Damien Carrick: Hello, Damien Carrick with you, welcome to the Law Report. Later in the program, meet the young Sydney lawyer who is representing Australia in taekwondo at the upcoming Rio Olympics.

Hayder Shkara: Yes, we are constantly injured as taekwondo athletes, whether it's just basic bruises, to tearing different muscle groups, to breaking bones. Last year I broke three bones on different occasions. You are always getting injured. It's a fight, you are kicking each other as hard as you can, and at the same time you are trying to protect yourself. So yes, there is bound to be countless injuries.

Damien Carrick: That's Hayder Shkara, one tough, determined young lawyer. We'll meet him later in the program.

First, two slightly older lawyers who are engaged in a very different sort of combat. Earlier in the week attorney general Senator George Brandis QC and shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus QC locked horns in a lively legal affairs election debate. The event was organised by the Gilbert and Tobin Centre for Public Law at UNSW. The AG and the shadow AG were quizzed by Associate Professor Anna Cody, she's director of the Kingsford Legal Centre at UNSW, also Chris Merritt, the legal affairs editor of Australian newspaper, and Fiona McLeod SC, she is president elect of the Law Council of Australia. Here's Fiona:

Fiona McLeod: Legal aid has been in crisis for many years. At current funding levels, just 8% of the population will qualify. In 2014 the Productivity Commission confirmed that underfunding of legal aid has serious social and economic consequences. It recommended an immediate injection of $200 million for civil legal aid alone, while acknowledging that substantially more would be required for criminal law assistance. Will your party commit to implementing the Productivity Commission's recommendation and to address the legal aid funding crisis?

George Brandis: Well Fiona, I am completely in sympathy with the sentiment behind your question. I only wish we lived in the golden days of John Howard and Peter Costello when there was a budget surplus every year and no public debt and available money to do the good things that we would wish to do. The Productivity Commission recommended that the Commonwealth increase its contribution by $120 million, and the states and territories by $80 million. We haven't committed to that, nor by the way has the Labor Party. The Labor Party has spent more than a year chastising us for not committing to the Productivity Commission recommendation, but when Mr Bowen published their economic statement the other day, it was notable the Labor Party had not committed.

We have to prioritise and husband the scarce resources we have within the system, which is why I'm unapologetic about prioritising the resources the Commonwealth devotes to individual casework. We have through the national partnership agreement put in place a series of arrangements whereby the real levels of funding are maintained. There will be a $12 million increase over five years, that's a 6% increase over five years, that investment in the sector, this is the Commonwealth contribution, the states also of course make a contribution, of some $1.6 billion. I wish there was more money, but I'm not going to engage in the kind of cheap politics that involves condemning the government for not funding more and then saying, well, we won't fund any more either, which is, I'm sorry to say, what has been the Labor Party's position.

Moderator: And now a two-minute reply from Mr Dreyfus.

Mark Dreyfus: Thanks very much. This is a government that can find $160 million for a divisive plebiscite. This is a government that can find $50 billion tax cuts for big business, but it can't find $200 million to deal with the unmet legal need identified by the Productivity Commission in a really excellent report.

Contrary to what Senator Brandis has just informed this audience, we have directly committed additional funding, and I'll list the numbers; $42.9 million additional funding to community legal centres, $24 million additional funding to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, $4.5 million additional funding for family violence prevention legal services who are in a state of near complete limbo at the moment because they got moved to the Prime Minister's department, additional funding for legal aid commissions which we have not, other than as part of the family violence package announced last Saturday in the form of providing legal representation to avoid cross examination of victims by perpetrators, we haven't put direct numbers on, and that's because additional funding for legal aid commissions at the state and territory level needs to be worked through as a matter of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the states and territories.

The reason for that of course is that we've seen from conservative governments at the state and territory level that they are prepared to further cut funding to their own legal aid commissions and for the Commonwealth to walk into a negotiation saying 'we are putting more money on the table' without first getting commitment from the Barnett government in Western Australia or the Giles government in the Northern Territory or the Hodgman government in Tasmania that they will not further cut when further Commonwealth money is provided. That's an essential to the negotiation.

And lastly the environment defenders offices. They had their entire funding removed by this coalition government. We have pledged to restore $10.8 million in funding to the environment defenders offices. So Senator Brandis is wrong to suggest that we have not committed additional funding, we have been very specific, and we are.

Moderator: The next question is to Mr Dreyfus, it's from Anna Cody and it's about family law and proposals to ensure the safety of women and children.

Anna Cody: As we know, domestic violence plays out in many arenas, including in family law. Rosie Batty and Women's Legal Services Australia have a five-point plan for improving the experience of women in their family law cases to ensure there is a greater focus on safety for victims of violence and their children. Is your party committed to implementing the five-step plan which includes a focus on a mediation model with specialist domestic violence lawyers, specialist case management at the Family Court, and protection from cross-examination by the abuser?

