Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise this evening to support the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 in its entirety. I welcome my colleague Cameron Thompson, the member for Blair, who is sitting next to me. He played an extremely valuable and important role and gave an enormous amount of time, energy and effort to assist the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs to come to a bipartisan agreement. That committee was chaired by me. The deputy chair was Mrs Julia Irwin. The other members were the Hon. Alan Cadman, Mrs Trish Draper, Mr Peter Dutton, Ms Jennie George, Mr Chris Pearce, Mr Harry Quick, Mr Cameron Thompson and, for a short time, the Hon. Roger Price and the Hon. Graham Edwards.

The committee was responsible for the bipartisan report Every picture tells a story: inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation. It was the first real and honest appraisal of the issues confronting families across Australia not only in family separation but also in child support. As my very learned colleague next to me would attest, we attended many hearings across Australia and heard of an extreme amount of pain and anguish in all facets of family breakdown. In the initial stages of this inquiry, there were several thoughts of and maybe a few attempts at undermining the inquiry, with the thought that it could not succeed. However, after the first committee hearing, with the pain and anguish of the people who appeared before us, it soon became very apparent that we had a committee that would work diligently together in order to achieve an outcome that was in the best interests of the children of Australia. That is what we were able to achieve, and that needs to be clearly recognised in this debate.

As the debate has gone on, I have heard the excellent work, the enormous time and effort spent and of the genuine intentions of members of the Labor Party on the committee—I speak of Ms George, Mr Price, Mr Quick and Mrs Irwin, the deputy chair—being undermined time and time again. What I am seeing here is the decision of the shadow Attorney-General to try to take us back to before Every picture tells a story. I find that absolutely unforgivable. There is an understanding across Australia from parents, whether they like this system or not, that the government and the opposition agreed that the system as it currently stands is not acceptable to any person in Australia. What we have now is a process of undermining the very good work of both the opposition and the government in coming to a very sensible bipartisan report. Everybody put their signature on it; everybody recognised their very important role in this. Now we see it being undermined. If you are going to put very good, very diligent, articulate and extremely clever members on committees and then simply turn around and not accept what they have come to agree on, it is just a mindless waste of time.

I have continued with this process simply because, once you hear the pain and anguish of the Australian people and once you experience and witness the despair and confusion of Australian children, you cannot let this go. You know that this is our one and only opportunity to make a difference in those children’s lives. Too many of the children who came before us have suffered under laws under governments of both political persuasions that have not been conducive to them knowing and experiencing, all things being equal, love, care and nurturing from both mother and father after parental separation. So when I look at some of the issues raised and the amendments suggested by the shadow Attorney-General it seems obvious to me that she is not a sportswoman, because if you play sport you get to the position where you recognise that finally the umpire’s decision is the way it is.

On this committee that produced the report Every picture tells a story, there was bipartisan support and a bipartisan result, which we are all very proud of because it was a very difficult inquiry. Then we moved into the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs process and went through the painstakingly time-consuming consideration of the Attorney-General’s response to Every picture tells a story. We ended up with the majority of that committee also putting an enormous amount of effort, energy and understanding into the whole process. And the majority of that committee recognised that what we were doing was the right thing.

But here we have the shadow Attorney-General wanting to take us back to the old days. In essence, the amendments that the shadow Attorney-General has put up would mean that nothing would change. I simply cannot accept that when we have put in this enormous amount of effort and when families across Australia are waiting for this report and for these changes to be put into legislation—as I said, not because everyone agrees with what we are saying but because everyone knows that what we currently have is not acceptable.

As Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs I saw great pain and despair; they were presented to me as chair and to all of the other members of that committee during our four-month inquiry into the issue. Ever since that committee reported, my fellow committee members from both sides and I have been inundated with the stories and experiences of mothers, fathers, grandparents, other family members and, most importantly, children who have gone through marriage and family breakdowns. Some of those stories have caused us to shed tears, sharing the pain of families around the nation. By the end of the inquiry everybody had determined that they were going to see these changes through. It was bipartisan: everybody determined that they were going to see these changes implemented, changes that will assist families and ensure that the best interests of the children are of paramount concern—not the best interests of a parent, of a father or a mother, but the best interests of the children.

What we have here is a bill that amends the Family Law Act 1975 to implement significant recommendations from the Every picture tells a story report that were backed up and supported by the legal and constitutional affairs committee’s response to the minister’s response. I mean, how much consultation can you actually have? We have a report, we have a response to the report and then we have an inquiry on the response, and then we have a response to the inquiry on the response to the report. How many reports do you need to get validation that people expect and want change? They want these changes. The shadow Attorney-General and, obviously, some of the other speakers in the House that I have heard during this debate have not understood the real intent behind these changes.

As I said, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs undertook to accommodate and respond to the shadow Attorney-General, as much as they could possibly do. I recall—it could not be a privileges issue to mention this—asking why we should accommodate these changes if there was going to be a dissenting report regardless of how much the committee members had worked together to try to achieve a unanimous and bipartisan outcome from the legal and constitutional affairs committee.

Today, not only have we seen these great family law changes being debated, but we have also seen the announcement of the child support changes at a press conference. The child support changes today have been shared. Here we have some real outcomes that every person, from the opposition and the government, on the committee that put together Every picture tells a story fought hard for, and has stayed true to, to the very end. We have child support changes which are going to come into place in three tranches, with the final one not coming into play until 1 July 2008.

