Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I assure the member for Grayndler that I share his concerns. We would not want to miss those things. I am lucky to have a family relationship centre nominated for my electorate because of the demographics. I can assure you that high-calibre people will be recruited to these centres, to overcome as much as possible the difficulties you expressed. Certainly I share those concerns, so I empathise.

The amendments proposed in Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 are perhaps the most significant changes to be made to family law in 30 years. They propose a complete cultural shift in how family breakdowns are managed by shifting the focus away from litigation to focusing on what is most important: the children. This bill reflects the government’s determination to ensure the right of children to grow up in a safe, supportive environment, involving both parents if possible. It also places an emphasis on the protection of children from family violence.

The bill introduces changes such as a new presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, with both parents playing a role in the major long-term decisions involving their children; makes the right of the child to know their parents and be protected from harm primary factors in decisions; requires parents to attend family dispute resolution and make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute before taking it to court; gives courts a greater range of powers to deal with people who breach parenting orders, with penalties such as make up time and compensation; requires the courts to take into account parents who fail their responsibilities, such as not paying child support or not turning up for contact handover; amends the existing definition of family violence to make clear that a fear or apprehension of violence must be reasonable; provides a less adversarial approach in all child related proceedings; and better recognises the interests of the child in spending time with grandparents and other relatives.

Crucially, the bill also addresses the issue of time. Time is our most precious resource—parents fight about it, courts divvy it up and children long for it. It is an essential element in developing a warm and emotional connection with our children. Time is subjective of course; however, with the laws we need to quantify it by stating that we require the courts to consider whether a child can practically spend equal time—fifty-fifty—with both parents. That is essential. If this is not practical then the courts must consider substantial and significant time, including day-to-day routines. If children can maintain ongoing and frequent contact with both parents then there is a much greater opportunity for different experiences of time.

What do I mean by different experiences of time? Overnight stays allow for the mundane, everyday experiences such as putting the children to bed, reading the bedtime story, getting ready for the day together. Any parent can tell you that these times can provide the moments that really count in connecting with their child. The one-on-one time together helping with homework, chatting about their day while driving in the car—these times can make a child feel that they really matter to you. The outdoor time spent together, such as fishing or gardening, gives parents the chance to mentor and remain in touch with their children. The ‘being in the moment’ time, as described by Bruce Smyth in his article entitled ‘Time to rethink time’ is the most critical. It is the unstructured, spontaneous and intimate time that can occur, usually during these most mundane times, when a child tells a parent what is most important to them and what is going on in their lives, which matters most. This fluid, meaningful time cannot be scheduled; it needs to be cultivated. Parenting arrangements that involve thin slices of parent-child time do not allow the experience of ‘being in the moment’ time as they simply do not provide enough natural time spent together.

This bill aims to enable both parents to experience this natural time with their children. It is not only the Family Law Act that is being changed but the whole family law system. This bill forms one part of a package designed to support these overall changes in the system. This $397.2 million package will promote the involvement of both parents in their children’s lives, reduce the impact of conflict on children and reduce the emotional and financial costs to families and the community of relationship breakdown.

The package includes the establishment of 65 family relationship centres—one of the first, as I said, will be in my electorate; more contact orders programs; more children contact services; expanded dispute resolution services; family conferencing involving grandparents; community education; and additional funding for existing and new family services.

This bill is the result of many years of work by a large number of people. It implements a significant number of the recommendations of the Every picture tells a story report prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. The committee travelled the nation conducting public hearings and read over 1,700 written submissions to produce a 240-page report. Overwhelmingly members of the committee heard a call for far reaching reform of the current system, especially from fathers.

Currently there are six broad patterns of father-child contact after family breakdown. Thirty-four per cent of children have standard contact; that is, children see their non-residential parent each or every other weekend. Twenty-six per cent of children have little contact—less than once a year—or no contact with their non-residential parent. Sixteen per cent of children have daytime contact only. Ten per cent of children see their non-residential parent only during school holidays. Seven per cent have occasional contact by seeing their non-residential parent every three to six months. And six per cent of kids have equal or near equal care by being with either parent for at least 30 per cent of nights during the year.

Fathers often feel that what time they have to spend with their children is stilted, shallow, artificial and brief. Residential mothers and non-residential fathers differed markedly in their level of satisfaction with the amount of father-child contact. Data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey found that 55 per cent of residential mothers believe that the amount of contact time is about right and that 57 per cent of non-residential fathers in the same sample felt that it was nowhere near enough. These samples of men and women were independent of one another.

As mentioned previously, what seems to be important is not just time but the subjective experience of time, the type of contact a father has with his child. Non-resident fathers are most satisfied as the type of contact becomes qualitatively richer, such as with contact involving overnight stays. There are critical patches in time that allow children and parents to connect in deeper and more meaningful ways. I believe that this bill will help more separated parents experience this.

See this speech in context