Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 11 November 2010 the Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland, released a draft bill for public consultation, open to 14 January 2011, proposing amendments to the Family Law Act to provide better protection for children and families at risk of violence. Since writing an online opinion on onlineopinion.com.au for Graham Young, I have had considerable feedback in my electorate and also across South-East Queensland.

The Howard government got it wrong on shared parenting and the protection of children. In 2006, without any social research and in a knee-jerk reaction to the urgings of a vocal minority of men’s groups, the Howard government made sweeping changes to the Family Law Act in parenting matters. By elevating the rights of parents above the need to protect children, the Howard government fettered judicial discretion and created a legislative pathway fixated on shared parenting. The change has been much criticised in reports such as the Family Courts violence review by Professor Richard Chisholm, a former justice of the Family Court; the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ Evaluation of the family law reforms; and the Family Law Council’s Improving responses to family violence in the family law system.

A culture of expectation developed that it was worthwhile for children to continue regular contact with a parent even if it meant exposing a child to abuse, neglect and family violence, as a result of the 2006 Howard government changes. Time and again parents felt compelled to agree to contact arrangements for fear of falling foul of the ‘friendly parent’ provision imposed with the 2006 changes. The task confronting any court where allegations are made is daunting, more so in the pressure cooker of an interim hearing, usually shortly after separation and without the benefits of detailed affidavits or cross-examination. The ramifications of terminating all contact between a parent and a child can be many and long term, but the balance needs to be restored in favour of the protection of children, and it is restored by these proposed amendments.

The bill incorporates for the first time the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, compelling the court to consider the convention in deciding matters concerning children. The bill elevates the primary consideration of protecting a child from abuse, neglect and family violence over the benefit of having a meaningful relationship with a parent, where there is an inconsistency. It broadens the definition of ‘family violence’ in tune with community perceptions and understanding to include not just actual or threatened physical or sexual assault but harassment; emotional manipulation; financial abuse; cultural, familial and friendship isolation; and a range of dominating and controlling behaviours. The bill also expands protection of children by expanding the definition of ‘abuse’ and approving obligations on court personnel and independent children’s lawyers to report child abuse to state and territory departments of child safety. ‘Abuse’ is also expanded to include serious psychological harm. The balance is back with this bill. Once again, the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. (Time expired)