme Court of South Australia.
If the expression court is used to have the widest possible
meaning and is not limited merely to courts exercising federal jurisdiction
relating to family law, the structure of sub-s (2) is logical. The
sub-section begins by prohibiting courts of every complexion and whether exercising federal or State jurisdiction, from admitting into evidence anything
said at a meeting or conference to which the sub-section applies. Par (b) then
proceeds to deal with tribunals, mediations and arbitrations where the bodies
concerned are authorised to hear evidence. In other words, sub-s (2)
embraces the entire field in Australia of bodies authorised to hear evidence,
be they courts or otherwise, from admitting into evidence anything said or any
admission made at a meeting or conference referred to in the sub-section.
It seems to me that it would be illogical to limit the
operation of the section to a few courts which deal with family law and yet to
express par (b) in the widest possible terms specifically including
persons authorised by a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or territory or
even by the consent of the parties, to hear evidence.[96]
Recommendation
224 Sections 10E and 10J of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth),
which regulate the admissibility of family dispute resolution and family
counselling communications, should be amended to state expressly that the application
of these provisions extends to state and territory courts not exercising family
law jurisdiction.
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...ssibility-fdr-and-family-counselling-communic
Department of the Senate
Submission: Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill
Impact of expanded definition on admissibility provisions in the Family Law Act
1.1 The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the Australian Government Attorney-Generals Department on the Exposure Draft Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010 (the Exposure Draft legislation) and congratulates the Government for its commitment to improving legal responses for victims of family violence.
1.23 In light of this, the ALRC urges the Government to consider expressly the implications of extending the definition of abuse of a child to include exposure to violence, including for example, whether there is a need for a provision in the Family Law Act to make it clear that disclosures to FDR practitioners and family counsellors relating to childrens exposure to violence are not admissible.
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissio....aspx?id=2a86000d-3fb8-43ec-9110-7b47f60b050a
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4562
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00189/Download
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011
No. 189, 2011
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00189/e3b52244-8b25-410c-a957-756331bcf2a0
(2) Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include (but are not limited to):
(a) an assault; or
(b) a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour; or
(c) stalking; or
(d) repeated derogatory taunts; or
(e) intentionally damaging or destroying property; or
(f) intentionally causing death or injury to an animal; or
(g) unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had; or
(h) unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support; or
(i) preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture; or
(j) unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of the family members family, of his or her liberty
