Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the federal member for Ryan, it is a great pleasure to speak in the parliament on an important bill that the Howard government is putting forward for the parliament to endorse—the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. I would like to suggest to the parliament that marriage and family are the building blocks of our society. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our community. I think most Australians would share this view. That is certainly very much the case in my electorate. Families are built around marriage. As the member for Ryan, which I have the great honour of representing in this parliament, I say very strongly that families are my priority.

Of course, we all know that, unfortunately and with great sadness, many marriages do end in divorce in this day and age. We know that there is great sadness and tragedy within families when marriages end and families come apart. There are some 55,000 divorces in this country, all of which are deeply regrettable. It is our job as members of parliament and community leaders to try to minimise the number of these. Unfortunately, most of these divorces involve couples with children. As more and more Australians are getting divorced and separating, we are seeing in our electorate offices the increase in numbers of child custody battles and issues concerning child support. Since I was elected in 2001 I have had the opportunity to hear and see too many parents come to my office to talk about this terribly sad topic. Separating parents coming to talk about relevant issues of access, child support and custody is one of the most heartbreaking areas that I think a federal member has to deal with.

In my electorate of 90,000-plus constituents it might seem a drop in the ocean that the numbers are in the hundreds. But each one of those people represents a story. Each one of those constituents who comes to me represents an individual profile of emotions. I think it is important that the government does as much as it can to address and redress some of the very challenging issues that surround this.

Parents should not have the right to risk the welfare of their children out of spite or mistrust or hatred for their spouse or former spouse. The problem can be magnified much more by the emotional difficulty involved when we are talking about the welfare of children. At the heart of the problem with family law are child custody and child support. In this country it seems that, unfortunately, we have an adversarial system. The fundamental approach to this topic at this point in time seems to have an element of confrontation and conflict. The adversarial manner with which this issue is currently being tackled is deeply regrettable. It only escalates the problem.

In my electorate of Ryan, the majority of mums and dads who have gone through the process of separation and dealing with custody have not contacted me. At the same time, for the hundreds who have I feel a great deal of sympathy and sadness when they come to my office to pour out their emotions and their problems. As I said, the great majority work through the system. They somehow are able to work with each other, to discuss these issues and work through the problems to achieve some sort of compromise, to minimise the conflict, the hostility and, no doubt, the deep disappointment that follows a breakup.

Both men and women come to me with these concerns. They come to me to discuss the smorgasbord of issues that follows the terrible experience of separation and divorce. The complaints are very much about the system, the framework and how the government is dealing with it. It goes without saying that there is also great anger and frustration at the ex-partner. I know that there are mothers and fathers in the community who are striving very hard to do the right thing by their kids in difficult circumstances, and I want to pay tribute to them. They take their responsibilities as parents very seriously and they do want to do the very best for their children. After all, their children are the product of both of them.

From the experience that I have had in my five years as the federal member for Ryan I would say that there certainly seems to be a bias or a trend against men in child custody cases. I think that betrays prevailing notions of gender roles within the family. Unfortunately, over a third of children rarely see their fathers, if at all. This has also meant that men who want to shirk their responsibilities towards their families have been able to get away with it. This is reprehensible. There are also mothers who are using every bit of leverage they can to add to the angst and hostility that is already inherent in the separation or divorce. As I am sure all of us would know, there are many claims of child abuse, of changing child support estimates, of chopping and changing addresses and even of denying visitation times and contact hours to suit their own needs and to spite the other parent.

No-fault divorce was established in 1975 by the Family Law Act. We know that no-fault divorce was introduced to allow partners to release themselves from unhappy marital relationships. Unfortunately, where children are involved, unhappy marital relationships are sometimes replaced by a lingering element of conflict that spills over to not only the ex-partner but the children. I think that the adversarial system that I have touched on does have much to answer for. It is imperative that as a government we try to address this and we try to make the system as good as we can. That is what this important bill before us today does.

The legislation before us is one component of an overhaul of family law in this country which tackles the problem on three fronts: introduction of a new community services program to help resolve and reduce family conflict; reform of the child support system; and changes to the Family Law Act. The aim of these reforms is to overhaul the attitudes of Australians involved in family separation from one of conflict and an adversarial mind-set to one of cooperation and shared responsibility. The major flaw in the current system is that parents are trying to get away with as much as they can. The worst outcome is, of course, to see the custody of their children as some kind of prize or trophy that they are able to win at the expense of their former partner.

The interests of the child remain absolutely fundamental in all these reforms. They will continue to be the overriding priority of this legislation and its outcomes. Children have a right to physical and emotional health and safety and the right to know both of their parents. The rights of children to know both their parents and be protected from harm are the primary factors when judging these issues.

The major reform of this legislation is enshrining a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. I want to stress in the House today that key word: presumption. The courts will be required to consider whether equal time with both parents is reasonably practicable and in the bests interests of the child. Again, we come to the defining criteria—that is, that it is reasonably practicable and that it remains in the best interests of the child. If it is not practicable, then substantial and significant time must be considered as an alternative, not the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.

The definition of ‘family violence’ will be amended to make it clear that fear or apprehension of violence must be reasonable. Domestic violence and child abuse are issues that must be taken very seriously. As someone who has come to this parliament as a qualified barrister and having practised for a short time, and having had clients who were involved in domestic violence issues, I know how that operates in my state of Queensland and how that very important aspect of the law can be misused and abused by a certain partner.

