Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 represents the most significant changes to the Family Law Act 1975 since its inception some 30 years ago. This bill amends that act to implement a significant number of the recommendations of the report Every picture tells a story, produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation. The bill also implements most of the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its report on the exposure draft of the bill, the LACA report.

The amendments are part of the Howard government’s reform agenda in family law. The legislation underpins the measures announced in the 2005 budget, at an estimated cost of $397 million over four years. These initiatives represent a real change in family law and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to them today. They aim to change how family separation is managed, getting away from costly and stressful litigation and towards cooperative parenting. I agree entirely with the member for Lindsay that the child’s right to know its parent has to be paramount in this process.

These changes to the Family Law Act will be welcomed by my constituents in Hasluck. I have spoken with many parents—mothers and fathers—and grandparents in my electorate who feel alienated and persecuted by our family law system, who are divided by separation and who feel that they are cut off from their children and grandchildren and that the children are cut off from them. I have been struck by the amount of contact I have had from people supporting the shared parenting policies put forward by the Howard government. It is difficult for any government to strike the right balance in family law matters. Family breakdown is difficult for everyone involved—parents, extended family, friends—and perhaps most difficult for children.

More than one million Australian children have a parent living elsewhere. One in four children never sees one of their parents or sees them only once a year. It is terrible to think that so many kids essentially have to do without one of their parents. It is terrible to think how much time and money are wasted on battles in the Family Court—time and money which could be spent with children. I think that parents spending less time in court and more time with their kids can only be a good thing for everyone concerned, and that is the core aim of this bill. The Howard government wants to ensure that children have a right to know both their parents and, where possible, to encourage parents to continue to take shared responsibility for their children after they separate. This bill also has an increased focus on protecting children from family violence and child abuse.

I receive hundreds of emails and letters every month regarding family law matters. It is a major issue in our communities across Australia. These letters and communications are all looking for assistance, a way through this problem that we have put in front of them through the Family Law Act in the past. In the main, these communications are from fathers who have little or no access to their children, but they are also from mothers and wives supporting their concerns and their feelings of alienation. They become depressed and angry, or both, and they feel very frustrated about the system, the lack of outcome, the lack of resolution and the lack of support. More importantly, their children are denied the opportunity to build a relationship with one of their parents. I will quote from some of the emails I have received in recent days. The first one says:

All I wish is for equality, yet the very system in place is anything but that. Having been denied access in all manners, whilst property settlement was in progress, I was totally powerless in that process. Now I am in receipt of court orders, duly signed by my ex-wife for access compliance, what do I get non compliance, in seeing my children, a deeply hurtful feeling.

Another one says:

Not only am I struggling which is effecting how much I have my children, I found out the other day that my children’s mother is now working and has been for who knows how long. The CSA has stated to me that they can not do much until I have the children more. HOW CAN I WHEN I CAN HARDLY AFFORD TO KEEP MY HEAD ABOVE WATER EACH FORTNIGHT. Come on peoples do something about it and I know I am not the only parent that is in this situation.

And from a mother and wife, which I think adds a certain poignancy to this whole issue:

I am a mother of nine year old boy and a 4 month-old baby boy. I also have 2 step children a 10 year old girl and a 7 year old boy. Together we are a blended family of 6.

She goes on to say:

... as I came to know my husband the more I realised there was absolutely no reason why he should be banished from being with his children. He talked about them constantly and intereacted with my son so well. His children were being used as a WEAPON against him a means to make him feel so low so bad so down.

We have just finished a battle that went on for 5 years in and out of court so he could have adequote access to his two children. HOW SAD!!!

How sad for those two children, was it their fault that their parents relationship didn’t work out??? Of course not yet they as their father was punished.

I can relate to those sentiments; I can relate to the emotions and I can relate to the frustrations. I have total empathy with this whole situation, having unfortunately experienced these circumstances myself. I think that in the past there has been an assumption that the father-child bond is somehow less strong than a mother’s bond with her children. This bill recognises that this rather insulting assumption is fundamentally flawed.

This government is committed to three major changes to how the government helps people deal with family breakdown. The first is a package of almost $400 million over four years for new community services to help reduce conflict in families. The second is the government’s proposals to reform the child support system, and the third relates to the changes to the Family Law Act that are covered by this bill. Each of these very welcome changes promotes shared or cooperative parenting after separation. However, the paramount consideration for the court will continue to be the best interests of the child.

Amendments contained in schedule 1 support cooperative parenting and further the coalition’s longstanding policy of encouraging people to take responsibility for resolving disputes themselves in the first instance. This bill provides for a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. This means that both parents have an equal role in making decisions about long-term issues for the benefit of their children. This seems to be a policy of extraordinary commonsense. In fact, it is remarkable that such a commonsense approach can be so revolutionary. Since its inception, the Family Law Act has been dogged by flawed and unfair assumptions, poorly thought out enforcement mechanisms and onerous bureaucratic procedures. It is wonderful to finally see the fingerprints of the Whitlam government slowly being erased from the Family Law Act.

It is interesting to note some of the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Ballarat, who would like to see, I am sure, a licensing system and a regulatory system around family counsellors to make sure that they have got the experience or the university qualifications. But there was no mention of compassion, empathy or understanding of the situation—just some black-and-white qualification. That is not the human way of addressing these issues.

As a result of these changes, the court will be required to consider children spending equal time with both parents. One can only applaud such a suggestion. This only applies where it is reasonably practicable and in the best interests of the child. Equal time works for some families, but if it is not appropriate the court must consider an arrangement for substantial and significant time with both parents. This means more than just weekends and holidays. It means doing the day-to-day things with children and having the opportunity to do those things which form the bond between a parent and the child. The right of children to know their parents and to be protected from harm will be the primary factors in deciding the best interests of the child.

The bill will address concerns about the existing definition of ‘family violence’ to introduce an objective test. There is no requirement for reasonableness with respect to violence that has actually occurred. However, an apprehension or fear of violence must be reasonable. I do not condone violence in any form, but current provisions have been too easily abused, smearing the reputation of many loving and devoted parents and denying them access to their children.

The bill will require people to attend family dispute resolution and make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute before applying for a parenting order. This requirement does not apply where there is family violence or abuse. Breaches of court orders are a major source of conflict and distress, in part due to the difficulty of enforcement. Schedule 2 of the bill strengthens the existing enforcement regime in the Family Law Act, giving the courts a wider range of powers to deal with people who breach contact orders through the ability to impose costs, orders, bonds, make-up time and compensation.

I am pleased to say that these reforms make sure as many children as possible grow up in a safe environment with the love and support of both parents. The family is the building block of our society, and it is important that government provides a reasonable framework for resolving family disputes. This bill makes important improvements to that framework, and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context