Mark Dreyfus: Thanks Anna, it's a very good question, and I think I'm happy to say and I'm sure Senator Brandis will be happy to say that we've seen a tremendously increased interest and focus on doing something about the dreadful scourge of family violence in our community. It's in part because Rosie Batty became Australian of the Year. Sadly, as has been noted in the media today, it would have been Luke Batty's 14th birthday.

It's in part because of excellent work that was done by Quentin Bryce in a report for the Queensland government reporting in February last year, and another excellent piece of work in the Royal Commission presided over by Marcia Neave in Victoria which reported at the end of March this year.

The Victorian government has already responded to that with a commitment of about half a billion dollars in this year's Victorian state budget. But all of this taken together shows us that we've got a great deal more to do. And I've welcomed the announcements that have been made by the Abbott-Turnbull government, the announcements made by Senator Brandis. We too, since March last year, the very first of our positive policies announced in March last year was a policy to deal in part with family violence. At the centre of that was a commitment to give additional funding to community legal centres.

But the other measures that Anna's question referred to of course in part revolve around changes in the way in which our Family Court, Federal Circuit Court, go about their business. I noted that just today the heads of the two jurisdictions, the chief judge of the Federal Circuit Court John Pascoe and the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia Diana Bryant have endorsed many of the measures set out in Rosie Batty's five-step plan. If you look closely at the details of the policies we announced last March and further policies announced just on Saturday, you'll see that Labour too is adopting many of the elements of Rosie Batty's five-point plan.

Moderator: A one-minute reply from Senator Brandis.

George Brandis: Thank you very much indeed. Like Mr Dreyfus I am not going to adopt the five-point plan or announced the adoption of the five-point plan today. But that having been said, I have studied it carefully, I've discussed it with practitioners in the field, and there are many elements of it that I think are worthy of very careful consideration.

I will also be informed by the Bryce report, which I have discussed with Quentin Bryce, they will be informed by the report of the Family Law Council on families with complex needs, a reference which I gave the Family Law Council which reports next Thursday, they will be informed by the Australian Institute of Family Studies on the effects of the family law system on children and young people. So there is a variety of sources, there is a variety of views, all of them need to be considered.

Moderator: The next question is from Chris Merritt, it's to Senator Brandis, and it's about freedom of religion and same-sex marriage.

Chris Merritt: If same-sex marriage is recognised, there is a real prospect that such a legal change would cause tension with religions that teach that marriage is a sacrament that can only be administered to a couple that consist of a man and a woman. What would you do to ensure that religious organisations and their followers who hold such a view continue to enjoy the freedom to practice their religion, not just in churches, synagogues and mosques, but in their everyday lives? If freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, what steps would you put in place to protect that right? Will you ensure that religions that adhere to their teachings are not branded discriminatory and subjected to civil litigation if the law is changed to recognise gay marriage?

George Brandis: Well Chris, that's an extremely important issue you raise and it's an issue, if I may say so, that has been occupying my thoughts a great deal in the last few months. And I speak as a person who is a supporter of gay marriage and a Catholic. I believe…because I support gay marriage, I think that it is very important for Australia that where we land in this debate is with that outcome, with Australia recognising gay marriage. But not at the cost of religious freedom. It is not a zero sum game. It is possible to protect religious freedom and enact gay marriage, as long as one goes about it carefully. In progressing this issue I have had many, many meetings with people on both the yes and the no side of the argument.

And among those on the no side of the argument, I've met with the Catholic Church, the Catholic archbishops, the Australian Christian lobby and others. I think the people, the leaders of the yes case understand and accept that the protection of the sacrament of marriage or its theological equivalent in the various religious faiths, should be respected, that by promoting the idea of marriage between same-sex couples they can and should respect the freedom of religions to practice and administer their own sacraments, to practice their own liturgies, to teach their own religious teachings. So it is possible to go about this in a way that respects both of those important values, and the legislation that I hope to introduce to legalise same-sex marriage will do so.

Moderator: A one-minute reply from Mr Dreyfus.

Mark Dreyfus: Thank you. Let's be clear about Labor's commitment, it is to introduce a bill to the Australian Parliament within 100 days of taking office for marriage equality in this country, so that people who love each other can marry each other, with completely equal status. At the same time, I want to make it clear that no minister of religion is going to be forced to marry anybody that they don't wish to marry. And there's a whole lot of confusion that has been introduced to this debate. It's in fact quite simple. Regrettably we have a coalition government that at present is committed to a divisive plebiscite that will waste $160 million of taxpayers' money and is something that would be unprecedented in legislative history in Australia, because we have never changed the law in Australia through a plebiscite process. It's wrong to be proposing it now, it's a divisive delaying tactic adopted by Tony Abbott and regrettably continued now by Mr Turnbull.

Damien Carrick: Shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus QC, and before him, attorney general Senator George Brandis QC. You were hearing just part of the legal affairs election debate organised by the Gilbert and Tobin Centre for Public Law at UNSW. And at the Law Report website we have a link through to the video of the full unedited event, which covers a broad range of legal hot-button issues.