When warring parents throw accusations at each other trying to exact vengeance or gain some sort of sympathy, it diminishes those who actually suffer violence and intimidation in their homes. We all know that every false accusation means that the real victims of domestic violence will find it harder to be trusted and to have it believed that they are authentic and genuine victims of violence. It is the story of crying wolf. The more times you cry wolf, the less you are going to be believed that there is a wolf there. I want to encourage those in this situation to resist as much as possible the very strong temptation of engaging in false accusations against someone whom they have previously had much affection for but in the break-up might wish ill will upon.

The enforcement of parenting orders will be strengthened. These are serious court orders. They are part of our law, and parents who thwart them or defy our courts should not be let off lightly. We would not let anyone else get away with it, and it is a very serious matter for the welfare of the children involved. We have to make sure that these orders are enforced.

Previous speakers have commented on dispute resolution. I again want to talk about the importance of trying to get away from the system of conflict, the adversarial system, that we have and to encourage those going through this process to, as much as possible, try very hard to be generous of spirit in dealing with this terribly difficult issue, because where there are children surely their children, above all else, must come first.

When I sit down with a constituent of Ryan who comes to see me or when I receive a letter or an email detailing some of the terrible difficulties that constituents are experiencing with child custody or child support, I must acknowledge that it is a very trying time. It is not something that I really look forward to in terms of the vast array of matters that come across my desk, but it nevertheless is very important to be available for those who come to see you, to seek your counsel and to seek your genuine and practical help. I do find on some occasions some of the stories that are related to me to be just absolutely unbelievable, to be incomprehensible, to be terribly sad, and of course, on some occasions, the conduct of some parents I find to be reprehensible.

I want to briefly recount one case in the parliament today that demonstrates the sheer callousness of the conduct of some parents—and of course, given privacy matters, I am not going to reveal the names of those involved. In this particular case, where a Ryan constituent came to see me, the victims were a father and his two children, but of course in the example the gender could easily be reversed. In this case the gentleman from my Ryan electorate came to see me after his ex-partner had abandoned their two children, 11-year-old twins, in the car park at a local shopping centre. She had a row with the children and just left them in the car park with no way to get home. These were two 11-year-old kids who were left to fend for themselves.

It was dark, the shops were shutting and fortunately these young children had the resourcefulness to borrow a mobile phone from someone at the shopping centre. They called their father for help. He came to their rescue, picked them up and took them home. But 1½ hours after abandoning these children the mother phoned the father, no doubt thinking that the children might be with him. They were of course, and she demanded that they be returned to her immediately, otherwise there would be great consequences. The poor children were very frightened and very upset by this ordeal. They were terrified of going back to their mother, but this gentleman had no choice but to return them to her.

He was, naturally, very concerned about what had happened. He took it upon himself to call the Queensland government Department of Child Safety, and I wish that what I could say about their response was not what I am about to say. He encouraged the department to log this incident so that it could be on the record. Unfortunately the absurdity of it all is that, after coming to the rescue of his two young children, he was told by the Department of Child Safety that he had in fact violated his court order by contacting his children in the first place. This was a non-contact day and by going to that car park and picking up his children in these circumstances he was condemned for violating the orders of a court—a very troubling set of circumstances. I am not sure what the Department of Child Safety expected that parent to do in those circumstances—just to hang up on his children is a conclusion that might be reached, but that sort of response is reprehensible and ought to be condemned. I hope very much that that individual, that bureaucrat, who it no doubt was, will hang his head in absolute shame.

The work of the child safety department is important and they ought to be more compassionate and more understanding. But this is just one example, very regrettably, of what is happening in the real world—not in some office building, not in this place, but actually in the real community, out in the suburbs, out in the towns across this country and we have to deal with it. You would think that people who have children would put them right at the top of their concerns and their priorities. With human nature being what it is, that would be the conclusion one could come to, but maybe that is not the case—obviously that is not the case in so much of what we know from experience.

I want to end my remarks here by commending this bill to the House. I think it is an important bill. I commend all those who were on the relevant committee that explored this difficult issue. We do not have the wisdom of Solomon in the parliament here, but we certainly try to come to the best results and outcomes and to deliver the best circumstances for the people of Australia in what is a very difficult case. I absolutely implore all Australians and certainly all the constituents that I have the great honour of representing—particularly those constituents who are going through this, no doubt, very sad and difficult situation of ending a marriage and a life together—to try to come to some kind of resolution, to put aside the past and to go forward.

My wife and I have friends who are going through this very difficult situation. Regrettably, there is animosity and hostility. Our friends who are in this situation have three children. We have had the pleasure of their company over the years in their home, and we now see them fighting each other and fighting over their children. It is almost like the spoils of war, from what we see as friends on the outside. It is terribly sad. I encourage those friends of mine to come together in the best interests of their three beautiful children because, at the end of the day, their children should be their most important concern.

I am about to be a father in several months time. I am going into the fatherhood club. I think I should deserve a medal, from what I have been told lies ahead of me with my wife, who is sitting here today. I look forward very much to that great privilege. I have said on many occasions in this parliament that it is a privilege being a member of the parliament, but I can think of no greater privilege and no greater honour than being a father. I know that my friend and colleague here, the member for Blair, and my new colleague in the parliament, the member for Kingston, have children—and I will be joining their club. (Time expired)

See this speech in context