At first I was a little concerned because I know that there are a lot of families out there who would like to see these child support changes implemented. That is not because they believe that everyone will be a winner; it has not been promoted that everyone will be a winner—there will be as many losers as there are winners. But we will have a scientific analysis and formula that clearly denotes why you are paying this amount of money for your children. It is the one thing that we do not have now—an answer to a question like: ‘Why is that child over there worth $5 or less a week and this child over here worth $350 a week?’ Nobody can understand that, and it creates an enormous amount of angst and concern amongst couples that have separated, and you can understand why that happens.

In essence, an opposition and government committee agreed to come together for the interests of Australian children. The committee worked tirelessly to ensure that that came about. They came up with a very good report and had the follow-up report. They are now witnessing the child support changes that we agreed on. Patrick Parkinson and his team did the child support review in the interests of children; fantastic work from him and his team. All of the affected players represented on that team recognised that they had to put their differences aside and start to get on with one another to achieve an outcome that was fair and reasonable. Today we have a great package delivered to all committee members, those on the opposition benches and those on the government side as well. They deserve this, because they worked hard and they have stayed true to the cause. So it is very disappointing to come in and see this raft of amendments that take us back to nowhere-land. This bill promotes the rights of children. Do not forget that. This bill’s intention is clearly to look after the rights of the child, and those rights include the right to know both parents.

The bill encourages couples who are separated to resolve parenting arrangements outside of the court system. I have to thank the Attorney-General, because it is difficult, when you have legal training, a legal background and you have been in this position for a long time, to recognise that there is a definite need to try to resolve things outside the legal system, all things being equal.

We know—nobody denies—that some of these people are simply not going to be able to resolve their issues outside of the legal system; but we are going to provide them with the opportunity. When the family relationship centres are rolled out, they will have key performance indicators. They are going to provide people with the best chance to be able to resolve these issues out of a courtroom. That is the most sensible and the most productive outcome for the children of Australia.

This bill has major changes in it. There will be a new presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. I am sticking with equal shared parental responsibility; I am not moving from it. And I do not think my colleague the member for Blair will move from that either. It is so important to have those words in there. I see one of these amendments tries to look at changing that wording. This new presumption of equal shared parental responsibility will enable both parents to have an equal role in making decisions about major long-term issues for the benefit of their children—again, all things being equal.

We understand that there is violence, domestic violence, that takes place in homes across Australia, but the majority of families are in a position of being able to reconcile and resolve their differences if they are given the opportunity. That is what this bill is doing: it is providing the opportunity through a raft of changes, including family relationship centres, a new child support system, some very solid backup support in the Child Support Agency and a whole new look at the way the agency performs—$850 million worth of changes, in fact. These are long overdue but very welcome.

There is also a requirement for the court to consider whether children spending equal time with both parents is practicable and in the best interests of the child. If equal time is not appropriate, the court must consider the substantial and what I believe should be the significant time. Parenting advisers dealing with parents in dispute resolution outside the courts must also raise these issues with both parties. But not only do we have parenting advisers having to raise these issues; we now have family law court judges having to do the same—something which is long overdue.

I want to take the time to pay tribute to the Federal Magistrates Court and put in a plug for the court. In my observation—and I have done a huge amount of observation of these cases in the Parramatta family law court, the Sydney family law court, the Cairns family law court and the Federal Magistrates Court—the Federal Magistrates Court is doing a mighty job already of taking on the interests that the old committee raised in Every picture tells a story and is already putting these into place and delivering very good outcomes. But what it needs is more funding. I would like to see all of these cases going through the Federal Magistrates Court where possible, because I think it is the perfect body to be able to really deliver what the committee intended in the first place, which is to have a tribunal. If you are not going to have a tribunal, the very next best thing is the Federal Magistrates Court. Let us get out of the family law courts; let us get into us all taking responsibility for the outcomes for our children. It is as much the courts’ responsibility to ensure that children have fairness and equity in respect of the way in which they are able to meet and deal with their parents after separation.

The primary factor when deciding what is in the best interests of the child will be the right of a child to know their parents and to be protected from harm. This is something that we are very strong on. Every committee member stated their case. They were very concerned about domestic violence and protecting children from harm. But you would not think that was the case when you hear some of the speeches. Every member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee was absolutely hell bent on ensuring that no Australian child should ever be put in danger. So, lest there be any thought that all of these committees and all these inquiries have not focused and centred on family violence and the possibility of family violence and on the best interests of children and partners in cases of family violence, if you are thinking at all that there was no credence paid to this issue, let me tell you that you are wrong. So many hours were taken up in looking at, discussing and raising concerns about how we were protecting the children of Australia.

Basically, what we have here is an amendment to the existing definition of ‘family violence’ to make it clear that any fear of apprehension of violence must be reasonable, because not only do we have real family violence, we also have allegations—whether or not we want to agree or believe that we do—of family violence. What we cannot have is someone abusing the system by making allegations of abuse, which then leaves someone else, who is exposed to family violence, exposed without assistance. With many domestic violence orders, that is what occurs—people who really do experience family violence are left exposed and in a very precarious situation.

I support the bill before the House. I cannot applaud the Attorney-General enough, because I think he has picked up and run with the sentiments of all these committees. (Time expired)

See this speech in context